Semester Review

This Communication Health, Science and the Environment class has taught me a lot of interesting things this semester.  Prior to this course, I had never thought about the health industry and the effects that it has on everyday people.  Through the course reading and lectures, I learned how issues with communicating with health specialist such as doctors had a direct effect on my family’s health.  I did not realize that issues in understanding my families health history and the norm with my family of not going to the doctor was impacting me and how it had impacted my family in the past.

During the Science portion of this class, the main idea that stuck with me was that scientist were basically facing the issue of be ignored by letting it happen.  I found it interesting that scientist were writing about their finding in scientific journals that were using only seen by the scientific community, while the media was able to influence the general public about science based on whatever they thought made for a good story.  This, along with a literacy gap, allowed for the general public to alienate the scientific community and feel as if they were not as important as they truly were.

My favorite unit, and the one that I took the most from, was the environment unit.  This unit taught me things that are applicable to what I do in my everyday life.   I am an environmental studies major, and I currently work for organizations who focus on communicating environmental issues to the public, as well as attempt to teach them how to mitigate these issues.  The environmental unit taught me about more about the effects of American consumerism and what the production process does to the environment.  I had always tried to teach the public about his issue but I felt that the reading that were provided in this class and the video from “The Story of Stuff” really taught me some useful thing about this topic.

Overall, I truly enjoyed this class and I learned more from in than I can say in this blog post.  I feel like I am walking away from this class with an entire new mindset.  I would love to take more classes like this one if they were taught by Dr. Sastry.

Josh Clyde

Fiji Water-Greenwashing

The product I am going to analyze is Fiji Water.  Fiji Water has the very apparent negative environmental  problem of being commodified water sold in a plastic bottle, but they also launched a green campaign at one point in an attempt to make their product appear to be eco-friendly.  The below add is from that campaign:

The Hidden Trade Off: This one is the most obvious.  Fiji is claiming that they are improving the environment by reducing carbon emissions and protection the rainforests.  They do not mention all of the negative effects that producing bottled water has on the world.  From emissions, use of unnecessary resources, and after life pollution.  They are attempting to make the consumer overlook those issues and see them as green.

No Proof:  There is no way of proving that carbon emissions are being reduced by purchasing this product.  Most likely because they are not.  Plastic bottle production is adding carbon emissions to the atmosphere so it’s a bit like throwing a cup of water on a burning house.

Vagueness:  This sin is found in the claim “Every Drop is Green”.  What does that even mean? There is no clear definition of the word “green” as used as an environmental term.  It is a fad word used to represent environmentally friendly activity, but it is free to be used by anyone without regulation.

Irrelevance:  I do not see any statements of irrelevance.

Lesser of Two Evils: This could be found in the bottled water industry if Fiji’s claims are true.  Fiji could potentially be the most environmentally friendly of bottled waters, but bottled waters will never be environmentally friendly.

Fibbing:  I would go back to the “Every Drop is Green” claim and the idea that Fiji is reducing carbon emissions.  I think a little research would find that Fiji is still having a very negative affect on the environment.

Worshiping False Labels: At first,  I did not think this sin was committed.  Then I noticed the green water drop in the white circle.  What is that?  I do not believe that symbol has any meaning to it, and I think that Fiji is attempting to give the idea that some organization has place their seal of approval on their product by putting it on their advertisement.

BIG IDEA: DO NOT BUY BOTTLED WATER OF ANY BRAND.  IT WILL NEVER BE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND IT IS JUST A SCAM THAT WAS CREATED TO TAKE YOUR MONEY.

Josh Clyde

 

Minimalism, Is it the Answer?

This week in class we talked about consumerism and the damage that our consumer nation does to the environment and the rest of the world.  The sad part about it is we notice what harm we are doing, but we just keep on doing it.  It has even gotten worse.  I am going to pick on a company that I personally hate, Keurig.  Keurig machines, and other pod coffee machines, use small single-use, non-biodegradable cups to make a single cup of coffee.  To make matters worse, these cups are also non-recyclable.  Enough of these cups were sold in 2014 to wrap around the globe at least 10.5 times. The inventor of the k-cup, John Sylvan sold his company in 1997 and now regrets ever creating it. Here is an article in which Sylvan discusses why he is now against the use of his invention:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/03/03/creator-k-cup-regrets-inventing-them

K-cups are just one product that we see doing damage to our environment that we just cannot seem to stop buying.  People seem to be willing to look the other way when faced with the negative effects of products in the name of convenience or in order create their self-image.  We buy clothing and electronics that we love and then hate within a few months or a year, and then we toss them out and buy new.  We do not think about, or care where these things go or what went into making them.  We just want-want-want and nothing can stop us. We take durable items and make disposable versions of them. Cups, bags, eating utensils, the list is endless.  We buy-use-toss.

