Form - Research - Binghamton University: Fill & Download for Free

Baruch College does not have a traditional campus per se and are a few buildings in Manhattan with no dorms, so if you are looking for the full college experience, Baruch may not be for you. Fordham is a complete college with 2 campuses and full college life. BUT Baruch is also far less expensive than Fordham and that is important and offers many good programs.An important difference: Fordham is a national university (as judged in US N&WR) whereas Baruch is a regional college. Baruch is public so is far less expensive.So how do they compare?US News and World report:Fordham and Baruch both were tied for accounting at #77. This is pretty good considering how many (some 2,000) schools offer an accounting major.Six schools ranked in Businessweek’s Top Undergraduate Business Programs form NY in 2013: Cornell University (3), New York University (14), Fordham University (40), Binghamton University (57), Syracuse University (72), Rochester Institute of Technology (93)Bloomberg rating of undergraduate business schools for 2016/17 has Fordham at #27, Baruch at #57.College Choice of the top 10 Business schools In NY state, Fordham is #5, [Baruch not in this group].The Gabelli School of Business, undergraduate was ranked no. 8 of "Undergraduate International Business Rankings" by the U.S. News & World Report in 2017.The Gabelli School of Business, undergraduate was ranked no. 14 of "Undergraduate Business Finance Rankings" by the U.S. News & World Report in 2017. [Baruch not in top 50].“The 2017 edition of U.S. News & World Report lists Fordham as a "more selective" national university . Fordham University has produced at least 119 Fulbright Scholars since 2003. Other Fordham rankings:“U.S. undergraduate rankings60, America's Best Colleges: National Universities, U.S. News & World Report, 2017.42, High School Counselor Rankings: U.S. News & World Report, 2017.8, Undergraduate International Business Rankings: U.S. News & World Report, 2017.76, Best Values in Colleges and Universities: Private Universities, Kiplinger, 2014.27, Best Undergraduate Business Schools, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2016.Included in The Best 377 Colleges, The Princeton Review, 2013.Included in The 25 Hottest Schools in America, Kaplan/Newsweek, 2008The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifies Fordham as a doctoral university with high research activity (RU/H).“Paris School of Mines' listing, which reviews over 3,000 educational institutions around the world, selects some 700 schools and ranks them according to their ability to place their graduates in Fortune 500 CEO and leading positions, ranked Fordham University 63rd on the list in 2009 but the research has been updated and Fordham is now listed as 16th.”“Fordham ranked 93rd amongst the World’s top 100 universities for producing millionaires.”I offered this so perhaps when the above factors are taken into account, it may help to offset the considerable difference in cost to a degree. It is best to visit each school and form your own conclusion.

Right now it takes an enormous amount of effort to bring a product from successful lab experiment to production.The government often pays for basic research through the NSF but even if a lab experiment proves exciting it takes a long, long time to becme a product.Lithium batteries were proposed by British chemist M Stanley Whittingham, now at Binghamton University, while working for Exxon in the 1970s.Whittingham used titanium( sulfide and lithium metal as the electrodes. However, this rechargeable lithium battery could never be made practical. Titanium disulfide was a poor choice, since it has to be synthesized under completely sealed conditions. This is extremely expensive (~$1000 per kilo for titanium disulfide raw material in 1970s). When exposed to air, titanium disulfide reacts to form hydrogen sulfide compounds, which have an unpleasant odour. For this, and other reasons, Exxon discontinued development of Whittingham's lithium-titanium disulfide battery.In 1980, the American physicist Professor John Goodenough invented a new type of lithium battery in which the lithium (Li) could migrate through the battery from one electrode to the other as a Li+ ion.Depending on the transition metal used in the lithium-ion battery, the cell can have a higher capacity but can be more reactive and susceptible to a phenomenon known as thermal runaway.In the case of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) batteries made by Sony in the 1990s, this led to many such batteries catching fire. The possibility of making battery cathodes from nano-scale material and hence more reactive was out of the question.But in the 1990s Goodenough again made a huge leap in battery technology by introducing a stable lithium-ion cathode based on lithium iron and phosphate.This cathode is thermally stable. It also means that nano-scale lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) or lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) materials can now be made safely into large format cells that can be rapidly charged and discharged.The first Laptop with a Lithium Ion battery was released by Toshiba in 1995. It was 20 years between the invention and what we think of as “normal” commercialization of this now ubiquitous technology.…so did the “technology” exist in 1970, in the 80’s or not till the 90’s ? If it’s the 70’s or 80’s is it in our interest to have the government sponsor commercialization (and failure of most) technologies? I would propose that by allowing failure without gross punishment (limited liability corporations) the government has setup a pretty good system to bring (risky) technologies to commercialization. Would it be better to sponsor technologies in a meaningful way as was done with the basket of technologies used for the Apollo missions? probably. But I don’t believe the government is holding back a bunch of technologies at this point. Applications for existing technologies maybe..even probably for some use cases…but the actual technologies themselves. That seems unlikely.

