Climate changing knowledge by Traci Alig

As we watched the Leonardo Dicaprio documentary this past week, it made me realize that climate change is a bigger issue than what I initially realized. I did not realize that so many cities were being submerged because of global warming. Climate change not only affects the weather and sea level, but is also melting glaciers and sea ice. This is killing off polar animals such as seals and polar bears, and dumping harmful toxics into the sea from the glaciers. Leonardo traveled to different countries to try to figure out the current status was on global warming in other countries. One of the countries he went to was India, and he spoke to another activist there who is trying to change global warming, as well. This lady said that America is the number one distributor to global warming. She informed Leo that things can be done to change global warming, but that not enough effort is being put forth from Americans in order to do so.

I did not realize that America was the number one distributor to global warming. I thought that, possibly, China may be a greater distributor considering the pollution rate is higher there. My question is, is the Indian woman that Leo was talking to correct? Are we not putting forth enough effort in order to make these changes? In my opinion I would answer this question by saying, possibly. We cannot put forth the effort if we do not have a sufficient amount of resources in order to do so. If we cannot replace these nonrenewable resources with solar or wind energy then there is little or no way global warming will become absent. Plus, with America’s population being that of a large amount, it will take years upon years, if ever, to get people to change their ways. This message about global warming/climate change needs to get out there and the facts need to be displayed. If people do not see the facts that global warming exists because of all of these factors through how we live our every day lives, then people will just continue to disbelieve that global warming exists. This is a huge issue in America, and if there is some way for us to make a difference by using different energy, then why not try it? Again, my question is, are we putting forth enough effort to change this issue or are we slacking?

 

Climate Change by Traci Alig

As we have learned in this past week, us humans have a lot of impact on climate change. We don’t realize how much of an impact we may have sometimes, as I didn’t, but it is a big enough of an impact to be causing detrimental problems all around the world, within the environment. Using cars causes pollution, burning fossil fuels causes harm, eating beef, and so on all cause global warming to rise. The heat that all of these things are creating is dispersed into the air and trapped underneath Earth’s atmosphere. This causes temperatures to rise which results in sea levels rising, ice sheets/icebergs melting off into the oceans and contaminating the water, and many other things that is detrimental to the environment around us.

My cliché question is, how are we going to change this? Global warming has been debated for years, whether we are the real cause of it or whether it’s just naturally occurring. As we discussed, do we take an objective action to go about this or a self-reliance action? It is proven that the use of coal and fossil fuels is causing this earth to have a tremendous rise in temperature. With the jobs, technology that we have, places we need to be, it’s hard to change our lifestyles that we are so used to, but if we can get the message out there about how much this is affecting the world around us, then maybe things will begin to change.

Rechargeable Batteries by: Traci Alig

Disposable batteries contain heavy metals and several 0ther chemicals that are not friendly to the environment. Many natural resources are also used to produce disposable batteries which is not safe for the environment. On the other hand, there is a solution to this problem, rechargeable batteries. As this website says, “Rechargeable batteries comsume up to 23 times less non-renewable natural resources than disposable batteries” (Valentine). This article also states, “Rechargeables have 28 times less impact on global warming, 30 times less impact on air pollution, 9 times less impact on airacidification, and 12 times less impace on water pollution!” (Valentine). Rechargeable batteries are more expensive to buy, but in the long run it is cheaper because they can be used up to 1,000 times each. Using rechargeable batteries reduces all of the harmful things that are done to the environment as opposed to using disposable ones. In reality, rechargeable batteries seem to be a double standard because they are friendly to the environment and benefit the consumer because they can be used hundreds of more times than disposables. These batteries are also known stay charged for a longer period of time than disposables because of their disposable parts.

These batteries are friendly to the environment and also more convenient for the user. Disposable batteries are harmful to the environment because of their harsh chemicals and heavy metals, and when disposed into landfills these chemicals are detrimental to the environment. There are no negative consequences to buying rechargeable batteries other than being more expensive to buy at first, but in the end, they have a more beneficial outcome.

Resources: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/rechargeable-batteries-a-better-choice/

World’s largest disaster by:Traci Alig

In this past week, we were shown the world’s largest disaster which was the Union Carbide incident in Bhopal, India. This disaster consisted of the release of toxins from UCIL facility tanks into the drinking water. During December 2, 1984, water entered a side pipe following into one of the tanks. These tanks contained MIC (methyl isocyanate), a highly toxic chemical. The impacts of this toxin being exposed to the drinking water and air in Bhopal are detrimental. Women who are pregnant and have a child after consuming this toxin will result in their child having retardation, deformities, and even death. These are only some of the effects of this toxin. After this toxin was found to be causing these appalling effects on the people of Bhopal, not only did the UCIL factories do nothing about it, they denied it. The political people of Bhopal also denied this fact, which ultimately led to nothing being done about his disaster.

