# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Is Screen Time?

Put simply, "screen time is any time you spend on a screen," says Jennifer Cross, M.D., a pediatrician specializing in developmental and behavioral pediatrics at New York-Presbyterian Komansky Children's Hospital and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine.

More specifically, this includes the usage of phones, tablets, computers, televisions and video games. A child is engaged in screen time when they're watching TV or other video content, surfing the internet, playing video games or using social media or other apps.

What Are Guidelines for Screen Time for Kids?

Wondering how much screen time is appropriate for your child? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers guidance for appropriate screen time engagement for different age groups.

Under Age 2 Years Old

For children under the age of 2 years old, the AAP recommends very limited screen time, with the exception of video chatting. Once children reach 18 to 24 months, parents can begin to introduce high-quality media.

It's advised that children 18 to 24 months only consume media when an adult is there to watch with them and to talk to them about what they're viewing. Children using media on their own at this age is discouraged.

Ages 2 to 5

Once a child reaches 2 years of age, it's recommended to limit their screen time to one hour per day. Adults should still watch programming with their child, and select media that is "interactive, nonviolent, educational and pro-social," the AAP states.

Ages 5 to 8

At ages 5 to 8 years old, it's important that parents and caregivers continue to monitor their child's media usage, particularly to ensure it's not impacting other crucial activities like sleep and exercise. Parents should also check the media their child is engaging with to ensure that it's safe and healthy for them to view.

At this age range and up, there's no longer a set recommendation for how long a child should engage with screen time on a daily basis. Jacob Holzman, Ph.D., clinical child and adolescent psychologist at Children's Hospital Colorado, explains that this is because many professional associations, including the AAP and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), have determined that a "'one-size-fits-all' approach is not based in evidence." Instead, it's up to families to determine what's right for their children once they're past preschool age.

Ages 9+

Once a child enters the tween and teen years, media usage becomes more of a conversation. The AAP recommends that parents talk to their kids about how they use media, what they're viewing and what they're learning through their usage.

How Can I Best Manage My Child's Screen Time?

Perhaps the best way to manage your child's screen time is to establish an open dialogue around media usage and ensure that everyone in the family is onboard with a determined approach.

One way to make this easier to do is by creating a family media plan, which you can set up through a template provided by the AAP. Making a plan allows you to select priorities for your family's media usage-like having dedicated screen-free time or committing to keeping media usage balanced with other aspects of life-and then decide on the steps you'll take as a family to meet those goals.

"This personalized approach is intended to help families find what limits are realistic, what types of media use fits their family values and ways to openly communicate about balancing screen use and other activities as a family," says Dr. Holzman.

What's helpful about setting up this type of plan is that everyone in the family is involved, says Dr. Cross. "The thing that helps the most honestly-the principle behind the family media plan-is we are doing this as a family," she explains. "So Mom and Dad don't sit there on their phones and say 'you can't have the phone.' The parents have to model the behavior for the kid."

What Are Healthy Ways to Allow My Child to Have Screen Time?

Screen time isn't always unhealthy, especially when parents and caregivers guide how their child engages with media and monitor what media their child engages with. Here are some tips for parents to keep in mind:

Watch alongside your child, and talk to them about what they're viewing.

Select high-quality, interactive, educational content, like non-commercial television.

Don't hesitate to set limits, such as no phones at mealtimes or one to two hours before bedtime.

Lead by example by using media mindfully yourself.

Monitor your child's media usage to ensure that content is safe and age-appropriate.

Try to instill good habits and limits early on.

Schedule non-screen time activities, and consider making certain areas of the home screen-free.

How Can I Reduce My Child's Screen Time?

Perhaps the best way to reduce your child's screen time is to be mindful about setting limits on their media usage, and then to talk to your child-and the rest of your family-about why this shift is important to make. Identify what types of media your child can engage with, as well as when and how you'll allow your kids access to it.

"It is helpful to think about how you can be consistent with screen limits while also staying calm when discussing or setting limits," says Dr. Holzman.

It can also be helpful to introduce an alternative to spending time on the screen, particularly if it's already a habit that your child is accustomed to. For instance, you might plan a media-free activity together, such as taking a bike ride as a family, or engage your child in other activities, like playing a sport, taking up a hobby or spending time outside or with friends.

Last, but certainly not least, parents will want to make sure they're also taking steps to practice what they preach. "​​Many children want to do what the people they love most in their lives are also doing," says Dr. Holzman. "Parents might find that reducing their own screen time (e.g., smartphone use, TV show watching) can lead to their child also spending less time on screens."

What Are the Risks of Too Much Screen Time?

As the recent JAMA study discovered, too much screen time early in life could mean cognitive issues later in childhood. This is because the functions developing in the early years are easily affected by environmental influences, like screens. When a baby has screen exposure, they are challenged to process the information they're seeing on-screen, as it is meant for the more developed brains of older children and adults. This processing at such an early age affects sensory pathways of the brain, which then creates a deficit of those resources later in childhood.

While it's hard to directly connect too much screen to health issues due to the myriad of factors that could contribute to any one issue, there are other potential risks associated with an excess of screen time.

Weight Gain

According to a 2017 study published in the journal Pediatrics, "many observational studies find relationships between screen media exposure and increased risks of obesity." This association is believed to be tied to behaviors associated with screen time, such as additional eating while watching, exposure to ads that feature unhealthy foods and drinks and less time spent sleeping.

Less Time Being Active

Perhaps another potential contributor to weight gain is that too much screen time can lead kids to spend less time being active. The results of a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2022 reported that a "recreational screen media reduction intervention resulted in a substantial increase in children's engagement in physical activity." Another study, published in 2014 in the research journal Obesity, found that one of the predictors of a lower body mass index (BMI) was less time spent watching TV.

Sleep Problems

Sleep is another area that media usage can impact, particularly when programming is viewed too close to bedtime. This could be due to the blue light emitted from devices, or simply from viewing activating content. Increased exposure to media, or having a device like a phone or TV in the bedroom, is connected to less sleep per night, according to a study in Pediatrics. Further, a study published in Acta Pediatrics suggests that even infants' sleep duration is impacted when they are exposed to screen media in the evening.

Impacts on School Performance

Certain media usage may also have an impact on your child's performance in school, some studies suggest. The more TV and video games children and teens watch, the more their academic performance may suffer, according to a 2019 study in JAMA Pediatrics."

While the study found this association was particularly pronounced among adolescents, a research article published in the journal PLOS One suggests that younger students are also at risk of being impacted: When children as young as 5 years old experienced more than two hours of screen time a day, there was an increased risk for health conditions, specifically inattention issues. The study found this association to be greater than that of other factors, including socioeconomic factors, parenting stress and sleep.

Are There Any Benefits to Screen Time?

Even though screen time certainly has its drawbacks, neither Dr. Holzman nor Dr. Cross advocate for parents banning it altogether.

In fact, some screen time is good. "Many forms of screen time are educational in nature or benefit family bonding. For example, looking at books available at your local library or finding a restaurant to eat as a family might be ways that children use screens that have positive effects," explains Dr. Holzman.

There's also the fact that we live in a digital world and sometimes screen usage is needed to engage with what's going on around us. "I think that, in our culture and society today, it is very difficult to be up-to-date, and watching shows that have informative content might be the best way to learn about something," says Dr. Cross.

Because screens are likely an unavoidable part of your child's future, it's helpful to assist them with learning how to use technology in a safe and effective way. "It can be very beneficial for families and kids to talk together about media use to teach kids how to regulate and balance their own use," says Dr. Holzman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Too Much Screen Time? Study Finds Link Between Infant Screen Time And Cognitive Issues Later In Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Put simply, "screen time is any time you spend on a screen," says Jennifer Cross, M.D., a pediatrician specializing in developmental and behavioral pediatrics at New York-Presbyterian Komansky Children's Hospital and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine. More specifically, this includes the usage of phones, tablets, computers, televisions and video games.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A fun activities and games site covering subjects such as sports, animals, history, science, geography, jokes, math, and biographies. Pages are written to be easy to read and understand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about infectious diseases including pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi as well as transmission and other types of diseases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about infectious diseases including pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi as well as transmission and other types of diseases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wonderopolis- Why do we Need to Wash Our Hands

# data[].attributes.subject
Wonderopolis- Why do we Need to Wash Our Hands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lather, rinse, repeat! Lather, rinse, repeat! Clean hands are the focus of today’s sparkly, shiny Wonder of the Day!

# data[].attributes.headline
Wonderopolis- Are All Diseases Contagious?

# data[].attributes.subject
Wonderopolis- Are All Diseases Contagious?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ahh...choo! When you hear the tell-tale sound of a loud from your friend's direction, what goes through your mind? After saying, "Bless you," we hope you're thinking of where the nearest is to wash your hands!

When colder weather approaches and and germs begin to attack, you have to get serious about defending yourself from these nasty bugs. You've probably noticed that, as soon as one friend in your class comes down with a or the , it's often not long before several other students follow suit.

Why is that? The and the are both infectious diseases. That means they're caused by microscopic germs, such as and viruses, which invade the body and cause sickness.

Unfortunately, the and the are also both contagious diseases. That means they can be directly from one person to another.

When your friend sneezes and wipes his nose, some of the bad germs get onto his hands. If he doesn't wash his hands before touching the doorknob, those germs can be passed to you the next time you open the door. Before you know it, you're , too!

Of course, there are many ways to pass germs from one person to another. When someone sneezes, germs can be all over the room through the air. You can also pass germs directly to another person by touching them, such as when you shake hands or even play tag on the playground.

In addition to the and the , there are many other diseases that are contagious . Some examples include strep throat, pinkeye, and hand, foot, and mouth .

Not all infectious diseases are contagious , however. Instead of being from one person to another, some infections can only be directly from an animal or an . For example, Lyme can result from the bite of an infected tick, but it can't be passed from one person to another.

Other examples of non- contagious illnesses include eczema and ear infections. Likewise, many diseases that have genetic origins are also not contagious , including diabetes, heart , , high blood pressure, asthma, and cancer.

Sometimes, the chances of developing non- contagious diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart can be lessened by regularly exercising and eating a healthy diet.

But how do you protect yourself from those illnesses that are contagious ? Wash your hands! Washing your hands often will help to keep harmful germs at bay. You should also stay away from people as much as possible. Finally, make sure all your vaccinations are up to date!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahh...choo! When you hear the tell-tale sound of a loud from your friend's direction, what goes through your mind? After saying, "Bless you," we hope you're thinking of where the nearest is to wash your hands! When colder weather approaches and and germs begin to attack, you have to get serious about defending yourself from these nasty bugs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to Build Knowledge: Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to Build Knowledge: Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As NASA somberly marks the 25th anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger accident, the agency is looking ahead to the retirement of its aging space shuttle fleet later this year. The next astronauts to travel to space may go instead by private spacecraft designed and owned by commercial companies.

But a deadly accident like Challenger could have serious ramifications for the fledgling commercial space industry as it tries to take over the job of ferrying astronauts up to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station.

Any accident would probably result in a long investigation and spaceflights being grounded - after Challenger and Columbia, it was years before the shuttles flew again. What would that do to a private company?

"A lot depends on how the private company reacts, and a lot of it depends on the root cause of the failure," says Ken Bowersox, a former NASA astronaut who now works on safety issues for SpaceX, one of the private companies vying to someday take NASA astronauts and other paying customers to orbit.

"But you can imagine that any company in that situation would have a lot of pressure on it," says Bowersox.

NASA would also be under scrutiny, even if it didn't own the spacecraft carrying its astronauts, says Ed Mango, who heads the space transportation planning office at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

For a few years after the space shuttles become museum exhibits, NASA astronauts will get to space on Russian Soyuz capsules. But Mango says that by around 2015 or 2016, it's possible that astronauts could be riding on the outer space version of rental cars - spacecraft designed and owned not by NASA but by private companies.

Even if that happens, though, "the responsibility for the mission is still ultimately accountable to NASA," Mango says. "And if the vehicle does not fly right, then we will be held accountable for what has happened."

Designing To NASA's Standards
So NASA has been preparing a list of safety standards that a private spaceship would have to meet before any NASA astronaut climbs onboard. Some space industry watchers have criticized a draft of these standards as being too onerous.

But Bowersox says his company is just glad to finally get this guidance from NASA.

"Safety is our No. 1 priority at SpaceX when it comes to building our rockets," he says.

An unmanned test version of the SpaceX capsule has already launched, orbited Earth and returned as planned. If the company has a number of successful missions carrying cargo, people could be next.

And just because the SpaceX rocket ship is designed to be cheap, that doesn't mean it won't be safe, says Bowersox. "Let's look at a Ferrari and a Honda Civic," he says. "They're greatly different in cost, but would you say that the little economy cars are less safe or more safe than the Ferrari?"

Other companies, such as Orbital Sciences Corporation of Virginia, also hope to soon offer crew launching services for NASA.
Handling A Disaster
Mango says government officials are discussing what might need to be done to ensure that a commercial space company could financially survive the aftermath of a disaster, if NASA had come to depend on its launch services for astronauts. "In general, we are looking at that," says Mango. "We don't have a solution that's pounded flat. We are looking at it."

It's unclear how the public would feel about a major disaster with a private spaceship, if people started riding them. John Logsdon, a space policy expert with George Washington University, says if an accident occurred during some of the first commercial trips up, it might create doubt about whether private companies can really manage the risks of human spaceflight

"But if it's three years in to a regular service, I think it would be, not exactly ho-hum, but more akin to an aircraft accident than a space accident," says Logsdon.

After all, these private space companies wouldn't be boldly exploring a new frontier, as NASA used to. They'd just be providing a kind of commuter flight to the space station.

"Yes, there are risks involved, but there is nothing written in stone that says the government can manage those risks better than the private sector," says Logsdon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA Prepares For Risks In Private Space Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the space shuttle program on its final flights, NASA may soon turn to private companies to build and transport astronauts and equipment to space. But if a deadly accident happens, who's ultimately responsible, and how will the public respond?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a bird. It's a plane. It's a space shuttle filled with tourists?