The only real answer to all of this is to reduce.  That’s right, the famous reduce from the “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” arrows that have become so popular in the environmental movement.  Of those three words, the real winner is “reduce”.  Reduce our consumption of all things.  The closer we can get ourselves to a minimalist lifestyle, the better off our world will be. Some studies even show that less things often equates to more happiness in a person’s life.  Just think, less waste, less clutter, less money spent.  Just a few durable products that you absolutely need.  I think that this is something that I could get into.

-Josh Clyde-

Childhood Memories-Josh Clyde-

In our textbook, Corbett says that a common thing amongst environmentalist is the memory of spending the majority of their chilfdhood outside.  She says that children with fond outdoor memories or memories with nature have a much higher chance of feeling a connection with the natural world.

When I was younger, I never remember playing video games or spending time inside.  It didn’t matter if it was raining, snowing, or blistering hot, I was outside with almost every other child in my neighborhood. One of our favorite place was a small wooded area with a stream running through it.  We would catch frogs and crawl dads there, play capture the flag, and navigate paths that we made ourselves as a way of feeling like young explorers.  We could spend all day in the small woods.  To us it seemed like a whole new world.

This is the place and time that comes to mind when I close my eyes and think about the first experience that I had with nature.  From there I began to see the images of national parks and wide spread ocean as magical places.  I idolized them as safe havens that offered minimal danger and endless possibilities for peace and happiness.  Even today I chase the feeling of being “alone” in nature, or at least as close to it as I can.

Sierra Clubs’s ICO Program helps children from inner cities create their own memories wit nature 

I believe that these thoughts and experiences are what led me to choose a degree in environmental studies.  I feel that it is my duty, as it should be everyone’s, to protect what the natural world and the ecological services that it provides to all living creatures on this planet.  I now use my free time to advocate for clean water with the Sierra Club’s Clean Water Campaign as well as support community education of environmental importance in committees that I am a part of in Cincinnati.  I hope to one day make a career of it.

I think that Corbett is very right about what she said about a child taking the experiences that they have as children and turning it into a greater connection with nature.  I believe this is exactly what happened to me.

Josh Clyde

Nuclear Fallout-Josh Clyde

This week’s viewing of a documentary about the horrific events that took place in Bhopal India had a huge effect on me.  I had known about what had happen in Bhopal prior to the documentary but I had never seen the lasting effects of it.  It got me thinking about other ways that people put other people and the environment at risk in the name of money or success.  Something came to mind that was less of an apparent danger, but also a danger worldwide, is the nuclear fallout effect.

The effects of nuclear testing around the world have polluted and poisoned our environment.  Both above ground testing and testing being carried out in the oceans have resulted in nuclear fallout that has become a part of a lot of people’s anatomy in most parts of the world.  Below is a time lapse video that shows every nuclear explosion from 1945-1998.  I know it starts off slow, and it may seem boring at first, but this video is eye opening. At the very least, skim through it.

As a result of the increase in nuclear testing worldwide, and a push by husband and wife Eric and Louise Reiss, research was done in the 1960’s to find out what from these nuclear fallouts was being absorbed by the human body. The main focus of this study was on strontium-90, which was known to be a cancer causing isotope that was polluting water ways and accumulating in calcium products such as dairy.  The question was, was this also accumulating in human bones?  To find out, the Greater St. Louis Citizens’ Committee for Nuclear Information at St. Louis University sent out requests for teeth to local school in the area in an attempt to collect baby teeth when they fall out.  This test was deemed the “Baby Tooth Survey”. In all, 300,000 teeth were collected by mail.

The results of this research study showed that strontium-90 levels in children born in the 1950s and later had risen steadily year by year.  Children born in 1963 showed as much as 50 times more strontium-90 in their teeth than children born before above ground nuclear testing became common practice.  These findings led to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the U.S., U.K., and the Soviet Union.  This treaty made above ground nuclear testing, which produced the highest levels of atmospheric pollution, illegal.