My reaction to this is, how in the world do we have many laws implemented to “keep us safe”, yet when something like this happens, the industry gets to be in denial while several people are being killed off, just to maintain a good image. The individuals of Bhopal whom obtain the power to do something, i.e.political figures, believed the industrial workers of the UCIL business instead of actually going into investigation to put a stop to this disaster in Bhopal. I don’t believe this was the UCIL factory’s fault, and I don’t believe that this business should be punished for this incident. However, I do believe that since the business was in denial for so long about this incident, that they should be punished for that. At this point in time, I do realize that the clearing of the toxin from the water and air is put into affect. I do not agree that, while the UCIL industry decided to deny this incident and many children/people were still being affected or even killed by this toxin, they should not have some sort of punishment for this action.

sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Conforming to be aesthetic by:Traci Alig

In this past week, we talked about the “Bliss” picture taken by Charles O’Rear, which is used on various Windows PC backgrounds. In class, we discussed how this picture on PC backgrounds looks much unlike the initial picture taken. The picture on PCs contrasts quite a bit from the unedited picture itself because it is exceedingly edited to make the aspects of the picture more vivid. The colors of the picture are edited to look brighter and more jovial. Some of my peers said that this may be done to help one feel happier and less stressed while doing his or her work. They also said that it is used as a sort of meditating landscape, something that is very pleasing to the eye. We learned that the actual place of this picture is a severely dangerous road considering there have been an enormous amount of car crashes on the road alongside this field. This picture is displayed to us through a Windows PC to provoke a positive emotion with nature, yet, the picture is hardly realistic.

Original picture taken by Charles O’Rear compared to edited version:

 

Many things in society are displayed aesthetically to us as young children. For example, in cartoons nature is constantly displayed as this colorful, vibrant place, when in fact, nature is most likely not as vibrant as shown in cartoons. In cartoons, the world is displayed as this safe place where we are seemingly immortal. This leaves children to their imaginations and helps protect their minds. Protecting their minds leads to viewing the world differently than it really is and brings out positive thoughts about the outside world.

Sources: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=unedited+bliss+picture+on+windows+PC&view=detailv2&id=C69FD37DD5D5DECBAF31189720978AB30A983B0A&ccid=9bAFoz40&simid=608052759125299049&thid=OIP.Mf5b005a33e3427dfc89138fdd05ed1beo0&mode=overlay&first=1

Limitations to having kids by:Traci Alig

In this past week, we talked about whether it is detrimental to the population, or not, to have more than two kids. This discussion made me wonder how much of our freedom is constantly being questioned. In my opinion, having a kid should be a personal decision and based on whether or not a family is able to support the children. This decision or happiness shouldn’t be felt as if it should be taken away just because of thoughts about excessive population. Yes, I agree that some may make irrational decisions to have children when they are not ready, but if the child is able to live in a stable and healthy environment, I say why hold back. On average, statistically 150,000 people die every day. This means that more room becomes available for new lives to come in.

People contribute to the world in many ways, and one good way is contributing new ideas. With more minds, more ideas are distributed and jobs occupied or created which results in contributing, possibly, bigger and better things to our current population. I understand that, as the population is rising, less jobs are available or harder to find, poverty is occurring, and etc., but I disagree that the decision to not have a bigger family should be based off of being afraid of overpopulating. Many people die every minute, and if more of the population agreed to not have as many children as desired, this just puts an enormous limitation on one of the biggest decisions of freedom that one has.

Resource: https://www.bing.com/search?q=how+many+people+die+on+average+each+day&form=EDGNTC&qs=AS&cvid=85c44f63fc27413aa9ae2078b5bfcab6&pq=how+many+people+die+on+average&PC=ASTS

Science is inevitably influencing technology use by:Traci Alig

In today’s world, technology is more crucial than it has ever been. From academics to the work world, technology is part of our every day lives. Technology has helped make things to be easier and more convenient, yet while it’s adding to the world around us, it is also takes away from it. Do we choose technology over more important things? Perhaps we may abuse technology in a way. For example, one could be playing with his or her child outside or giving that child books, toys, etc. to play with. Instead, in my experiences, I have seen several parents buy their young children iPads, ipod touches, smart phones, and so on. This way of technology use is, in my opinion, technology abuse. Technology comes in great use when needed, such as doing school work and work-related activities, but using technology to take away from the time spent with your kids or loved ones is giving technology a bad name. It also takes away from the child using his or her imagination and may make them lazier. I’ve indefinitely heard one say, “Get off of your phone,” and this is because technology is being overused and chosen over other more important things.