While that idea sounds like science fiction, the reality of sending tourists to space is right around the corner - at least if you believe Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. He recently announced that Blue Origin, his private space company, could begin flying private citizens to the edge of the atmosphere by next year.

Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX and Bezos' chief competitor in private space flight, says his company plans to send two people around the moon and back by the end of 2018.

All of this raises the question of who will be writing and enforcing safety protocols for private space travel. As of now, the companies themselves will be writing their own safety rules, says Tim Fernholz, a writer for Quartz.

"We're moving into a brave new era now where private companies are taking on more and more of the share of space work," he says. "NASA is primarily a scientific and exploratory agency and they don't want to be in charge of wrangling everybody in the country that wants to go to space."

The Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that regulates airlines, will be in charge of creating and enforcing safety regulations. But its purview goes only so far.

"The FAA's main jurisdiction is making sure nobody on the ground is hurt if something goes wrong, [like] if a rocket blows up," Fernholz says. This is already happening in Van Horn, Texas, where Blue Origin has its headquarters.

The question of who will be in charge of keeping space tourists safe during flight is a gray area because the FAA doesn't currently have control over that aspect of space flight. The agency has made rules only about things crew members must be protected from, or must have, because the crew is considered part of a flight's safety system.

"Passengers are just told, 'Hey, the U.S. government did not certify this plane, here are the risks and sign on the dotted line,'" Fernholz says.

Until the number of private space tourists increases beyond the single digits, the question of who will write the rules remains on the back burner. There have been discussions about whether an independent commercial space flight regulatory body that is separate from the FAA should be created.

Fernholz says that the important thing to remember about space tourism is that it's an industry with lots of delays. He cites Virgin Galactic as a prime example; the company has been working to send a private citizen to space since 2005 and still hasn't launched a successful flight. It's unlikely that the company will even begin operations before 2019.
Written by Molly Smith.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If You Want To Go Into Space, Don't Expect A Seatbelt Sign Or A Flight Attendant Lecture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a bird. It's a plane. It's a space shuttle filled with tourists? While that idea sounds like science fiction, the reality of sending tourists to space is right around the corner - at least if you believe Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than 50 years, NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) has studied what happens to the human body in space. Researchers are using what they learn to design procedures, devices, and strategies to keep astronauts safe and healthy throughout their missions.

NASA engineers use the lessons learned to better design spacecraft and improve the fit and functions of spacesuits. The research also aids in the development and assessment of medical standards, physical fitness programs and standards, physiological and psychological adaptation training, sensorimotor training, and nutritional health protocols.

Understanding the effects of spaceflight on humans is essential as astronauts move from the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit to deep space destinations on and around the Moon, and beyond. With the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and next man on the Moon using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before, gathering new data while keeping astronauts healthy and safe.

NASA is particularly interested in investigating how the body reacts to long-duration spaceflight as the agency plans for extended missions on the Moon and Mars. Scott Kelly and Christina Koch were the first American astronauts to spend nearly one year in space onboard the space station, twice the previous average. Scott, Christina, and seven other astronauts have spent more than 200 days in space during a single spaceflight.

In addition to spending almost a year in space, Scott was involved in the unique Twins Study. Scott participated in several biomedical studies onboard the space station while his identical twin brother, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, stayed on Earth as a control subject, someone who provides a basis of comparison.

The study provided valuable data about what happened to Scott, physiologically and psychologically, as compared to his brother Mark. Their contribution to science helped generate data that researchers will use for decades to come.

NASA is planning more dedicated extended-duration research on the space station. The studies are expected to shed light on how the body adapts to living in the spaceflight environment for various longer time periods, which will be pivotal for future deep space missions.

What exactly happens to the body in space and what are the risks? Are the risks the same for astronauts who spend six months on the space station versus those who may be away on a Mars mission for years?

The simple answer is: No. NASA is researching risks for Mars missions which are grouped into five human spaceflight hazards related to the stressors they place on the body. These can be summarized with the acronym " RIDGE," short for Space Radiation, Isolation and Confinement, Distance from Earth, Gravity fields, and Hostile/Closed Environments.

Space Radiation

On Earth, we are shielded by the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere from the majority of particles that make up the space radiation environment. Even so, everyone on Earth is exposed to low levels of radiation every day, from the food we eat to the air we breathe.

In space, astronauts are exposed to varied and increased levels of radiation that are different from those on Earth. Three major sources contribute to the space radiation environment: particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, solar energetic particles from the Sun, and galactic cosmic rays.

A big challenge in reducing the risks of radiation exposure is that some space radiation particles (especially galactic cosmic rays) are difficult to shield against. Exposure to increased radiation can be associated with both short- and long-term health consequences, depending on how much total radiation astronauts experience and the time frame in which they experience that exposure.

Increased risk of cancer and degenerative diseases, such as heart disease and cataracts, have been observed in human populations exposed to radiation on Earth. Health risks for astronauts from radiation exposure in space are mainly driven by long-term impacts.

Additionally, animal and cellular research indicate that the type of radiation in the space environment has a larger impact on health outcomes compared to the radiation experienced on Earth. Not only will astronauts be exposed to more radiation in space than on Earth, but the radiation they are exposed to could pose increased risks.

The Key: The current strategy to reduce the health risks of space radiation exposure is to implement shielding, radiation monitoring, and specific operational procedures. Compared to typical six-month space station missions, later Moon and Mars missions will be much longer on average. Consequently, the total amount of radiation experienced and associated health risks may increase.

NASA is developing new radiation detectors to monitor and characterize the radiation environment, which will provide better estimates of the dose and type of radiation to which the crews are exposed. Scientists and engineers are optimizing and implementing operational procedures that use available vehicle stowage and materials to reduce radiation exposure effectively.

To investigate the health risks of space radiation exposure beyond low-Earth orbit, NASA supports research that analyzes the biological effects of simulated cosmic rays at ground-based research facilities. Research at these facilities helps NASA understand and reduce the risk of space radiation, ensure proper measurement of the doses that astronauts receive on the space station and in future spacecraft, and develop advanced materials that improve radiation shielding for future missions.

Studies of radiation-exposed human cohorts are also being conducted to estimate the health risks in populations relevant to astronauts.

Isolation and Confinement

Expedition crews selected for a stay onboard the space station are carefully chosen, trained, and supported to ensure they will be able to work effectively as a team for the duration of their six to 12-month missions. Crews for a Moon or Mars mission will undergo even more careful assessment, selection, and preparation since they will travel farther and potentially for longer than previous humans in an isolated and confined environment, with only a few other people. Additionally, crews will likely be international and multi-cultural, making cross-cultural sensitivity and team dynamics paramount to mission success.

Ensuring astronauts get quality sleep is also important; otherwise, their internal biological clocks, or circadian rhythm, might be altered by factors like different dark and light cycles, a small and noisy environment, the stress of prolonged isolation and confinement, and a 37-minute extended day on Mars.

It is important to prepare for the fatigue astronauts may experience during spaceflight, given that there will be times with heavy workloads and shifting schedules. To prevent crew boredom, NASA considers the kinds of activities in which the astronauts will participate during a multi-year round trip to Mars.

Communication and understanding among crew members are vital to the success of the mission, and changes in morale and motivation are possible as the mission unfolds. This may relate to reduced stimulation, the longing for loved ones, or feeling unable to assist with family emergencies back on Earth, regardless of how long the mission lasts.

Using spaceflight analogs on Earth, NASA's research has revealed that both the duration and type of confined and isolated experience are important to consider. The more restricted the space, and the less contact with people outside the environment, the more likely humans are to develop behavioral or cognitive conditions or psychiatric disorders.

The Key: NASA has been studying people in isolated and confined environments for years, and has developed methods and technologies to counteract possible problems.

NASA scientists are using devices, such as actigraphy, that help assess and improve sleep and alertness by recording how much people move and how much ambient light is around them. New lighting, spurred by the development of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) technology, is used on the space station to help align astronaut's circadian rhythms and to improve sleep, alertness, and performance.

A 10-minute self-test of vigilance and attention assesses the effect of fatigue on performance. Astronauts write in journals as a safe place to vent frustrations and provide researchers a tool to study behavioral issues that are on the minds of crew members who are living and working in isolation and confinement.

Researchers are also looking into using virtual reality to simulate relaxing environments to help improve the mood of crews in isolation. Engaging in relevant, meaningful activities, including learning a language or learning new medical skills, could help ward off depression and boost morale. Crews may even tend to a space garden, which could have positive behavioral health benefits in addition to providing a fresh source of food and helping to purify the air.

Researchers are using Earth-based analogs to investigate how muchprivacy and living space will be needed on longer missions where crew members will be restricted in a relatively small spacecraft together. NASA is also determining strategies to formulate the best crew by studying individual and team attributes, composition, and dynamics.

Distance from Earth

The space station orbits 240 miles above Earth. The Moon is 1,000 times farther from Earth than the space station. In contrast, Mars is on average 140 million miles from Earth. With a communication delay of up to 20 minutes one-way while on Mars, astronauts must be able to solve problems and identify solutions as a team without help from NASA's mission control.

The types of food and medicine to be packed for a multi-year trip without access to a grocery store or pharmacy are also important to consider. Unlike space station crews, which regularly receive supplies from cargo flights from Earth, astronauts going to Mars will have to bring all of the food, equipment, and medical supplies they need.

The Key: NASA is using its human spaceflight experience on the space station to figure out what types of medical events happen in space over time and what types of skills, procedures, equipment, and supplies are needed so that they will have a good idea of what to pack for future missions to the Moon and Mars.

Space station astronauts already receive medical training before and during space missions that teach them how to respond to health problems as they arise. For example, astronauts learn how to use onboard space station equipment to produce an intravenous (IV) solution from purified water, which can be used for medical administration.

Crew members also perform ultrasound scans on each other to monitor organ health. If one crew member becomes sick during the mission, crews are ready to perform laboratory testing to help make the right diagnosis and guide treatment.

NASA is working on developing a medical data architecture for spacecraft that enables the capabilities of clinical decision support tools, which could use artificial intelligence and machine learning to further help diagnose and treat various illnesses. Researchers are also looking into the role that virtual assistants could play to help crews identify and respond to spaceflight anomalies quickly for more distant missions.

Additionally, the agency is studying and improving food formulation, processing, packaging, and preservation systems to ensure the nutrients remain stable and the food remains acceptable for years. Space-resilient medications and packaging systems that preserve the integrity of pharmaceuticals for long-duration missions are another significant part of NASA's research.

Gravity Fields

Astronauts will encounter three different gravity fields on a Mars mission. On the six-month trek between the planets, crews will be weightless. While living and working on Mars, crews will be in approximately one-third of Earth's gravity. Finally upon returning home, crews will have to readapt to Earth's gravity.

Transitioning from one gravity field to another is trickier than it sounds. It affects spatial orientation, head-eye and hand-eye coordination, balance, and locomotion, with some crew members experiencing space motion sickness.

Landing a spacecraft on Mars could be challenging as astronauts adjust to the gravity field of another celestial body. When shifting from weightlessness to gravity, astronauts may experience post-flight orthostatic intolerance where they are unable to maintain their blood pressure when standing up, which can lead to lightheadedness and fainting.

NASA has learned that without Earth's gravity affecting the human body, weight-bearing bones lose on average 1% to 1.5% of mineral density per month during spaceflight. After returning to Earth, bone loss might not be completely corrected by rehabilitation; however, their risk for fracture is not higher. Without the proper diet and exercise routine, astronauts also lose muscle mass in microgravity faster than they would on Earth.

Moreover, the fluids in the body shift upward to the head in microgravity, which may put pressure on the eyes and cause vision problems. If preventive or countermeasures are not implemented, crews may experience an increased risk of developing kidney stones due to dehydration and increased excretion of calcium from their bones.

The Key: By analyzing how the body changes in weightlessness and after returning to Earth's gravity, NASA is developing protective measures against these changes for a Mars mission.

Functional task testing is in place to help detect and improve balance control after landing on a gravitational surface. Fine motor skill testing is done to detect any changes in the ability of astronauts to interact with computer-based devices.

Distribution of the fluids in the body is closely monitored to help evaluate any connection to changes in vision. Compression cuffs worn on the thighs help keep the blood in the lower extremities to counteract those fluid shifts. A lower-body negative pressure device could help draw fluids from the head into the legs as well.

Back pain, which some astronauts have reported experiencing during spaceflight, is monitored by obtaining spinal ultrasounds. Muscle size and bone density are assessed for deterioration using MRI and high-resolution imaging techniques, before and after flight. Crew members perform periodic fitness self-evaluations to help researchers better understand the decline in heart function that can occur during spaceflight.

Medicines that NASA is studying, such as potassium citrate, may help combat the physiological change that could increase the risk of developing kidney stones. Bisphosphonate medications have been shown in NASA studies to be effective in preventing bone loss.

NASA has also designed an efficient way to collect and measure how much urine a crew member produces in space, which is essential to human research since it reveals key information about a person's health. For example, researchers can analyze different levels of certain substances in an astronaut's urine to determine whether they are at risk of developing a kidney stone in space, and make modifications to the diet, exercise routine, and water intake as preventive measures.

Aerobic and resistive exercise has been shown to keep the heart healthy, bones and muscles strong, the mind alert, as well as maintain a more positive outlook, and may even help with balance and coordination. Software-generated workout partners could be used to help motivate astronauts to exercise regularly for longer space missions. NASA has even completed a joint Earth-based bed rest study to determine whether centrifuge artificial gravity may be an effective way to counter the physiological effects of weightlessness.

Hostile/Closed Environments

NASA has learned that the ecosystem inside the spacecraft plays a big role in everyday astronaut life in space. Microbes can change characteristics in space, and micro-organisms that naturally live on the human body are transferred more easily from person to person in closed habitats, such as the space station. Stress hormone levels are elevated and the immune system is altered, which could lead to increased susceptibility to allergies or other illnesses.

Earth-based analogs do not perfectly simulate the spaceflight environment, making them insufficient for studying on the ground how human immune systems react in space. However, NASA-funded Antarctic analog studies could provide insight into how certain spaceflight stressors may affect the human immune system. What is known is that spaceflight changes the immune system, although crews do not tend to get sick upon returning to Earth. Even though astronauts' acquired immunity is intact, more research is needed into whether spaceflight induced altered immunity may lead to autoimmune issues, in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the healthy cells, organs, and tissues present in the body.