Josh Clyde

Who is Really in Charge?-Josh Clyde-

Something that we talked about this week in class was the very confusing “debate” on climate change.  This is not like other debates in that there is not a one side verse the other, but instead a side that is based on facts from data collected by the MAJORITY of  REAL scientists and a opposing few who prefer to consider their own private agendas and preach false claims based on what would benefit them and their allies more.  The number that we hear over and over again is the same old 97%.  That is 97% of scientist are in consensus that global warming is a real occurring issue in our world today.  The troubling part is that because of government leaders like Ted Cruz spewing out garbage like “Climate change is not science, its religion”, only 45% of the general public are in agreement on climate change issues.

 

The question derived from all of this might be, why?  Why would politicians with law degrees think they are qualified to argue with 97% of scientist? Why would people who are supposed to be leaders in our communities put their personal gains above the public good?  In my opinion, the answer is money.  I do not mean to continue picking on Ted Cruz (although it isn’t hard to do), but since we have already seen his opinion on climate change, lets looks at what might drive his opinion.  The oil and gas industry is one of Ted’s top campaign donors, contributing $887,451.00 to his 2016 campaign.  Now do you think those industries would continue funding Cruz if he were to, I don’t know, maybe use scientific data as intended and announce that climate change is real occurring problem?  What if Cruz decided that we needed to focus more on electric cars and cut back on plastic production as well as other oil based industries? I think that funding would be gone in the blink of an eye.

Below are some other 2016 past and present presidential candidates and their opinions on climate change:

https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/135705/ted-cruz#.Vt3K_5wrLIU

Josh Clyde

Fast Life, Fast Food-Josh Clyde

This week in class we were able to watch a very informative documentary about the relationship between income levels and health wellness in America.  In this documentary, people from different income levels, races, and communities were interviewed about their daily lives in order to give us an idea of their stress levels, income allocation, and access to health care.  Prior to watching this film, I had always thought that people who received higher levels of income, such as CEOs, had higher levels of stress and would be more prone to health problems because of it.  I had always believed the idea of the CEO having a heart attack at 45 to be a common occurrence.  After watching this film I realized that diet had a huge effect on the health of lower income people.  I always knew that cheaper food was usually more processed food and that health food had a higher price tag, but I had never connected the dots between income, diet and health.

 

 

A study done by Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology made a direct connection between lower income families with irregular working hours and/or the need to work more than one job and an increase in fast food consumption in the household.  This type of diet leads to childhood obesity and health problems for both the children and their parents.  Food that is prepared outside of the home tends to have a lower nutritional value than food prepared inside the home.  It has been found that these meal are usually higher in calories, fat, salt and sugar while containing a lower amount of fruits and vegetables.

I can definitely see the reasoning for fast food seeming like the easy answer for a parent who is working two jobs and trying to feed a family.  When my mom worked two jobs when I was a kid, she would come home at night with whatever she would pass on the way home.  As a child, I didn’t think anything of it, but even if I did understand what I was eating how could I ask anything more of a person who was coming home exhausted after a long day?  My mom wasn’t trying to provide an inadequate diet, and I honestly do not think she knew that she was at the time, but with a limited income and limited time, a fast life meant fast food.

Josh Clyde

Cornell University Study:  http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/upload/CHE_DNS_Devine_Time.pdf

Unknown Substance-Josh Clyde

In class we talked about the loop holes associated with labeling and advertising.  When manufactures are able to market drugs directly to consumers, there is plenty of room for misinformation and tricky word play.  When substances  being used and listed on the sides of foods are assumed to be tested and safe for human consumption, a lack of information about the Toxic Substance Control Act leaves the consumer in direct danger. After a trip to the EPA last semester I learned that of the 100,000 chemicals labeled as “commonly used” in American house holds, only about 1% of them had been tested for possible dangers because of a lack of EPA funding.

To avoid holding back innovation, the TSCA of 1976 was passed which, “provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures.” The issue with this act is, in the words of the EPA, “certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.”  Why would we exclude consumables such as food, drugs, the pesticides used in their production processes, as well as cosmetics that come in direct contact with our skin to skip out on the testing and record keeping requirements? Since 1976, the TSCA has allowed for more than 62,000 chemical to be added to the list of chemicals used in the production of commonly used house hold items without conducting research on the possible human health side effects that they might have as well as without proper disposal requirements being places on the substances that could potentially have negative side effects on the environment.