Here is a list of peer-reviewed academic papers that have been published in academic journals that talk about a number of negative effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on brain activity. I have provided links to the sources and a list of the authors and the universities or research institutes they pertain to. I have also highlighted some relevant information from the abstracts.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in ratsNeurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in ratsPamela K. Denbesten, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115Phyllis J. Mullenix, Toxicology Department, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA 02115Ann Schunior, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, NY 14621William J. Kernan, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011Received 25 March 1994. Accepted 12 October 1994. Available online 28 December 1999.Fluoride (F) is known to affect mineralizing tissues, but effects upon the developing brain have not been previously considered. This study in Sprague-Dawley rats compares behavior, body weight, plasma and brain F levels after sodium fluoride (NaF) exposures during late gestation, at weaning or in adults. For prenatal exposures, dams received injections (SC) of 0.13 mg/kg NaF or saline on gestational days 14–18 or 17–19. Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks. Behavior was tested in a computer pattern recognition system that classified acts in a novel environment and quantified act initiations, total times and time structures. Fluoride exposures caused sex- and dose-specific behavioral deficits with a common pattern. Males were most sensitive to prenatal day 17–19 exposure, whereas females were more sensitive to weanling and adult exposures. After fluoride ingestion, the severity of the effect on behavior increased directly with plasma F levels and F concentrations in specific brain regions. Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of Fluoride.Chronic administration of aluminum–fluoride or sodium–fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrityChronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrityJulie A Varnera, Robert L Isaacsona, Psychology Department, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USAKarl F Jensenb, Neurotoxicology Division, NHEERL, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, USAWilliam Horvathc, Chemistry Department, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USAAccepted 29 October 1997. Available online 27 April 1999.This study describes alterations in the nervous system resulting from chronic administration of the fluoroaluminum complex (AlF3) or equivalent levels of fluoride (F) in the form of sodium–fluoride (NaF). Twenty seven adult male Long–Evans rats were administered one of three treatments for 52 weeks: the control group was administered double distilled deionized drinking water (ddw). The aluminum-treated group received ddw with 0.5 ppm AlF3 and the NaF group received ddw with 2.1 ppm NaF containing the equivalent amount of F as in the AlF3 ddw. Tissue aluminum (Al) levels of brain, liver and kidney were assessed with the Direct Current Plasma (DCP) technique and its distribution assessed with Morin histochemistry. Histological sections of brain were stained with hematoxylin & eosin (H&E), Cresyl violet, Bielschowsky silver stain, or immunohistochemically for β-amyloid, amyloid A, and IgM. No differences were found between the body weights of rats in the different treatment groups although more rats died in the AlF3 group than in the control group. The Al levels in samples of brain and kidney were higher in both the AlF3 and NaF groups relative to controls. The effects of the two treatments on cerebrovascular and neuronal integrity were qualitatively and quantitatively different. These alterations were greater in animals in the AlF3 group than in the NaF group and greater in the NaF group than in controls.Arsenic and Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water: Children’s IQ and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, ChinaArsenic and Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water: Children’s IQ and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, ChinaSan-Xiang Wang, Zheng-Hui Wang, Xiao-Tian Cheng, Jun Li, Zhi-Ping Sang, Xiang-Dong Zhang, Ling-Ling Han, Xiao-Yan Qiao, Zhao-Ming Wu, Shanxi Institute for Prevention and Treatment of Endemic Disease, Linfen, Shanxi Province, People’s Republic of ChinaZhi-Quan Wang, Shanyin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanyin, Shanxi Province, People’s Republic of ChinaMethodsWe report the results of a study of 720 children between 8 and 12 years of age in rural villages