Beyond the effects of the environment on the immune system, every inch and detail of living and working quarters must be carefully thought-out and designed. No one wants their house to be too hot, too cold, cramped, crowded, loud, or not well lit, and no one would enjoy working and living in such a habitat in space either.

The Key: NASA is using technology to monitor the air quality of the space station to ensure the atmosphere is safe to breathe and not contaminated with gases, such as formaldehyde, ammonia, and carbon monoxide. Thermal Control Systems function to maintain temperatures of the space station and keep astronauts comfortable.

Blood and saliva samples are analyzed to identify changes in the immune system and the reactivation of latent viruses during spaceflight. NASA uses advanced molecular techniques to evaluate the risk of microbes that may cause illness for crew members. Various parts of the body and the space station are swabbed regularly for analysis of the microbial population that inhabits the environment. Crews change out air filters, clean surfaces, and treat the water to prevent illnesses that may result from the accumulation of contaminants.

Astronauts are advised to get a flu shot to boost their immunity and are quarantined before their missions to avoid catching any sort of illness before launch. During the Twins Study and One-Year Mission, Scott Kelly administered a flu vaccine to himself while his brother received his on Earth. The immunization proved to work as well in space as it does on Earth, which is a good finding for longer missions to the Moon and Mars.

Living quarters and work environments are carefully planned and evaluated to ensure that designs balance comfort and efficiency. Lighting onboard the space station is similar to what would be experienced naturally on Earth, thanks to the new LED lighting system.

NASA is taking action on all of these risks and working to solve the challenges of human spaceflight with some of the most brilliant minds in their fields. The results garnered from laboratories, ground analogs, and space station missions will provide more insight into these adaptations and present a stepping stone for longer missions.

On upcoming Artemis missions to lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon, even more data will be collected as this work continues. On future longer duration missions to the Moon and Mars, astronauts will benefit from years of research that will ensure they will be able not just to survive, but thrive on their spacefaring missions.

Click here for an infographic summarizing the risks of human spaceflight and the safeguards against them.
_______
NASA's Human Research Program, or HRP, pursues the best methods and technologies to support safe, productive human space travel. Through science conducted in laboratories, ground-based analogs, and the International Space Station, HRP scrutinizes how spaceflight affects human bodies and behaviors. Such research drives HRP's quest to innovate ways that keep astronauts healthy and mission-ready as space travel expands to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
For a 508 Compliant PDF of this post, follow this link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more than 50 years, NASA's Human Research Program has studied what happens to the human body in space.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inspiring Minds, Empowering Achievement, Building Community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESA - Space for Kids - Training at the European Astronaut Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If a human space mission is to be a success, astronauts (and mission teams on the ground) have to be familiar with every aspect of spacecraft operations. Training in Europe is based mainly at the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) in Cologne, Germany. Today, the EAC is the home base of ESA’s 14 astron…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the history of humans traveling into space.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Astronauts are far from the shops, so they have to rely on regular deliveries of food. Every few months an automated spacecraft, such as ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle or the Russian Progress, arrives loaded with fresh fruit, water and pre-packed meals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESA - Space for Kids - Would you like to be an astronaut?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You do not have to be superman or superwoman to fly in space. Many men and women, from many different countries, have become astronauts. ESA, for example, now has 14 astronauts from eight different countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On July 20, 1969, millions of people gathered around their televisions to watch two U.S. astronauts do something no one had ever done before. Wearing bulky space suits and backpacks of oxygen to breathe, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first human beings to walk on the moon.

After the two stepped onto the lunar surface, Armstrong proclaimed these famous words: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

SPACE RACE

Humans were only able to make that small step after several other space firsts happened. In 1957 the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, was launched into space by Russia. The United States launched several satellites of their own afterward. Both countries hoped to be the first to send a human into space.

It wasn't until 1961 that a person went to space: On April 12, Russia's Yuri Gagarin became the first. Less than a month later the United States' Alan Shepard became the first American in space. Following these milestones, President John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to put a human on the moon in 10 years or less.

NASA went to work. On July 16, 1969, the spacecraft Apollo 11 prepared to launch a crew of three astronauts into space ... and the history books.

MOON WALK

NASA officials selected Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins as the astronauts who would make the historic trip from Earth on Apollo 11. Just four days after launching from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the spacecraft neared the moon's surface.

Before touching down, the three men split up. Collins boarded Apollo 11's command module, the Columbia, where he would remain in orbit around the moon. Armstrong and Aldrin boarded Apollo 11's lunar module, the Eagle, and began to descend to the moon's surface.

The Eagle made a risky landing in a shallow moon crater named the Sea of Tranquility. (Most people watching the landing on TV didn't know that the Eagle had only 20 seconds of landing fuel left at this point.) Armstrong and Aldrin looked out the windows of the module at the lifeless and barren lunar landscape.

After six and a half hours pass, the pair inside the Eagle prepared to exit the module. As mission commander, Armstrong stepped out first ... and became the first person on the moon.

Twenty minutes later, Aldrin climbed down the ladder and joined his partner. After reading a plaque that said they "came in peace for all mankind," the two planted the United States' flag on the surface. President Richard Nixon called to congratulate the astronauts.

Armstrong and Aldrin went back to work collecting samples of moon rocks and dust. After over two hours, the astronauts brought 47 pounds back onto the lunar module and prepared to rejoin Collins. It was time to go home.

DOWN TO EARTH

The Apollo 11 crew returned to Earth on July 24, 1969. Over the next several years, 10 astronauts would follow in Armstrong and Aldrin's footsteps. The last mission to the moon was in 1972.

Though humans haven't returned to the moon since, they have continued to explore space. They even built the International Space Station (ISS), a space research station, where they can conduct experiments and study space up close.

Today NASA is working on sending humans to another planet: Mars. Thanks to the Apollo 11 moon landing, NASA is hopeful about its chances. The act of putting three people on the moon-and then safely bringing them back home-proved that successful human exploration in space is possible.

Text adapted from Ladders Earth Science: Exploring Above and Beyond by Stephanie Harvey and Space Encyclopedia: A Tour of Our Solar System and Beyond byDavid A. Aguilar and Patricia Daniels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The historic event captivated the world-and helped people look to the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Demographics of the
TITANIC Passengers:
Deaths, Survivals,
Nationality,
and Lifeboat Occupancy

I hesitated before creating yet another Titanic Web site, but after I saw the movie Titanic [that tells you how long this page has been around], I was inspired to finish up some research I had started quite some time before. I was curious about the demographics of the passengers and crew of the Titanic -- who perished, who survived, and who occupied which lifeboats. How gravely was the tragedy enhanced by gender, class distinction, and prejudice?

On this site I have compiled numbers, comparing several different sources. The numbers make it all too clear that a rule of First Class First far outweighed the principle of Women and Children First. In addition to simply compiling numbers, however, I have included some notes and analysis and share the sources I used to compile the data.

Deaths and Survivals
Compared:
Women, Children, and Men

Breakdown of Passengers by Class

Women

Children

Men

Total

First Class
Women (Servants*)

First Class
Men (Servants*)

Second Class
Women (Servants*)

Second Class
Children

Total: 25
Died: 0
Survived: 25
% Survived: 100%

Second Class
Men (Servants*)

Further Steerage Breakdown

Breakdown of Passengers by Nationality

Nationality FIRST CLASS SECOND CLASS THIRD CLASS Total

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Belgian

1

1

0

100%

1

0

1

0%

22

5

17

23%

24

6

18

25%

Bulgarian

0

0

33

0

33

0%

33

0

33

0%

FIRST CLASS SECOND CLASS THIRD CLASS Total

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

Total

Survived

Died

Percent Survived

The nationality numbers were adapted from lists and raw data compiled by Hermann Söldner. Note: the numbers on this chart do not match the totals on the two tables above. Although I can account for some of the discrepancies (for example, I think he included the musicians among the British Second Class passengers, but I did not), I do not have enough information about his sources to be able to square his numbers with my own.

Breakdown of Officers and Crew
by Employment Category

Women

Men

Total

Total
Female Sailing Crew

None.

Total
Female Staff, non-White Star Employees

Total
Female Staff and Crew

Demographics
of the Lifeboats

Order launched

Time
launched

Number of boat, location

Approx. No. aboard / Capacity / Percentage

Class of
passengers

Men, other than crew, aboard?

5th or 6th

1:10

1
OFFICERS Deck,
Starboard

12/40
30%

only FIRST

10 of the 12 were men

15th

1:45

2
OFFICERS Deck,
Port

20/40
50%

FIRST & THIRD

men were removed from the boat before it was moved for launch. At least 1 aboard by the time of launch.

16th

34/65
52%

Primarily FIRST

none initially, but a few male passengers were hauled aboard; only First Class Deck lifeboat to haul up passengers.

17th

1:50

39/49
80+%

primarily THIRD,
some FIRST

at least 10, including J. Bruce Ismay, White Star director

18th

2:05

17/49
35%

all

at least 4, including those hauled out of water

not launched;
floated off
partially
submerged

2:20

unknown (only 13 reached the Carpathian alive)/49

all but 1 were men

2:20

unknown (only 28 reached the Carpathian alive)/49

all men, but few were passengers

NOTES ON THE TABLES ABOVE

1. There is no exact or definitive number for the people aboard the Titanic, nor for those who survived. Estimates you can find on the web range widely, and even among reputiable scholars, numbers differ by as many as 40 passengers. There are official documents, such as a Contract Ticket List, a Certificates of Clearance, lists of alien passengers prepared for the United States Immigration Service. There were two official lists of deceased passengers created in 1912. There are discrepancies, inaccuracies, inconsistences, omissions, and other mistakes with both names and numbers. Researchers, such as Michael A. Findlay, Philip Hind, and Lester J. Mitcham, have been able to correct many errors and solve many mysteries, but there will always be a few problems that will never be solved. Because of their research, however, even if an exact number will never be known, wild guesses and faulty estimates from the past can now be rejected.

2. In several cases the distinction between a passenger and a member of the crew is not clear. Some employees, such as musicians and employees of Harland and Wolff (the shipbuilder), were on board for work. So, even if they were given First or Second Class accommodations, I have included them among the crew, not among the passengers. Until recently, 1296 was my total for number of passengers in the first table. That figure was based on research done by Michael Findlay in the 1990s. With the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, I did some more tabulations, based on more recent estimates and revised it upward to 1300. The number of passengers in the first and second tables now agree. The total numbers in the table for nationalities do not agree, however, since they are based on calculations done by Hermann Söldner, who must have used different sources than I have.

3. Despite the discrepancies, I think the numbers are close enough to draw some legitimate conclusions. However, I urge you use caution and skepticism as you review them.

4. Figures for the crew are even less reliable than the numbers for passengers. No accurate crew list was compiled at the time.

DISCUSSION OF THE TABLES ABOVE

To me, a non-statistician, the tables above show significant indications of class discrimination. Evidence of numbers and testimony have proven that only on one side of the Titanic did the rule "Women and children first," apply. What becomes even more clear when looking at the numbers is that a more important concept of the day was "First Class first."

CLASS DISTINCTIONS

1. For some perspective, here is the price of tickets: First Class tickets ranged from £30 for a berth to £870 for a luxury suite with a private fifty-foot promenade and the only private lavatory and toilet facilities in all the ship. A Second Class ticket could be purchased for as little as £12. Steerage tickets ranged from £3 (for children) to £8, but family tickets were also available to make tickets even more affordable to large families. I have seen various estimates of how much that would be worth in current US dollars, so I think it makes more sense to make a different comparison. The cheapest ticket would have cost a clerk, typist, or shipyard worker a month's salary, and in many cases families would have had to use all their savings to afford the passage. The most expensive First Class ticket was similar in price to that of a very expensive luxury automobile.

2. The lifeboats were launched from the First Class decks first and the Second Class decks second. There were no decks or lifeboats dedicated to the Third Class.

3. First Class suites, berths, and social rooms were located principally on the center of the ship on decks A, B, and C (or more poetically the Boat Deck, Promenade Deck and Bridge Deck), with additional cabins on decks D and E. They had either immediate or easy access to the Boat Deck where all of the lifeboats were housed. Lifeboats numbered 1 through 8, which were the first to be launched, were located in the fore of the ship, the First Class Deck. The numbers indicate that First Class Passengers utilized any lifeboat available without compunction.

4. Second Class rooms were mostly located on decks D and E, with some on lower decks F and G. Where Second Class passengers were on the same deck as First Class passengers, the Second Class passengers were further aft. Some Second Class passengers would have had easy access through a stairway to the stern of the Boat Deck (Second Class Deck) where lifeboats numbered 9 through 16 were located. More by cultural than physcial barriers, the Second Class passengers would have been prohibited from entering the First Class section of the Boat Deck.

5. Steerage passengers had rooms on lower decks F and G, with some exceptions, and no direct or immediate access to lifeboats on the boat deck. Many steerage passengers who survived did so only by reaching the last of the lifeboats that were launched.

6. It is difficult for us now living more than a century later to realize and imagine how different people lived and thought. Bigotry of all sorts, especially classism and racism were commonplace and accepted or expected by both the privileged classes and races and the underprivileged.

7. By law, passed for public health reasons, gates separating steerage passengers from the other passengers had to be locked. Back then steerage passengers were equated with emigrants who were equated with disease and pestilence, and it was thought important to give passengers in more luxurious accommodations peace of mind that the ship would not breed contagion or other hazards to their well-being. The locked gates proved to be the most deadly, but there were other measures used on steerage passengers alone. Before boarding, steerage passengers had to submit to a health inspection, for at least obvious signs of infection, lice, or disease.As a public health measure, the public toilets in steerage had an automatic flushing feature.

8. Since adult male passengers were more likely to die than women and children, the sex of the passengers should probably by factored in when comparing the survival rate by class, but the percentages are not significantly different. More than 62% of the steerage passengers were adult males, compared to and 64% in Second Class, and 57% of the First Class passengers.