 

A good example of the TSCA providing a perfect opportunity for a company to manufacture products and sell them to the public without proper research being done is Monsanto’s (surprise, surprise) product known as Round Up.  Residual of glyphosate, which has been rebranded as Round Up, have been found in food products including the kid’s cereal Froot Loops.  This substance was tested by the EPA for a short time only in 2011, after which it was never test again.  In that length of time, there is no possible way that glyphosate could have been tested for long term effects.  Letting industries produce commercial products while not providing the proper testing makes absolutely no sense.  Allowing profits to be more important than the safety and health of our people and our environment in nothing less than criminal.

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act

Public Good-Josh Clyde

This week we talked in class a lot about public good.  Public good is when law or protocols are installed in order to protect the masses from dangers including disease and injury.  There are many practices that I agree improve the safety of members of our society and are very important such as vaccination, background checks for guns, and speed limits.  These thing keep an individual from harming others by acting recklessly or in a selfish manner.  I do not believe someone who is late to work has the right to go 90 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone and potentially wrecking, killing innocent drivers who were doing nothing wrong.  I do not believe that a person with multiple violent crime offenses should be able to buy a gun that he or she could potentially use when they lose their cool the next time.

On the other hand, there are somethings going on that I do not agree with.  We talked in class about a practice that is used at airports in which a laser beam is used to scan passenger’s heads to check them for fever.  The practice is meant to find people with an increased bottle temperature and divert them to an area for further testing so that they do not spread any disease that they may have to a new country.  The technology aspect of this is amazing.  We could literally save lives while not having to personally take each person’s temperature manually.  My problem with it is that these passengers are not asked if someone can take their temperature.  To me, when laws and regulations begin to give third parties rights to a person’s body without permission, things have gone too far.  The common argument to this seems to be that it is helping people, and who cares if they take your temperature?  In my opinion it is the first step to more invasive things and should not be carried out.  In order to continue using this technology and continue preventing disease outbreaks in a timely fashion, I would recommend providing a form along with all of the other forms that are filled out when traveling that gives consent for this temperature check to be carried out. If the customer declines consent, they would be placed in a second, most likely slower moving line, where their temperature would be taken manually.  I believe people would almost always sign the consent form.

It is important for people to keep their individual freedoms and I strongly believe that we can protect the public good while honoring every individual’s personal rights to their own body.

What Normal Meant To Me-Josh Clyde

Prior to this course, and reading a few chapters out of Talking About Health by Roxanne Parrott, I had always believed that the word “normal” when being used to describe a person, or in this case a person’s health, had the same meaning as healthy. I would tend to believe that the things that I was doing, such as binge drinking in my early 20s, would not negatively affect me if someone were to say, “Oh that’s normal! Everyone does it at your age!”

“Normal” health practices and lifestyle ways have skewed meaning depending on your culture or family upbringing.  In my house hold, it always seemed like the men in my family never went to the doctor.  My grandfather and my father would talk about new aches and pains at the dinner table during holidays and act as if every problem they faced was just temporary or a normal part of getting older.  It was almost like being a man in my household came with the strength and general intuition needed to take care of one’s self without the professional opinion of some doctor who just wanted your money.

It was “normal” in my family, as a male, to smoke cigarettes.  The drive-way of my house, or at any family event, has always been the place where the men gather to drink beer and smoke cigarettes while talking about just about anything from sports to cars.  Subsequently, this pushed me to grab onto a pack of cigarettes as early as I could at the age of 16.  I had planned to quit before it was a lifetime habit, maybe before I was 25, but it was normal, right?   Everyone in my family did it and they were doing just fine so I followed the norm and smoked cigarettes while never visiting the doctor.

I found this 1967 “Like Father Like Son” anti-smoking add to be very relevant to norms within families.

All this changed about three years ago when my grandfather began to feel sick for weeks on end.  After finally being forced to make an appointment with a doctor by the women in my family, he learned that he had stage 4 prostate cancer that had spread to his bones and just about everywhere else in his body.  At the age of 76, he had no choice but to let the cancer kill him.  We were told over and over again that, had he gone to the doctor and received the recommended prostate exam that all men are recommended to get starting from age 40-50 years old, the cancer could have been catch and maintained in the early stages.  My grandfather died at the age of 77.

The commonly confusing idea of “normal” in the world of personal health, combined with the optimistic thinking that most people have about their own health, cost my grandfather five, ten, maybe even 15 years of more of his life.  I had to decide then, before this class gave me a better understanding of its complexity, what “normal” was going to mean to me when it came to my health.  I chose to quit smoking and begin paying more attention to what my body is saying to me in the hopes of avoiding what was “normal” to my family.