in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. The children were exposed to As at concentrations of 142 ± 106 μg/L (medium-As group) and 190 ± 183 μg/L (high-As group) in drinking water compared with the control group that was exposed to low concentrations of As (2 ± 3 μg/L) and low concentrations of fluoride (0.5 ± 0.2 mg/L). A study group of children exposed to high concentrations of fluoride (8.3 ± 1.9 mg/L) but low concentrations of As (3 ± 3 μg/L) was also included because of the common occurrence of elevated concentrations of fluoride in groundwater in our study area. A standardized IQ (intelligence quotient) test was modified for children in rural China and was based on the classic Raven’s test used to determine the effects of these exposures on children’s intelligence. A standardized measurement procedure for weight, height, chest circumference, and lung capacity was used to determine the effects of these exposures on children’s growth.ResultsThe mean IQ scores decreased from 105 ± 15 for the control group, to 101 ± 16 for the medium-As group (p < 0.05), and to 95 ± 17 for the high-As group (p < 0.01). The mean IQ score for the high-fluoride group was 101 ± 16 and significantly different from that of the control group (p < 0.05). Children in the control group were taller than those in the high-fluoride group (p < 0.05); weighed more than the those in the high-As group (p < 0.05); and had higher lung capacity than those in the medium-As group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsChildren’s intelligence and growth can be affected by high concentrations of As or fluoride. The IQ scores of the children in the high-As group were the lowest among the four groups we investigated. It is more significant that high concentrations of As affect children’s intelligence. It indicates that arsenic exposure can affect children’s intelligence and growth.Effects of high fluoride and low iodine on biochemical indexes of the brain and learning-memory of offspring ratsPage on FluorideresearchProf. Jundong Wang, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi, 030801 PRCYaming Ge, Hongmei Ning, Shaolin WangDepartment of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849 USAShanxi, China; Fluoride 2004;37(3):201-8 Research report 201Thirty-two Wistar rats were divided randomly into four groups of eight rats (female:male = 3:1). With one untreated group as controls, the other three groups were administered, respectively, high fluoride in their drinking water (100 mg NaF/L), low iodine (0.0855 mg/kg chow), or both high fluoride (100 mg NaF/L) andlow iodine (0.0855 mg/kg) in order to assess the effects of the above three factors on the learning and memory ability of their offspring rats. After the animal model was established, the rats were allowed to breed, and 36 offspring rats in each group (female:male = 1:1) were randomly selected for the experiments. The treatment ofthese rats was the same as their parents. In comparison with control rats, the learning and memory ability of the offspring rats was depressed by high fluoride, low iodine, or the combination of high fluoride and low iodine. Brain protein was decreased by low iodine and even more by the combined interaction of high fluoride and low iodine. The activity of cholinesterase (ChE) in the brain was affected to some extent by high fluoride and low iodine but was especially affected by high fluoride and low iodine together.Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated ratsPage on FluorideresearchYM Shivarajashankara, AR Shivashankara, Dept. of Biochemistry, MR Medical College, Gulba; ga-585105, Karnataka, IndiP Gopalakrishna Bhat, Dept. of Biochemistry, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal-5761'19, Karnataka, IndiS Muddanna Rao, Dept. of Anatomy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal-576119, Kamataka, IndiaHanumant Rao, Dept. of Biochemistry, KBN Institute of Medical Sciences, Gulbarga-s8s104, Kamataka, IndiaWistar albino rats were exposed to 30 or 100 ppm fluoride (as NaF) in drinking water during their fetal, weanling, and post-weaning stages until the age of ten weeks. Rats exposed to 30 ppm fluoride did not show any notable alterations in brain histology, whereas rats exposed to 100 ppm fluoride showed significant neurodegenerative changes in the hippocampus, amygdala, motor cortex, and cerebellum. Changes included decrease in size and number of neurons in all the regions, decrease in the number of Purkinje cells in the cerebellum, and signs of chromatolysis and gliosis in the motor cortex. These histological changes suggest a toxic effect of high-fluoride intake during the early developing stages of life on the growth, differentiation, and subcellular organization of brain cells in rats.