9. There is contradictory evidence about the degree of physical restraint used to keep steerage passengers from getting to the lifeboats. In addition to the reports that the locked gates remained locked, there were stories that passageways were blocked by armed guards. Testimony by at least one steerage passenger indicated there was no such restraint, which if true would indicate at least one crew member to unlock and free the passageways.

10. Annie Kelly, an Irish steerage passenger, said that the stewards not only did not wake the steerage passengers with an alarm but told alarmed third class passenger who came up to the deck to go back down as there was no danger. However, similar assurances were given to First and Second Class passengers.

11. Colonel Archibald Gracie testified at the American inquiry that a "mass of humanity" from steerage poured up onto the boat deck only after all the lifeboats had been launched.

12. According to several writers and historians, indifference toward steerage passengers and resignation by many steerage passengers may have been more responsible for the low percentages of steerage passenger survival than physical barriers.

13. Walter Lord, in A Night To Remember, indicates that the White Star Line always denied class distinction in filling the boats, and that both US Senate and British inquiries backed them up.

14. A contempt for "foreigners" was admitted by the crew in their own testimony, especially when telling stories of men who showed cowardice. The testimony of one officer at the U.S. Senate hearing so angered the Italian ambassador he demanded (and received) a retraction and an apology.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST?

1. In simple terms, almost all of the women and children in First and Second Class survived, while most of the women and children in steerage died. In contrast, most of the men in First, Second, and Third Class died.

2. The "Women and children only" rule was applied on the port side of the ship. It is not clear whether or not the "Women and children first" rule was applied on the starboard. Men comprised the majority of passengers aboard the First Class starboard deck lifeboats, but there was testimony that the men did wait until all the women present and willing had already boarded.

3. First Class women and children were about 6% of those aboard the Titanic, but constituted 20% of the survivors. In contrast, steerage passengers were a third of all aboard, but only one fourth of those saved.

4. At least three of the four women in First Class who perished had the opportunity to board a lifeboat but elected to stay with their husbands and/or family. When they initially made their decisions, most passengers still believed that the Titanic would and could not sink and may have been fearful for the safety of the lifeboats and the boarding process itself. There were several

5. Over half of the women in steerage perished.

6. All of the lifeboats launched from the starboard First Class Deck had more men than women aboard.

7. Who was a child was relative depending on class. For example, 14 year old Lucile Carter in First Class was considered a child, but a 14 year old Annie McGowan in Steerage was considered to be an adult. The only child in First Class to go down with the ship was Lorraine Allison. The Allison family was separated from their infant son. The Allisons refused to board a lifeboat until they could find their missing baby. Since the child's nurse had already been taken him on board a lifeboat, the rest of his family never found him and died together.

8. It may be statistically insignificant because of low numbers, but children from Second Class were the only members of a group to have a 100% survival rate.

9. Less than a third of the children from steerage survived.

10. Although half of the Irish women (defined as women boarding in Queenstown) survived, only one of the six Irish children survived (and I am including 14 year old Annie McGowan, whom some do not).

ADULT MALE PASSENGERS

1. Honor and shame ruled society in 1912 unlike they do a hundred years later. Gentlemen were expected to be honorable and feared being shamed. Men aboard the Titanic, especially those among the upper class, had to weigh their own survival with doing what society would deem the right thing. To survive but live in shame was a risk some men would not take. Different men, dispite which class they belonged to, made different decisions. Famously several of the wealthiest men, John Jacob Astor, George Widener, and Isodor Strauss, refused to board a lifeboat on grounds of honor, even after it was clear that the Titanic would sink.

2. Men in First Class had no better than a one in three chance of surviving, so compared to women, even women from steerage, they fared poorly. Compared to men from other classes, they did remarkably well. At the time when most of the lifeboats from the First Class decks were launching, it was not certain among the passengers that the Titanic was doomed, and many of the men from First Class who could have gone aboard a lifeboat (those on the starboard side) elected to remain behind.

3. Even though some men had no trouble boarding lifeboats, there was a report that the wealthiest man on the Titanic, John Jacob Astor, attempted to board the lifeboat with his wife, but was rebuffed by Second Officer Lightoller, who told him, "Women and children, only, sir." Other accounts are differ, however, including one that he was seated in a lifeboat, but gave up his seat at the last minute. Another is that Astor chose to stay behind to encourage William Carter to get on board, promising the boy that he would take care of his dog.

4. An adult male in Second Class had only an 8% chance of surviving. Even adult male steerage passengers had a better chance of surviving than that. Without supporting evidence, it is hard to say that the men from Second Class gave up their seats to women from steerage, but if it was true, they were more gallant by far than the men from First Class.

5. Men in Second Class had no physical barriers to pass, so honor and resignation may have reigned high. However, more compelling than a sense of good manners and gentlemanliness was probably the stigma of shame and cowardice that would be attached to many adult males who had the audacity to survive the sinking. As a result, adult male survivors had compelling reasons for their defensiveness and inventions of excuses for boarding a lifeboat.

6. Panic and confusion may have been an even greater consideration for the loss of life by many men. As Lawrence Beesley, a Second Class passenger, reported in his 1912 book, The Loss of the SS Titanic, a false rumor that men were allowed to board lifeboats on the port side caused many men to cross over to the side of the ship where they had a much smaller chance of being allowed on board a lifeboat.

7. A high percentage of the men in steerage who got to lifeboats reached them only by leaping onto them after they were launched or by scrambling aboard the two emergency lifeboats as they floated off moments before the Titanic finally went down.

1. The numbers used above are adapted from a list of country of origin created by researcher Hermann Soldner. His compilations were published in Switzerland in 2000 as a booklet, "RMS Titanic: Passenger and Crew List 10 April 1912-15 April 1912." His research was used as the primary source for the Country of Residence section of the Encyclopedia Titanica.

2. Most official lists provide no breakdown by nationality beyond British and Non-British.

3. If any stereotype can be read in the demographics, one might be tempted to cite those spunky Irish, almost all of whom were in steerage, but whom survived by greater precentage than the British, of whom only slightly more than half were in steerage. However, to put that premise in doubt, even more significant is that almost half of the Irish were women, and gender, not nationality, may have been a greater factor in determining likelihood of survival.

4. Passengers with Third Class tickets are usually billed as immigrants and refugees, and the image that that description can be bring is one of disreputable, disease-laden, dark complected foreigners. However, almost two thirds were English-tongued British, Americans, and Irish, or fair skinned Scandinavians. The British and Swedes had among the worse survival rates among nationalities in steerage.

5. By percentage, the Japanese did the best, with a 100% survival rate, but since there was only one Japanese passenger on board, that's a meaningless statistic. The Chinese, Spanish, and Swiss also had a very high survival rate, but there numbers were also all very small. The French survived as well as the Americans, but there were one tenth as many French as Americans.

6. Nationality is not equivalent to ethnicity. For example, although there is a designation for Finland, ethnic Finns living in Sweden were counted among the Swedes. As result, the number is imprecise. I have altered the number I orginally had based on figures determined by the Swedish Emigrant Institute. The majority from Austria-Hungary were neither German nor Magyar (Hungarian), but from the various Slavic ethnic groups. There were contemporary accounts of many Italians aboard the Titanic, but the statistics do not bear this out. It appears likely "Italian" was the label given most any foreigner with a dark complection.

7. Haiti is not listed, but one passenger who must have been listed as French was Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche, who had been born in Haiti. He had been living in France for more than a decade, and his wife and two children were all born in France. He has been called the only passenger aboard the Titanic of known African ancestry.

8. Countries, borders, and geopolitical understanding were quite different in 1912 than they are today. There were two Australians and five South Africans, but both nations were considered to be part of the British Commonwealth, so they were originally tallied as British. I have separated them out and subtracted the number from the British totals. There are probably many others from Commonwealth nations that should also be separated out. Turkey and Syria were both part of the Ottoman Empire, but researchers have discovered that most Middle Easterners aboard the Titanic were actually Lebanese Christians. Those listed as Syrians had one of the best survival rates of any nationality in steerage.

9. Because of the small sample sizes and inexact determination of ethnicity, it seems inappropriate to make any broad conclusions about the personalities of national groups based on survival rates. There was a controversy back in January 2009 that caused this site to get a huge number of hits. The controversy occurred after the BBC and other journalists reported on research that concluded that British passengers were more likely to perish than Americans because they were more polite. In any eyewitness accounts I've read, I've seen no evidence that British men failed to get on lifeboats because of a greater degree of gentlemanliness. Surely the stigma of shame and cowardice, as well as opportunity, fear, confusion, and panic, were greater factors than politeness in who boarded the lifeboats.

TITANIC CREW, EMPLOYEES, AND SERVANTS

1. The crew of the Titanic were divided into Deck Crew, Engineering Crew, and Victualling Crew. I have created my own employment category of Sailors to single out officers, able-bodied seamen, quartermasters, lookouts, and masters-at-arms from other members of the deck crew.

2. Seventy percent of the 60 sailors on board survived, many, but not all, because they had been commanded to take charge of lifeboats or to serve as rowers. It may have been the duty of the captain to go down with the ship, but that was not true for most other officers.

3. Other members of the deck crew were non-sailors. The non-sailing crew were 38% of those aboard the Titanic but only 25% of the survivors. Non-sailing crew members included trimmers, firemen, greasers, window cleaners, carpenters, messmen, engineers, stewards and stewardesses, bell boys, lift attendants, boots, baths, barbers, chefs, cooks, butchers, bakers, confectioners, platemen, scullions, medical staff, and a gymnasium instructor. Only a couple of the non-sailing crew, all firemen, were recruited as rowers on lifeboats.

4. All 30 engineer and electrical engineers perished. They were true heroes who stayed down below until almost the end trying to keep the ship afloat and the electrical system working.

5. Some members of the Titanic's crew were not employees of the White Star line. These included nine Guarantee Group members (employees of the shipbuilder, Harland and Wolff, who were on board to familiarize the crew with the ship), eight musicians, two Marconi operators, five postal clerks, and the nearly seventy members of the staff of the First Class a la carte restaurant. This group of non-White Star line crew members had the worst rate of survival.

6. The musicians, who traveled in Second Class, and the Guarantee Group, three of whom traveled in First Class and five of whom in Second Class, are included among passengers in some lists, as is Frans Olof Carlsson, who was the first mate on the liner St. Louis, but had been stranded by the coal strike and was traveling in First Class to return to his ship. I have included them with the crew. All were men; all perished.

7. Almost all of the a la carte restaurant workers were French. All but two were men. Both women, neither of whom were French, reached a lifeboat. Only one male restaurant worker survived.

8. As an indication of class distinction, the first official lists of Titanic passengers did not include the names of the maids and manservants who traveled with the First Class passengers. They were merely extensions of the passenger. For example, "Cardeza [sic], Mrs. J. W. M. and Maid."

9. The story quickly emerged that four maids died, trapped below deck, because they had been sent down to the purser's office to fetch their employers' valuables. In the first official lists, indeed, four maids are listed among those who perished, the maids of Mrs. Cardeza, Mrs. Douglas, Mrs. Hays, Mrs. Penasco y Castellana. Researcher Michael Findlay, however, has disproved the myth by documenting that all four of these women, Bertha LeRoy, Fermina Oliva y Ocana, Annie Perreault, and Anne Ward, survived. In fact, all female servants traveling in First and Second Class survived.

10. While maids, nurses, and valets traveled in First Class, three chauffeurs and a cook traveling with First Class passengers were given Second Class accommodations. The cook (a female) survived, but none of the chauffeurs (all male) did.

11. Only two menservants survived. One was Henry Sleeper Harper's Egyptian dragoman (an interpreter and guide) named Hamad Hassah, "whom he picked up in Cairo as a sort of a joke [according to Walter Lord]." The Harpers also brought on board the lifeboat their other "pet," a Pekingese, named Sun Yet-sen. The other surviving manservant was Gustave Lesueur, valet to Mr Thomas Cardeza. Cardeza was traveling with his mother, and there was a report that the mother, son, and two servants boarded Lifeboat 3 as an entourage.

LIFEBOATS

1. Lifeboats were the luxury of the First Class. The White Star Line staff was deferential to the First Class in all things, so it was natural that the launching of the lifeboats began on the First Class decks. Half the lifeboats, and all of the first six launched, contained only passengers from First Class, plus crew members to do the work. Although no one but First Class passengers could board a First Class deck lifeboat, First Class passengers were welcome to board First and Second Class deck lifeboats.

2. Lawrence Beesley, a surviving Second Class passenger, reported that several women in Second Class were turned away when they tried to enter the part of the deck reserved for First Class where half the lifeboats were located. Later, however, First Class passengers easily found their way to the lifeboats not located on the First Class deck.

3. The total capacity of the combined total of lifeboats was rated at 1,178, but the rating was not necessarily a practical number. According to testimony provided at the British inquiry, a more realistic capacity for a lifeboat rated for 65 was closer to 50, except on the most favorable conditions. On the night of the sinking of the Titanic, the sea was absolutely smooth and still -- "most favorable conditions."

4. All of these early launched "First Class" lifeboats were notorious for being launched at less than half capacity. The number of passengers was also far below what would have been a comfortable number.

5. All of the lifeboats launched from the starboard First Class Deck had more men than women aboard. Whether or not they boarded after all the women were given a chance is not certain.

6. The crew loading passengers on the port side were quite extreme in enforcing a "Women and Children Only" policy. They not only refused to allow men to board, but in at least one case, physcially removed men who had seated themselves.

7. According to testimony of Dr. Washington Dodge, a third of the lifeboats had been launched, including those furthest from capacity, before there was a general consensus among the passengers that the Titanic would or could sink.

8. Especially early on, when only the First Class passengers had the option to board, most believed that boarding a lifeboat was not wise or necessary. The crew was not well trained in lowering the boats, the pulleys did not function smoothly, so anyone watching the jerky, delayed, and hesitant lowering might easily conclude that the safer option would be to stay aboard the world's largest most luxurious lifeboat, the Titanic itself.

9. Although lifeboat 4 picked up six or eight passengers from the water and D hauled in at least one man before they distanced themselves from the ship, the only lifeboat to go back to try to rescue people after the Titanic went under was 14, not a "First Class" lifeboat. It was only able to pick up three or four passengers from the water.

10. Testimony has made it clear that Captain Smith and the chief officers of the Titanic knew before the first lifeboat was launched that the Titanic would sink, but no one among the crew took measures to ensure that all boats were adequately filled.

11. Naval traditions and social customs and some absence of knowledge did not give the crew doing the actual loading of the lifeboats any capacity for planning or making any but the most pressing reasoned judgments.

12. The decision to allow so many lifeboats to be launched at less than half capacity when it was known that the Titanic would sink in a matter of hours rested with Captain Smith. Some have charged that it was his indecision, rather than any overt decision by him, that cost so many lives.

RESOURCES WITH TITANIC FACTS AND STATISTICS

RESOURCES USED FOR CALCULATING THE TABLES:

My initial source for compiling passenger statistics was Titanic Passenger List, 10 April 1912, by Michael Findlay. Mr. Findlay is probably the world's leading authority, having spent years of research tracking down individuals from around the world to produce his list. It can be found in two print sources that I have seen. It is an appendix found inTitanic: Women and Children First, by Judith B. Geller (Norton, 1998) and Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy by John P. Eaton & Charles A. Haas (Patrick Stephens, 1994).

I have also extensively used Philip Hind's Encyclopedia Titanica, beginning when it was called R.M.S. Titanic: Her Passengers and Crew. Hind has also used Michael Findlay's list as a starting point and adapted and added to it, especially with biographical details. His is the best and almost only readily available source I know of for information about the Titanic's crew.

Hermann Soldner's booklet, "RMS Titanic: Passenger and Crew List 10 April 1912-15 April 1912," once available on the web, was my principle source for nationality information. His research data are still available in different and expanded formats on Encyclopedia Titanica.

Two researchers who have presented Titanic statistics online are Lester J. Mitcham and Chuck Anesi. Although I didn't discover their pages until after I had created my own tables, I have since compared my numbers with theirs, and though none of our statistics quite agree, their compilations were helpful as I tried to get my tables to mesh with each other.

Titanic: A Tragic Destiny, a site no longer maintained, featured a chronology and other information that I found helpful in putting together the the lifeboat table.

Titanic Inquiry Project provides the official transcripts of the inquiries made by both the British Board of Trade and the United States Senate. Thousands of pages are available and searchable.

There were earlier efforts attempted to compile passenger names and information, as well:

Walter Lord included as an appendix the passenger section of the White Star Line's final list of lost and saved, dated May 9, 1912 in his A Night To Remember (Henry Holt, 1955). The list was official, but it was full of errors.

Lists were also reported in the London Times in the days following the disaster. By April 20, the Times reproduced an official list supplied by the White Star Line. It differs in form and content from the list in A Night To Remember.

Colonel Archibald Gracie's The Truth about the Titanic (1913) was the first published attempt to compile information about who was on which lifeboats. It is incomplete and for the most part ignores steerage passengers.

All photographs used on this page are in the public domain. The animated illustration at the top of the page showing the sinking of the Titanic is based on the following six sketches of the sinking drawn by Jack Thayer, a 17-year old surviver, who also drew them while on board the Carpathian on April 15, probably not long after he came aboard. His sketches were first published to illustrate an account he wrote that was included as a chapter in Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters - As Told by First Hand Account of Survivors and Initial Investigations edited by Logan Marshall, was published in 1912 by several publishers, including The International Bible House, which was my source. Thayer controversially showed the Titanic breaking in two. This fact was not widely believed until after Robert Ballard's underwater team proved him to be right in 1985.

This page maintained by John R. Henderson (jrhenderson9 @ gmail.com).
I am a retired librarian who created this page when working at Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY.
First created on 6 June 1998. Links last checked on 26 January 2023.
URL: http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
icyousee titanic titanic unsinkable demographics sinking passengers crew lifeboat lifeboats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ICYouSee: discussion and analysis of the demographics of the passengers and crew of the Titanic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why and How the Titanic Sank (Infographic)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A remarkable variety of elements came together to sink the famed steamship Titanic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever tasted an Arab taco?

When was the Arab taco invented?

What is shawarma?

Find it out

How are currency exchange rates determined?

What was the gold standard?

Which type of currency exchange rate system does the U.S. use?

Find it out
Which of the following is usually NOT a factor in determining currency exchange rates?

Test your knowledge

How can I use Wonderopolis?

What are the parts of a Wonder?

How do writers make a Wonder?

Find it out
Based on information from the Wonder, what was Lou Castro known for when he was alive?

Test your knowledge

What is an okapi?

Where do okapis live?

What do okapis eat?

Find it out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where the Wonders of Learning Never Cease | Wonderopolis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where the Wonders of Learning Never Cease

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Titanic: Passengers Famously Separated by Class

In many ways, the Titanic passenger list reflected the wide class divide of the times. Of the 1,296 total passengers onboard the massive ocean liner, 319 were labeled as first class, 269 were termed second class, and 699 were called third class, or steerage.

A closer look at the casualty figures reveals that of the 319 first-class passengers, 200 survived and of the 269 second-class passengers, 117 survived. Only 172 of 699 third-class passengers survived. A similar percentage can be found among crew and staff: 215 of 918 survived.

First-class passengers included wealthy businessmen, famous entertainers, high-ranking members of the military, and professional athletes. Among the second-class numbers were professors, authors, tourists, and clergymen. Most of the third-class passengers were immigrants seeking a new life in the U.S. or Canada.

Some of the people aboard the Titanic were very famous in their day.

The most prominent name was probably John Jacob Astor IV (right), the latest millionaire in a family of rich businessmen. He and his wife, Madeleine, were returning to the U.S. so Madeleine could give birth to their first child at home.

Also onboard were these famous people:

Isidor Straus, owner of the Macy's department store, and his wife, Ida

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company founder George Wick

Charles Hays, the president of Canada's Grand Trunk Railway

John Thayer, a vice-president with the Pennsylvania Railroad

George Widener, owner of the Philadelphia Traction (streetcar) Company

Benjamin Guggenheim, a member of the powerful mining family whose brother Solomon established the eponymous New York museum.

All of these famous people died when the Titanic sank.

Among the famous people surviving the disaster were J. Bruce Ismay, chairman of White Star Line; Thomas Andrews, the ship's builder; millionaire and women's rights activist Margaret Brown; and silent film star Dorothy Gibson.

Among the more than 700 survivors were the "Titanic Orphans," Michel Jr. and Edmond Navratil, infant sons of Michel Navratil, who kidnapped his sons and took them aboard the Titanic to get them away from their mother, who lived in Nice, France. Michel, the father, died, but the boys survived and were cared for by fellow survivor Margaret Hays until their mother arrived in New York to take them home. (Hays had widely circulated photographs of the twins, and their mother had eventually seen the pictures.)

Also surviving was Violet Jessop, a nurse who was working as a stewardess on the Titanic and went on to survive the sinking of the Britannic four years later. Jessop went on to work for another ship company, the Red Star Line, and went on two round-the-world cruises.

The last remaining survivor was Elizabeth Dean, who was only a few months old when she and her family boarded the Titanic in hopes of immigrating to the American Midwest. Elizabeth, known as Millvina, and her mother and brother survived. Elizabeth died in 2009, at age 97.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Titanic: Passengers Famously Separated by Class

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In many ways, the Titanic passenger list reflected the wide class divide of the times.

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to Build Knowledge: Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to Build Knowledge: Climate Change

# data[].attributes.headline
How Scientists Know the Earth is Warming

# data[].attributes.subject
How Scientists Know the Earth is Warming

# data[].attributes.body
Read how scientists get at the "root" of the problem 🌻

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In parts of the Arctic, entire forests are creeping northward. Luckily, ecologist Serge Payette is hot on their trail. Like the two other scientists we will meet here, Payette has spent decades trying to understand the often surprising ways plants influence their environment.

Together, these three experts are showing how plants don't just colonize new surroundings, but also can warm and clean them. Some plants can even rid an area of any competing plants, using chemicals that continue to marvel scientists. As work by these scientists shows, plants do many things to interact with their environment - and ours.
Move on up
Across the Arctic, temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else in the world. As that happens, the tree line that marks where forests stop and the treeless tundra starts has been shifting northward. Payette is an Arctic plant ecologist who works at Université Laval in Québec, Canada. And he's been studying how trees respond to this climate change in northern Canada.

Trees growing along the tree line must protect themselves from the cold wind. His research has shown that to do this, plants tend to grow horizontal limbs low to the ground. The energy it takes for trees to grow this way means they don't have enough left over to make seeds.

But as Earth's climate has been warming, trees no longer have to just grow horizontally. Many can instead grow up, toward the sky. This takes less energy. And with all that leftover energy, these trees have started producing more seeds. Payette has seen this happening especially in places where white spruce grow, such as northern Québec and Labrador.

"White spruce, which is a North American tree, is quite able to produce a lot of seeds, which can move long distances in the wind," explains Payette. When windblown seeds end up on the tundra beyond the tree line, they eventually can sprout new trees. This explains how a forest can move.

Université Laval ecologist Serge Payette studies how northern forests respond to rising temperatures - including by creating some warming of their own. Credit: Josée Pelletier

Of course, the process would work only if the tundra was warm enough. But in recent years, the whole planet has been warming - including the tundra.

Seeds also drop to the ground in the sparse forests already growing below the tree line. But no matter whether trees sprout in new locations below or above the tree line, they trigger two important things that can warm snowy surroundings even more.

First, the new trees will shield some snow, keeping the sun's rays from reflecting off of the white surface. Instead, the trees' dark green needles absorb the sun's heat. This warms them and the surrounding air. The extra warmth encourages even more trees to produce seeds. That further boosts a forest's ability to expand.

Second, more trees will trap more snow, preventing much of it from blowing away. While snow is cold, it also acts an insulator. Like a blanket, snow can trap heat in the soil below. Warming the soil also encourages tree growth.

In northern Québec and Labrador, temperatures have risen 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since the mid-1990s. That rise has helped more trees grow past the tree line. And the more trees that grow, the warmer that region has become.

"The cold landscape that we are accustomed to in northern Canada will be a thing of the past," Payette predicts.

The speed at which trees are moving north is "not well-settled," he notes. But Payette says they are moving faster in North America than anywhere else. That's because trees that grow in other parts of the far northern hemisphere, such as birch in Scandinavia, are not as quick to produce seeds as are North America's white spruce.

Of course, warmer temperatures are bringing other changes to the far North too. Payette worries about impacts on the people and wildlife that depend on frozen conditions for food and shelter.

Right now, Payette also can't think of a job he'd rather do. "I'm very lucky," he says. "I'm doing something I love."
Indoors with the outdoors
Environmental scientist Bill Wolverton loves his work too. In fact, he surrounds himself with it day and night. Wolverton's Picayune, Miss., home - including his home office - is chock-full of plants.

His houseplants include rubber plants, snake plants, yucca plants, golden pothos and peace lilies. These common plants do some uncommon good: They cleanse the air of harmful chemicals. It's a benefit Wolverton has spent most of his career studying.

He got his start in the 1980s, working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA had worried that astronauts might spend months living in stuffy spacecraft. So it asked Wolverton to figure out if plants could make the air healthier for astronauts (and the rest of us) to breathe.

Retired NASA environmental scientist Bill Wolverton is never far from his work - the houseplants that fill his sunny home office. Wolverton is an expert in how plants can clean indoor air of sometimes dangerous contaminants. Credit: Wolverton Environmental Services

Scientists had long known plants can clean the air. Wolverton went a step further. He tested common houseplants to see which do it best. He also investigated how plants do it.

Wolverton focused on three common air pollutants: formaldehyde, benzene and trichloroethylene. Carpets, furniture and computers are among the many household products that can emit these chemicals. Their levels can be two to five times higher indoors than outdoors. And that can be concerning because people spend as much as 90 percent of their time indoors.

These pollutants can cause breathing problems, headaches and fatigue. Research suggests that some of these chemicals might even cause cancer. Luckily, bringing a touch of the outdoors indoors can help.

Houseplant leaves absorb certain chemicals, including the common contaminants Wolverton chose to study. What's more, the leaves broke these pollutants down into harmless compounds. Plants with the biggest leaves proved best at this type of cleaning.

But plants also remove pollutants from the air as they transpire water - that is, exhale water from their leaves, he found. To do this, plants must first haul water up from their roots. In the process, air gets pulled down to the roots and soil. Any pollutants in the air will get sucked down there too. Once in the soil, these pollutants can be broken down into harmless substances by microbes.

Leaves that moved water most effectively cleaned air the best, Wolverton found - "such as the palms, golden pothos, rubber plants and the peace lily." For a standard-sized bedroom, he recommends growing at least two such plants, each about 30 to 60 centimeters (12 to 24 inches) high.

Though Wolverton is retired from NASA, he now runs a company that relies on the natural ability of plants to treat indoor air. He is also working on ways to make the process more efficient. This might include adding fans and replacing potting soil with special substances that boost plant growth.
Competitive environment
While some plants can break down harmful chemicals, others make them. These plants produce poisons to keep other plant species from invading their territory. This phenomenon is called allelopathy (ah LEE loh path ee).

"Allelopathy is basically chemical warfare for plants," explains Joseph Jez. The plant biologist works at Washington University in St. Louis.

Think of plants as chemical factories, he says. Some plants make chemicals to help themselves. The sweet scent of a rose? The mix of chemicals responsible for that aroma aids in reproduction. Other plants make chemicals to poison other plants. Walnut, pecan and hickory trees, for instance, all make a compound called juglone. Juglone can trigger other plant species to wilt and die. In fact, people sometimes use juglone as a natural weed killer.

Washington University plant biologist Joseph Jez turns the chemicals plants make into crystals. That allows Jez to better understand their three-dimensional structure. Credit: Washington University

Jez studies the proteins that control the amount of certain chemicals that plants make. In particular, he studies the shape of those proteins. It turns out that a protein's shape can affect whether a plant makes a lot of some protective chemical, a little, or none at all.

To view a protein's shape, Jez has to turn the material into a crystal. He then uses X-rays to probe the arrangement of its atoms. This creates a picture of the protein's structure in three dimensions.

Better understanding the shape of these proteins should offer clues to how they control chemicals.

"I try to understand nature's machinery and how it makes proteins," Jez says. "We're still at the very early stages, but if we can figure that out, we might be able to control it." Some researchers are studying how to build useful proteins in the test tube. Others are trying to understand how to help plants boost their production of these proteins.

For example, certain crops, such as sorghum and rice, naturally produce chemicals to fight off invading species. To a farmer, those potential invaders are weeds. Not all sorghum and rice plants can do this, however.

Understanding how certain varieties of important crops protect themselves by staging chemical warfare against invading species can help plant breeders. They can use what they learn to create new crop plants that more effectively fight weeds with little help from weed-killing chemical sprays.

Of course, plants also make chemicals for gentler purposes, such as attracting pollinators.

When temperatures rise, white spruce dedicate more energy to producing seeds, like these shown here. The shape of spruce seeds allows them to be carried long distances by the wind. That movement helps the trees colonize the tundra and push the tree line farther north. Credit: Steve Hurst at USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database

Pollinators, such as bees, carry powdery grains from one flower to another. When pollinators land on a flower, they drop some of those grains, called pollen. Pollen fertilizes the plant so that it can reproduce.

The lemon tree provides a good example of a plant that makes a chemical to attract pollinators. The limonene it makes has a lemony scent that pollinators - and people - like.

Limonene represents a gentler form of chemical warfare, says Jez. That's because the lemon tree is not trying to kill nearby plants. The tree instead is trying to ensure that it attracts more than its fair share of pollinators.

"It's about outcompeting the others," he explains.

The ability of plants to make chemicals fascinates Jez. However, what really thrills him is successfully turning some plant protein into a crystal. When he succeeds (and often it isn't easy), he can become the first person to ever witness the protein's structure - its skeleton.

Many more discoveries await Jez, as well as Payette, Wolverton and others. And they keep probing because they have a deep curiosity about how plants alter their environment. What they learn might ultimately help people speed those changes - or slow them down.

allelopathy A plant's production of chemicals that impair the growth and survival of other plant species.

climate change Long-term, significant change in the climate of Earth. It can happen naturally or in response to human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.

ecologist A biologist who studies the relationships among living things and their environment.

transpiration A process in which plants carry moisture from their roots to their leaves, where it is then lost to the atmosphere as vapor.

microbe A microscopic organism.

tundra A large, treeless region in the far northern hemisphere where the subsoil is permanently frozen.

Word Find
(click here to enlarge puzzle for printing) This is one in a series on careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics made possible by support from the Northrop Grumman Foundation.

Sharon Oosthoek is a freelance science journalist. She likes to write about animals and their habitats. Sharon also really likes chocolate. Her sons have learned to hide their Halloween candy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In parts of the Arctic, entire forests are creeping northward. Luckily, ecologist Serge Payette is hot on their trail. Like the two other scientists we will meet here, Payette has spent decades trying to understand the often surprising ways plants influence their environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Interactive Graphics to Explain Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Interactive Graphics to Explain Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A breakthrough deal to attempt to limit global temperature rises was agreed at a conference of world nations in December 2015. These charts from the time show how and why the Earth's climate is changing.

1. What is the problem?

The world is getting warmer

The average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by about 0.85°C (1.4F) in the last 100 years. Up until 2015, 13 of the 14 warmest years had been recorded in the 21st Century. 2015 then became the hottest year on record, but was surpassed by record-breaking 2016.

10 warmest years

10 coldest years

20th Century average temperature

Hotter

Colder

Source: NOAA

2. Why is this happening?

Greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide

Scientists believe that gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect, the way the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the energy from the Sun.

Human activities such as burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. Carbon-absorbing forests are also being cut down.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years and reached a record high in May 2015. But 2016 marked five consecutive years of CO2 increases of at least two parts per million.

Scripps CO2 Program, data from the Mauna Loa Observatory

3. What are the effects?

Arctic sea ice melt

Higher temperatures, extreme weather events and higher sea levels are all linked to a warming climate and could have a drastic effect on the world's regions.

Since 1900, sea levels have risen by on average about 19cm globally. The rate of sea-level rise has accelerated in recent decades, placing a number of islands and low-lying countries at risk.

The retreat of polar ice sheets is an important contributor to this rise.

Arctic sea ice is also shrinking because of higher temperatures, though it makes little contribution to raised sea levels.

An area of sea ice roughly 10 times the size of the UK has been lost when the current day is compared with average levels from the early 1980s.

Arctic sea ice min. extent: 1980, 7.8 million sq km. 2015, 4.6 million sq km

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

4. What does the future hold?

Higher temperatures and more extreme weather

The scale of potential impacts is uncertain.

The changes could drive shortages in freshwater, bring about major changes in food production conditions and cause a rise in the number of casualties from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts.

This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events - however linking any single event to global warming is complicated.

Projected temperature change (1986-2005 to 2081-2100)

If greenhouse gas emissions peak between 2010-2020 and then decline substantially (RCP2.6)

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century (RCP8.5)

Source: International Panel on Climate Change - Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

5. What can be done?

World's top ten greenhouse gas emitters

The top 10 greenhouse gas emitters make up over 70% of total emissions

Source: Carbon Brief, figures are for 2012

6. Limiting the damage

By the end of October 2015, 146 countries had submitted national climate plans on curbing emissions that are expected to form the cornerstone of a binding, global treaty on climate change.

According to a UN report, submissions in their current form point to a rise of 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Scientists have determined that if temperature rises surpass 2°C, this will lead to substantial and dangerous climate impacts, which will hit the world's poor in particular.

Average warming (°C) projected by 2100

Source: Climate Action Tracker, data compiled by Climate Analytics, ECOFYS, New Climate Institute and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six graphics that explain climate change as world leaders gathered in Paris for COP21.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Climate Change in National Parks Video Series - Climate Change (U.S. National Park Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The discussion surrounding climate change is often focused on natural resources. The National Park Service is also tasked with preserving and protecting cultural and historical resources, and they are relevant to climate change too. In this video, National Park Service staff and partnering scientists talk about climate change in the context of Jamestown Island in Virginia, the site of the first permanent English settlement.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Red List: International Union for Conservation of Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
The Red List: International Union for Conservation of Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An endangered species is a type of organism that is threatened by extinction. Species become endangered for two main reasons: loss of habitat and loss of genetic variation.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Life Cycle of a Plastic Bottle Video

# data[].attributes.subject
The Life Cycle of a Plastic Bottle Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What really happens to the plastic you throw away - Emma Bryce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

The Science

Science paints a clear picture: Climate change is happening; it is caused mostly by humans; and it creates many serious and damaging effects. The primary cause of climate change is human activities - like driving cars, creating electricity, and cutting down forests - not natural changes in the climate. These human activities release gases into the atmosphere called greenhouse gases, which slowly warm the planet, creating climate change.

The climate is very complex, and there are still some things we don't know about it. But through centuries of studies and experiments, we've been able to create a strong understanding of how the system works, and how humans are changing it.

The Greenhouse Effect

Imagine a greenhouse made of glass used to grow plants, like flowers and vegetables. The greenhouse keeps the plants inside warm even when it's cold outside because it traps heat from the sun. The earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse: When light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface to heat it, but some heat is also trapped in our atmosphere by certain gases. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases, and they act like a blanket, keeping the earth warm. This greenhouse effect is a natural process that makes the planet comfortable to live.

But human activities are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. One type of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has reached a level in our atmosphere that the Earth hasn't seen for more than 400,000 years! Plants, soils, and the ocean can absorb carbon dioxide, but they can't keep up with all the extra greenhouse gases that we have been releasing. And some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for a long time, from hundreds to even thousands of years. All these gases are making things hotter than natural, so we need to stop producing them to avoid climate change.

Weather vs. Climate

Weather refers to the state of the atmosphere in a short period of time, like minutes or days. It includes lots of things we are familiar with, like temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind speeds. The weather changes every day, but the climate is much more consistent because it measures the patterns of weather over long periods of time (at least several decades). Let's say you were going to visit Florida for a few days in June. You would expect it to be hot and humid, because that's what the climate of Florida is usually like in June. It might turn out to be hot during your trip, or it could rain or be cloudy. All of those are examples of possible weather during those days.

The Greenhouse Effect Explained

Where do greenhouse gases come from?

Up until about 150 years ago, humans did not produce many greenhouse gases. That changed as the human population grew, we cut down forests to make way for cities and farms, and important inventions and technology, like in-home electricity and cars, transformed the way we live.

These inventions and technologies need energy. Some types of energy called fossil fuels - like coal, oil, and natural gas - have become important sources of that energy. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We call the release of these gases emissions.

Today in the United States, electricity and transportation (cars, trucks, and planes) are responsible for almost 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from agriculture, industry - such as factories that make products we use - and from energy we use in our homes and businesses.
Learn more about U.S. greenhouse gas emissions here.
Greenhouse Gases

The most common types of greenhouse gases are:

Carbon Dioxide (CO ₂): Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas created by human activities. It makes up 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) are burned for electricity and transportation, and because of other processes like making cement. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored when it is absorbed by plants, soils, animals, and the ocean as part of the carbon cycle.
Learn more about how energy emissions are controlled in the United States.

Methane (CH ₄): Methane is the next most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It makes up 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most methane emissions come from raising livestock (like cows), but methane is also released when coal, natural gas, and oil are produced and transported, and when organic waste (like food) decays in landfills. Methane is a stronger gas than carbon dioxide, meaning it creates more warming, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time.
Learn more about how industrial greenhouse gases like methane are controlled in the United States.

Nitrous Oxide (N ₂ O): Most nitrous oxide is emitted by agricultural activities, like applying fertilizer, but it also comes from industrial activities, burning fossil fuels, and other sources. It makes up 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions. Nitrous oxide is even more powerful than methane and carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6): Try saying these gases three times fast! They're called "fluorinated gases" for short. These gases combined make up only 3 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That may sound small, but they are very important to solving climate change because they stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (sometimes for thousands of years!) and are much more powerful warmers than all other gases. These gases are made by humans and are used to cool our refrigerators, freezers, buildings and cars.

U.S. Greenhouse Gases by Gas Type and Sector, 2021

Impacts of a Changing Climate

Because of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures are rising. Each of the past four decades has been warmer than the previous one. 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record, and the six warmest years have all been since 2010.
Learn more about the relationship between extreme weather and climate change.
The following charts show how emissions and temperatures have gone up since 1900, and how they could continue to change in the future. If we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth will rise a lot - maybe as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Even if we reduce our emissions right now, the temperature of the Earth will still rise slightly, but we might be able to keep the rise below 2 degrees Celsius (or about 4.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Two degrees might not sound like much, but scientists agree that even that small amount of warming can have large impacts on humans and the environment.

Past and Projected Changes in Carbon Emissions and Temperature

Rising global temperatures affect many things, like extreme weather, human health, food supply, and ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt today, and groups like the poor, elderly, and others are especially vulnerable.
Impacts of climate change include:

Heat waves. Heat waves are long periods of time with temperatures that are hotter than normal. As the Earth warms, more areas will be at risk for hotter and more common extreme heat waves. Learn more about the link between climate change and extreme heat.

Heavy precipitation and storms. Heavy precipitation - like rain or snow - is becoming more common in many locations, which can lead to flooding and other dangerous weather. As seas warm, coastal storms like hurricanes are also becoming more frequent and damaging. Learn more about the link between climate change and heavy precipitation and hurricanes.

Sea level rise. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 because glaciers and ice sheets are melting and seas are warming. Scientists predict that, with 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, sea levels could rise by as much as 1.8 feet this century, which would harm communities living on islands and near coasts. These rises could be even higher if glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica melt very quickly.

Threats to habitats and animals. Warming temperatures, rising seas, melting ice, and other impacts of climate change can threaten the habitat of many plants and animals. Some species are moving to new habitats, but others may struggle to adapt and become endangered or extinct.

Ocean acidification. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic. This can make it difficult for corals and organisms that form shells to survive, which can create problems in the food chain for other sea animals.

Wildfires. These are fires that burn large amounts of forests and brush. When they are not controlled, wildfires can destroy homes and be deadly. The number of large wildfires and the length of the season when they're most likely and threatening have been increasing in recent years. Find out how climate change will worsen wildfire conditions.

Drought. A drought is a period with little rain and not enough water. Global warming will increase the risk of drought in some places and make it harder to grow food. Learn about the links between climate change and drought.

How can you help?

Even though climate change sounds scary, we still have time to avoid some of the worst impacts. Everyone can play a part, including government, businesses, and you.

There are two main things we need to do:

The first is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. By choosing cleaner ways to power our homes, offices, and cars, and being more efficient and less wasteful, we can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

There are lot of things you can do to help, like turning off the lights when you leave a room to reduce the electricity you use, walking or biking where you can, or planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. If you do any of these things, make sure you communicate with other people (like your family, teachers, and friends) about why you're doing them! Communication can inspire more people to change their habits and help save the climate.

Look for more ideas on what we can do together and individually.

The second is to prepare for life in a changing climate. Even if we could stop creating greenhouse gases tomorrow, the climate would still change some because of our past emissions. So we need to make sure our buildings, roads, businesses, and communities are ready for the climate changes that we can't avoid. This includes things like helping cities on the coast prepare for floods, preventing wildfires in our forests, and more.

Learn how communities and companies are preparing.

The power of YOUth

Around the world, young people are learning about climate change and taking action. In fact, young people are some of the most important voices in the climate movement because you can inspire powerful people to create a better future for you.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a politician to make a difference in the fight against climate change. Whatever your talents are, there's a role for you to play. Some young people, like Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, and others, are leading the Fridays for Future movement to tell their governments to create strong policies to fight climate change. Other students are inventing new technologies to cut emissions and reduce waste. And others are using their creativity to bring awareness to climate change by writing music and creating art.

You can also look for ways to get involved in your community - maybe you can help your school set up a composting program to keep food waste out of the landfill. Maybe your synagogue or mosque needs help switching to energy efficient lights. Maybe you can write a letter to your local government to encourage your community to prepare for extreme weather or wildfires. Everyone can do something to fight climate change.

Check out our Educator Resources page for activities you can do to learn more about how climate change works and how you can be a part of the solution.
C2ES thanks the Alcoa Foundation for its support, which allowed us to develop our Climate Classroom content. As a fully independent organization, C2ES is solely responsible for its positions, programs, and publications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: CommonLit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glaciers have retreated dramatically all over world. Here are some photos of Alaska’s Muir Glacier, photographed by glaciologist William O. Field on 13 August 1941 (left) and by geologist Bruce F. Molnia on 31 August 2004 (right).

# data[].attributes.body
Use this website to build background knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about the history of the Atomic Bomb during World War II. Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan to end WW2.

# data[].attributes.body
Build some background knowledge with this link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
History for kids - Free history network for kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - History for kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Atomic Bomb Background Before the war, many scientists had been investigating the possibility of generating energy and even weapons from the atom, the building block of the universe and everything that surrounds us. The famous scientist Albert Einstein represented these leading thinkers by writing to the American president Franklin Roosevelt in August 1939. He told

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A sea otter carefully uses its paws to free itself from a plastic bag that's tangled loosely around its body. This sea otter isn't the only animal to have a dangerous run-in with litter: It's estimated that about half of all marine mammals have eaten or gotten trapped by plastic.

A LITTLE POLLUTION = BIG PROBLEMS

Plastic pollution is different from paper or food waste because it never fully decomposes, or breaks down into pieces that can be reused by nature. Instead, plastic often ends up in water, where it releases toxic chemicals and can be mistaken for food. In a study conducted by the journal Science, scientists estimate that 8.8 million tons of plastic enter the ocean every year, threatening over 700 species of marine animals.

Plastic trash isn't the Earth's only pollution problem. Oil accidentally spilling into the sea, agriculture products like fertilizers and pesticides seeping into the soil, and even excess noise and light can pollute the environment.

For instance, the sounds made by ships mess with whale calls, and bright lights can confuse animals such as birds and newly hatched sea turtles.

CLEANING UP OUR ACT

Once released into the environment, pollution can affect wildlife habitats for years. It's easy to blame factories, but some of the mess comes from everyday human activities. For instance, car exhaust fumes and excess garbage can seriously harm Earth's health.

You can probably clean your room in a couple of hours. (At least we hope you can!) But you can't cram Earth's pollution problem into your closet. We all need to pitch in and clean up the planet. Look at it this way: Just like your room, it's always better to prevent the Earth from getting dirty in the first place. Check out these tips for cutting down on your own personal waste.

Recycle: The process of turning stuff that would otherwise be thrown away as trash into new products

Compost: Decaying material, like leftover food scraps, that adds nutrients to soil and helps plants grow

Decompose: The process of breaking down something into parts that can be reused by nature; for example, fallen leaves decompose to become soil.

Biodegradable: Something usually used by people that decomposes; for example, unlike a plastic spoon, a biodegradable spoon won't stay in the environment for thousands of years-it'll decompose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out how pollution from plastic, light, oil, and other trash affects Earth.

# data[].attributes.headline
70,000 to 135,000 people died in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 people died in Nagasaki, both from acute exposure to the blasts and from long-term side effects of radiation.

# data[].attributes.subject
70,000 to 135,000 people died in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 people died in Nagasaki, both from acute exposure to the blasts and from long-term side effects of radiation.

# data[].attributes.headline
At the start of World War II in 1939 the atomic bomb had not yet been invented. However, scientists discovered about that time that a powerful explosion might be possible by splitting an atom. This type of bomb could destroy large cities in a single blast and would change warfare forever.

# data[].attributes.subject
At the start of World War II in 1939 the atomic bomb had not yet been invented. However, scientists discovered about that time that a powerful explosion might be possible by splitting an atom. This type of bomb could destroy large cities in a single blast and would change warfare forever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Star Bound: A NASA engineer talks with his nephew | The Kid Should See This

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Why do you like space so much?” asks Joey Jefferson, a Mission Operations Engineer at NASA, of his nephew Jerry Morrison. The space-obsessed 6-year-old

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The problem with plastic pollution - National Geographic Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn all about plastic pollution. How much plastic is in the ocean? Why is plastic pollution dangerous? What can we do to reduce it?

# data[].attributes.headline
Screen Time and Kids: "Parents Need to Worry Less About Hours Logged," CNN

# data[].attributes.subject
Screen Time and Kids: "Parents Need to Worry Less About Hours Logged," CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Screen time and kids: Parents need to worry less about hours logged | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to screen time, parents should start worrying less about the amount of time their teenagers are online and instead focus on the quality of the content.

# data[].attributes.headline
Young Atlanta Artist on the Rise Through Social Media

# data[].attributes.subject
Young Atlanta Artist on the Rise Through Social Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Effects of screen time on brain development

Screen-based entertainment increases central nervous system arousal, which can amplify anxiety.

Millennials are more forgetful than OAP's; they've outsourced their memory to Google, GPS, calendar alerts etc. Columbia University found that when people know that they'll be able to find information online easily, they're less likely to form a memory of it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you worried your child has too much screen time? Find out the potential effects it could have on your child and tips to help limit screen time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alex Lin Helps Reduce E-Waste⎢TakePart TV

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wired.com/story/brief-history-digital-panic/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg’s speech at UN climate change conference

# data[].attributes.headline
Screen Time May Actually Be Good for Kids

# data[].attributes.subject
Screen Time May Actually Be Good for Kids

# data[].attributes.body
Forbes Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unrecognizable girl playing game on tablet computer
Getty

It's perhaps one of the biggest parenting faux pas of the 21st century: letting any of our ubiquitous screens act as babysitter. But new research out of Oxford, Cardiff and Cambridge Universities finds that screen time in moderation actually seems to have a positive effect on kids.

The researchers found that children who spend one to two hours daily watching television or using digital devices had higher levels of social and emotional well-being versus those who reported no screen time.

"In light of our findings, calls for blanket technology bans and age restrictions on technology access do not constitute evidence-based or indeed ethical advice, particularly as screen usage in some cases has a net positive impact," said Professor Andrew Przybylski, Director of Research at the Oxford Internet Institute, in a release.

Przybylski is lead author of the new study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

The research is based on survey data from questionnaires filled out by the caregivers of over 35,000 American children about their screen time and observable psychosocial functioning.

Some interesting data points include:

On average children spend one hour and 41 minutes engaged in television-based activities such as gaming and viewing films;

On average, children spend one hour and 53 minutes engaged in device-based activities using tablets and smartphones;

Children could watch over four hours of television-based activities before showing any signs of functioning difficulties;

Children could engage in over five hours of device-based activities before exhibiting significant functioning difficulties.

It's worth noting here that all this data is based on the subjective reporting of the caregivers that were surveyed, which could be prone to considerable biases given the close relationships between caregiver and child.

"We urge others to build on our findings which show the possible influence of digital screen engagement is likely to be smaller and more nuanced that many might first expect," said Dr. Amy Orben, a college research fellow at the University of Cambridge.

Still, this surprising finding, even if preliminary, challenges the popular narrative that screen time is zombie-fying our kids. Could it be the case that society has shifted in recent decades enough that functioning in society may actually require a certain amount of screen time? Or was it just never really a big problem in the first place?

"Very few children, if any, routinely use television and device-based screens enough, on average, to show significantly lower levels of psychological functioning," Przybylski says. "Instead these findings indicate that other aspects of digital engagement, including what is on screens and how caregivers moderate their use, are far more important."

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Screen Time May Actually Be Good For Kids, New Oxford Study Finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's perhaps one of the biggest parenting faux pas of the 21st century: letting any of our ubiquitous screens act as babysitter. But new research out of Oxford, Cardiff and Cambridge Universities finds that screen time in moderation actually seems to have a positive effect on kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greta Thunberg: Who is the climate activist and what has she achieved?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The climate activist has been arrested in Sweden and the UK as a result of her protests.

# data[].attributes.body
MIT Tech Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Andrew Przybylski of the Oxford Internet Institute thinks that's way off base. In a controversial new study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, he and colleagues don't just swipe at the predominant thinking that kids should be exposed to as little screen time as possible-they argue that moderate screen time is actually good for kids.

The study set out to test two ideas. "The first was to test if there were 'optimal' levels of screen time in young people," Przybylski said via email. "The second was to look for a critical value, or tipping point, at which screen engagement was significantly related to well-being outcomes."

Przybylski, along with his colleagues, found "modest positive relations" when kids used devices and/or watched television for up to two hours a day. Contrary to medical recommendations, the team reported that kids would need to be using screens "for more than five hours a day" before parents would notice any differences.

The study's findings are based on data from more than 35,000 American children and caregivers and reported by the National Survey of Children's Health via the US Census Bureau between June 2016 and February 2017. Przybylski says his analysis suggests that children who are using a digital device-a television, video game console, tablet, laptop, smartphone, or any other gadget with a screen-have better social and emotional skills than kids who don't use this technology.

The research overturns dominant thinking about screen time, which has overwhelmingly pointed to worrisome increases in rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies.

Jean Twenge is one of the most prominent critics of letting children have screen time and the author of the book , which argues that technology is making kids less happy. She said in an email she found the study "very strange," particularly because she and her colleagues used the same census data as Przybylski in a paper last year and found the opposite results: heavy screen use led to almost three times the rate of psychosocial issues in kids. Przybylski's interpretation of the same data was that the differences between heavy and light use were small, a discrepancy Twenge said was puzzling.

Przybylski stood firmly by his team's results despite the criticism, even going so far as to suggest that previous research in the area has been statistically suspect. "Nearly all the studies on this topic are very poorly done; most don't share their data, code, or conform to best research practices," he said. "More than results, what sets our research ... apart is an emphasis on empirical rigor."

Twenge conceded that her statistical methods were up for debate, but she stood by her overall conclusion that screen time was unhealthy for children. The data "do not show benefits for moderate use," she said. "Instead, the best outcomes appear at light use for teens. For younger children, the best outcomes are at no use or very light use."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about screen time for kids: children between 2 and 5 should be limited to "one hour a day of high-quality programming" infants between 18 and 24 months can have screen time so long as it's high quality and with a caregiver babies shouldn't be exposed to screens...

# data[].attributes.headline
Screen Time Guidelines for Babies and Toddlers

# data[].attributes.subject
Screen Time Guidelines for Babies and Toddlers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of a baby's brain development happens in the first 2 years of life. That's why it's so important for babies and toddlers to explore their environment and experience many sights, sounds, tastes, and textures. Interacting and playing with others helps children learn about the world around them.

So experts recommend limiting the amount of time that babies and toddlers spend in front of a screen. That's good advice - but in today's world, it can be tough to keep babies and toddlers away from all the TVs, tablets, computers, smartphones, and gaming systems they'll see.

How Much Is Too Much?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that babies younger than 18 months get no screen time at all. The exception to this rule is video chatting with grandparents or other family members or friends, which is considered quality time interacting with others.

Toddlers 18 months to 24 months old can start to enjoy some screen time with a parent or caregiver. Children this age can learn when an adult is there to reinforce lessons.

By ages 2 and 3, it's OK for kids to watch up to 1 hour a day of high-quality educational programming.

Media Use Tips

When introducing media to toddlers:

Be with young kids when they use electronic devices. That can mean playing an educational game or talking about something you see together in an age-appropriate TV show or video.

Research games and apps before getting them for your child. Thousands of apps and games claim to be educational, but not all of them are. Search online to see which ones educators and doctors consider the best. Common Sense Media has information about age and content appropriateness of video games and other media. When possible, preview the media before sharing with your child.

Schedule plenty of non-screen time into your child's day. Playtime is important for learning and building creativity. Schedule lots of time for hands-on learning and interacting with caregivers and friends. Also, encourage your child to be physically active every day.

Turn off devices during meals and at least 1 hour before bed. Keep TVs and other electronics out of the bedroom.

Set a good example. Turn off TVs and other devices when not in use. Don't leave screens on in the background and turn off your phone when you are with your child. This can distract from your interactions and your child's play.

Talk to your doctor if you have any questions or concerns about managing your child's media use.

Date reviewed: August 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not sure how much screen time is appropriate for your baby or toddler? Get advice here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anya Kamenetz is the author of The Art of Screen Time: How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life. She believes a healthy life includes limited screen time.

Have you ever argued with your parents about putting away the tablet or turning off a video game? Most families are fighting these battles. In 2018, Brigham Young University and Deseret News conducted their American Family Survey. It showed that the Number 1 fear for parents of teenagers was too much technology.

You may not remember a time before there were smartphones and tablets everywhere. The iPhone was introduced in 2007. The iPad came out in 2010. But screen time is nothing new. When your parents were growing up, they watched television. They probably played video games, too.

Mobile × mobile BETSIE VAN DER MEER able to carried from place to place (adjective) My parents said that when I turn 13, they will buy me my own mobile phone. devices are different, though. This is because they can come with us wherever we go: to the dinner table, into the car, into the bedroom when we're going to sleep. They are programmed to remind us to pick them up or to keep using them. That's part of what makes smartphones smart! But it also means they interrupt us when we're trying to have family time and fun with friends. Everyone is now distracted by his or her own little machine.

Scientists who study the effects of media × media DAVID FINCH/GETTY IMAGES the radio stations, television programs, newspapers, websites, etc., that communicate information to the public (noun) The Olympics attract a lot of attention in the media. say too much screen time can cause problems. More than two hours a day of screen time raises your risk of being overweight. Too much screen time at night stops you from getting healthy sleep. Children who grow up with the most screen time can have a hard time focusing. And many families fight about screen time. That's no fun for anyone.

The solution is to talk about screen time. Make an agreement with your family about where, when, and how you are going to use your devices. No more than an hour a day is recommended for kids during the school week.

And take some time to enjoy your device with your family, perhaps by watching a movie. The American Academy of Pediatrics calls this "joint media engagement." The group says it's the best way for kids to grow up healthy in our digital world.

Stop & Think! How is an opinion essay different from a news article? What evidence does Anya Kamenetz use to support her opinion? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anya Kamenetz is the author of The Art of Screen Time: How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life. She believes a healthy life includes limited screen time. Have you ever argued with your parents about putting away...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School, a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"James Cameron and his team pull together a new CGI of how they believe the Titanic sank and reached the ocean floor...". In this video from National Geographic, we learn more about the physics of it - how it sunk and broke in half from the stress, its size and weight, falling and hitting bottom in water, and more.

Having already seen National Geographic's April 15th, 2012 issue for the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking, watching the magazine's still images turned into this animation was a treat for our kid editorial team.

More NatGeo and Cameron: What protects human deep divers down in the Mariana Trench?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"James Cameron and his team pull together a new CGI of how they believe the Titanic sank and reached the ocean floor...". In this video from National

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Future Women of America: Meet Mari Copeny

# data[].attributes.headline
What do we really know about kids and screen time? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What do we really know about kids and screen time? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the time research on screen time reaches the public, it's often framed in black-and-white terms: guidelines setting out strict time limits, or news reports with titles like "Are Screens Bad for Kids?"

In reality, though, screen time research has been less than definitive, mainly owing to a lack of strong longitudinal studies to date. That's now beginning to change as psychologists and other child development experts take a deeper and increasingly nuanced look at children's and teens' use of tablets, phones and other screens. Researchers are now paying close attention to the kinds of content kids are consuming via digital devices. They're looking at the environment that surrounds screen time, including parenting and socioeconomic status. And they're buckling down for the long haul, building new longitudinal studies that will help answer complex questions about kids, teens and screens.

In particular, they're studying both the potential benefits of screens-if they can be used as teaching tools-and the potential physical and mental health drawbacks.

The picture that has emerged suggests that the youngest children don't learn well from screens. As kids get older, they can learn meaningful information from screens, but the ubiquity of digital devices also means that children can easily spend far too much time being sedentary. Nevertheless, total abstinence from recreational screen time may backfire for older kids and teens.

Meanwhile, many questions remain about how much screen time is too much and about the effects of different types of activities that involve screens.

"As psychologists, it's really important for us to have scientific-based evidence behind what we're recommending. We're not there yet," says Jerri Lynn Hogg, PhD, a media psychologist at Fielding Graduate University. "We have ideas, but the problem is that the technology is getting more and more sophisticated and more ubiquitous."

The challenges of screen time

In all the popular-media hubbub and scientific debate over screen time, it's easy to forget how quickly these issues have evolved: The first-generation iPhone was introduced only 13 years ago, in 2007, the same year Netflix introduced streaming services. The iPad just saw its 10th birthday. Television and video games have been around for decades, of course, but never so portably and easily accessed.

Amid this rapid change, professional organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have stepped in with recommendations. AAP calls for no screen time at all for children until 18 to 24 months, except for video chatting, and says kids ages 2 to 5 should get an hour or less of screen time per day. It has also developed the Family Media Use Plan for older kids, in which parents and children negotiate limits and boundaries around screen usage. In its guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep for young children, WHO similarly recommends no screens for kids under 2, and less than an hour a day for kids 2 to 5.

However, some critics charge that much of the research backing up the guidelines is correlational, cross-sectional or based upon self-report-though there are longitudinal studies in the mix, too. And not all research effectively differentiates between different types of screen time. Many studies lump all screen time together into one category, though it seems unlikely that video chatting with Grandma, for example, would have much in common with playing "Grand Theft Auto V."

Isolating the effects of screens from all the other experiences kids are exposed to is a challenge as well. It would be difficult indeed to run a long-term, randomized study in which children were assigned to different amounts of screen time each day and then tracked over their life spans to measure well-being outcomes. Imagine the look on a parent's face when told their child would be required to watch six hours of television every day-or that they could never watch a screen at all.

What is clear is that many parents often don't enforce the screen time limits suggested by the guidelines. For example, a study led by economist Weiwei Chen, PhD, of Florida International University, found that, as of 2014, children age 2 and under in the United States averaged 3 hours, 3 minutes a day of screen time, up from 1 hour, 19 minutes a day in 1997. Three- to 5-year-olds got 2 hours, 28 minutes a day of screen time, on average, during that time period (JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 173, No. 4, 2019).

Qualitative studies suggest several reasons for the widespread screen use. One survey of 133 parents of preschool-age kids led by Rutgers University professor of nutritional sciences Carol Byrd-Bredbenner, PhD, for example, found that many parents reported lacking affordable alternative entertainment for their kids. Others cited factors such as their own exhaustion, the need to get things done around the house and bad weather for excess screen time (Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 47, No. 4, 2015).

Babies, toddlers, preschoolers and screens

Research has, however, turned up evidence to support limiting screen time for babies and young children. One longitudinal study of 2,441 mothers and children, led by University of Calgary psychologist Sheri Madigan, PhD, found that more time per week spent on screens at ages 24 months and 36 months was linked with poorer performance on screening tests for behavioral, cognitive and social development at 36 months (JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 173, No. 3, 2019 ). The opposite association (poorer development leading to more screen time) was not seen, suggesting that the linkage wasn't a matter of parents leaning on screen time to handle a challenging child. Instead, the excessive screen time seemed to precede the developmental difficulties.

Despite experts' concerns, media for babies and toddlers has been on the market for years, often with promises of stimulation and education-the "Baby Einstein" videos are one prominent example. But the evidence is strong that screens aren't an effective teaching tool for the baby and toddler set, and they could displace the kinds of face-to-face interactions that actually help young kids learn. A 2005 review led by developmental psychologist Daniel Anderson, PhD, now a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found that television viewing consistently failed to teach kids age 2 and younger as much as live interaction (American Behavioral Scientist , Vol. 48, No. 5, 2005 ). This "video deficit" was seen in simple imitation tasks, in language learning and in emotional learning.

"The basic pattern that has been found in dozens of studies is that children learn better from a person who is with them face-to-face than from a person on a screen, even if it's the exact same person doing the exact same thing," says Georgene Troseth, PhD, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University.

More recently, researchers like Troseth are trying to understand why this screen learning gap occurs in toddlers. That toddlers struggle to learn from videos does not seem to be perceptual, Troseth says, but conceptual: Until they're around age 3, kids seem to view video as irrelevant to real life. In numerous studies, toddlers shown video of an experimenter hiding a toy in the room next door are terrible at finding that toy in the real room immediately afterward. In one study co-authored by Troseth, however, toddlers who watched a toy being hidden on a screen disguised to look like a window were much better at finding the toy than toddlers who saw the toy hidden on a regular screen (Child Development , Vol. 69, No. 4, 1998 ). "When they were told they were watching through a window, they were willing to take in the information," Troseth says. "The idea when they're watching on TV seems to be, 'You're not going to fool me, I know that's not real.'"

Though screen time recommendations for the youngest kids now make exceptions for video chatting, the evidence also suggests that toddlers find this medium confusing and that they struggle to make sense of video chat unless they have help from an adult who is physically present. In one study by Troseth and her colleagues, for example, 2-year-olds were assigned to either watch a prerecorded video intended to teach them new words or to engage in a word-learning video chat session with an experimenter. In half of the cases, the child's parent simply sat with the child. In the other half, the parent followed the experimenter's directions, modeling interactions with the video screen. A live video chat kept the kids' attention better than a prerecorded video, but only kids whose parents participated alongside them were able to learn new words from the screen (Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , Vol. 166, 2018 ).

Three- to 5-year-olds, on the other hand, are a bit more savvy. Since the early days of "Sesame Street," research has found that this age group can learn from slow-paced, thoughtfully designed children's media. For example, in tests of prereading skills such as alphabet recognition and letter sounds, kids who were randomly assigned to watch a 20-episode run of the literacy show "Super Why!" outperformed kids who were assigned to watch an educational science series, according to a study of 171 preschoolers conducted by Deborah Nichols, PhD, the director of the Children's Media Lab at Purdue University ( International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education , Vol. 6, No. 1, 2015 ). Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds generally saw greater gains than children in the wealthiest families, possibly because the more privileged children were already exposed to more literacy enrichment than the less-advantaged group.

Television's educational potential isn't limited to academic skills: A study of the PBS show "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" led by Texas Tech University media researcher Eric Rasmussen, PhD, found that kids who were randomly assigned to watch the program showed greater emotion recognition, empathy and self-efficacy-if those children also came from homes where parents consistently talked to their children about their TV viewing ( Journal of Children and Media , Vol. 10, No. 4, 2016 ). As with toddlers, preschoolers seem to benefit from adults co-viewing their media.

Co-viewing may seem a steep price to pay for parents who are desperate to use their child's screen time to make dinner or pack tomorrow's lunch, but it doesn't have to be a full-time job, Hogg says. Rather, she recommends parents should aim to scaffold their child's screen time, first watching a few episodes with them and talking about the content, then stepping back and checking in as the child becomes familiar with how media works.

Growing up digital

As children mature, they're exposed to more screens, with more diverse content via television, video games and social media. A report released in October 2019 by the nonprofit organization Common Sense Media found that 8- to 12-year-olds in the United States now use screens for entertainment for an average of 4 hours, 44 minutes a day, and 13- to 18-year-olds are on screens for an average of 7 hours, 22 minutes each day (The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens , 2019). These numbers don't count time using screens for schoolwork or homework.

Common Sense Media's data also reveal a substantial disparity in media use based on socioeconomic status, with 8- to 12-year-olds from high income families using 1 hour, 50 minutes less of media each day than kids of the same age from low income families. Teens show a similar gap. Previous research has suggested that increased screen time in poorer families may be an attempt by parents to protect their children; studies in multiple countries have found that parent anxiety about neighborhood safety and actual neighborhood safety are linked to more screen time and less physical activity. For example, health researchers Valerie Carson, PhD, of the University of Alberta, and Ian Janssen, PhD, of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, found that kids who lived in neighborhoods with the highest social and physical disorder (such as crime, graffiti and gang activity) had a 40% to 60% higher likelihood of high screen use (International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , Vol. 9, No. 66, 2012). Higher-income families may also have more alternatives to screen time available, in the form of extracurricular activities and safe recreation areas.

As with young children, there are reasons for concern over large amounts of screen time in tweens and teens. Correlational studies have shown that 8- to 11-year-olds who exceed screen time recommendations scored lower on cognitive assessments, with compliance with recommendations explaining about a fifth of the overall variance in cognitive scores (The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health , Vol. 2, No. 11, 2018). A combination of screen time and too little sleep has also been associated with heightened impulsivity in the same age group (Pediatrics , Vol. 144, No. 3, 2019).

These studies weren't designed to show causal relationships, though, says Gary Goldfield, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Ottawa who coauthored both studies. It could be that increased impulsivity or struggles with cognition drive the excess screen time. Nevertheless, in numerous studies, Goldfield and his team have consistently found the best mental health and cognitive outcomes in teens who do one hour of physical activity each day, sleep eight to 10 hours a day and use screens recreationally less than two hours a day.

Researchers have also found links between screen time and various health outcomes in teens, though again, establishing definitive causal relationships is difficult. The firmest associations are between screen time and obesity and screen time and depressive symptoms, according to a systematic review of reviews published by University College London (UCL) psychologist Neza Stiglic, PhD, and Russell Viner, PhD, a professor of adolescent health at UCL (BMJ Open , Vol. 9, No. 1, 2019). Most research on obesity focused on television viewing and found that more time spent watching TV was associated with a higher body mass index or body fat composition. Multiple studies also found that screen use of more than two hours a day was correlated with depressive symptoms. The reviewers found moderate evidence linking screen time to poorer quality of life, higher caloric intake and less-healthy diets. Evidence linking screen time to other problems, such as behavior issues, anxiety, and low feelings of well-being and self-esteem, was weak, with studies on these outcomes returning mixed results.

A study led by psychologists Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge, and Andrew Przybylski, PhD, of the University of Oxford, found that screen time as measured by time-use diaries (as opposed to retrospective self-reports, which many studies use) in large did not have noticeable effects on teen psychological well-being, according to nationally representative data sets in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland (Psychological Science , Vol. 30, No. 5, 2019). But other research points to complicated relationships between screen time and well-being. For example, a study led by physician Pierre-André Michaud, MD, of the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine in Lausanne, Switzerland, found a U-shaped relationship between internet use and adolescent mental and physical heath, such that moderate users were the best off (Pediatrics , Vol. 127, No. 2, 2011).

"A lot depends on how kids are using media, how much their parents are monitoring their use, how much time they're spending and what exactly they're watching and using," says Victor Strasburger, MD, a pediatrician and professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Future research and recommendations

Fortunately, a new longitudinal data set may help illuminate some of the outstanding questions about adolescents and screen time. In 2015, the National Institutes of Health began funding the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, the largest ever longitudinal study on teen brain and behavioral development in the United States. More than 10,000 9- to 10-year-olds have been recruited and are being followed to young adulthood. Screen time data are among the information being collected, and researchers are already using the first wave: Goldfield's cognition and impulsivity studies drew from ABCD data. "We're pretty excited about this database," he says.

In the meantime, some experts recommend a mindful approach to media. Simply banning screens may backfire, says Jon Lasser, PhD, a psychologist at Texas State University and co-author, with Mike Brooks, PhD, of the 2018 book "Tech Generation: Raising Balanced Kids in a Hyper-Connected World."

"It's important for kids to develop the capacity to self-regulate," Lasser says, "and parents who try to micromanage screen time may inadvertently interfere with that self-regulatory development."

Lasser and Brooks include a tool in their book called the Family Assessment of Screen Time, or FAST, which family members can use to gauge their feelings about screen time-their own and each other's. The tool is similar to AAP's Family Media Use Plan, in which parents and children, 5 years and older, negotiate limits and boundaries around screen usage.

Finally, parents should keep co-viewing media with their kids. Keeping an open line of communication around media helps protect kids when they inevitably run into content they aren't ready to see, Strasburger says. A healthy, nonrancorous relationship around media also makes it easier to enforce boundaries when required.

"The number one recommendation that we give to parents is [to] spend time engaged with their kids," Lasser says. "It's simple, it's good parenting and it promotes a healthy relationship."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What do we really know about kids and screens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers are now paying close attention to the kinds of content kids are consuming via digital devices as well as the environment that surrounds screen time, including parenting and socioeconomic status.