A study was done in 2014 on more than 120,000 homes in the Unites States and here are the results. About 57% of parents claim that the reason their children don’t go outside is because they are using some type of electronic, such as video games, watching TV, or listening to music (Larson 2011). Another study showed that kids from ages 8 to 18 spent an average of over seven hours on an electronic device (Larson, 2011). This just goes to show that technology can be a good thing but not necessarily when being overused.

Source: http://newsactivist.com/en/articles/kaldors-intro-sociology-spring-2014/does-technology-keep-kids-going-outside

-Traci Alig

Products that display health benefits By: Traci Alig

As we talked about in the past week, everything at the grocery store seems to display health benefits. Whether it’s from low cholesterol to less fat to any other kind of label to benefit one’s health, these companies are putting health labels on their products whether the product is actually good for one’s health or not. As we talked about in this past week, there is an alternative type of water to regular water, called Vitaminwater. One might think that this substance is an equal alternative to water. As this Vitaminwater does contain water, it also contains plenty of other unhealthy things. Vitaminwater is very high in liquid sugar and contains almost as much fructose as Coca-Cola. A single bottle of this substance contains about 120 calories and 32 grams of sugar. These ingredients that the Vitaminwater contains is only about 50% less than a can of Cocoa-Cola. Just because the name of the substance has two healthy words combined doesn’t meant that the product will benefit your health! In this case with Vitaminwater, the substance can be actually more harmful to you than helpful.

There are several things at the grocery store that contain healthy nutrients or cut out the bad ingredients that may be detrimental to one’s health. It’s whether the item that one is buying is actually beneficial for the body in the first place. For example, seeing a can of green beans that is labeled “low sodium” may be more believable or will require less research than seeing a granola bar labeled “good for your health”. We may believe that the can of green beans is more believable because it is a vegetable, a natural crop grown from the ground. Disregarding the extra ingredients, such as salt to make the can of green beans taste better, it is essentially a natural food. On the other hand, a granola bar is not natural and most likely has more preservatives or additives which may require more research to find out if it is actually good for one’s health or not. All in all, one has to be careful when buying products if trying to benefit his or her health. Just because something may look healthy to the eye, doesn’t mean that it is beneficial.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vitamin+water+facts

How pharmaceutical and Cosmeceutical industries benefit and our health By: Traci Alig

If we are to see a cosmeceutical product on television, such as a face cream that will help with anti-aging, we may believe that this product has been tested on several people and therefore has positive results. It also influences our decision to buy the product when we see a good looking woman or man showing a young-looking face on the screen, as to show that the product being advertised helped him or her to look the way that he or she does. In reality, several of these products being advertised have not been tested on humans yet, resulting in an unknown answer about whether the product actually works or not. As Roxanne Parrott says in chapter 6 of her book Talking About Health, “A close look at the labeling or packaging will show that they mostly haven’t been clinically tested or approved by an organization such as the FDA. So, even for the products that contain ingredients linked to positive effects in research, the cosmeceutical version often hasn’t been rigorously tested to see if a topical form is effective. And no rigorous test to assess the concentration needed of a possibly effective ingredient likely exits…A list of ingredients, or at least “active ingredients,” can frequently be found on the product or its packaging, though you may require a magnifying glass to read it.” (Parrott p.103,104).  This goes to show that the cosmeceutical products that we may be using may not have even been tested yet to show active results. Let alone knowing the product might not have been tested, the ingredient required in the product to give one’s desired results may not even exist. This is where cosmeceutical industries benefit from us, and where we gain nothing from buying these products. Other products, on the other hand, may work. The key is to be careful when buying a cosmeceutical product, making sure to read the whole label.

As to talk about pharmaceutical products, the pharmaceutical industries benefit largely from people who use pharmaceutical medicines. For example, we are possibly told that a product such as Adderall will help those of us who are not able to focus in class. Those who have this issue go on to take this product possibly only looking at the positive outcomes, such as being able to focus, and not focusing enough on the damage it might do to their bodies. Adderall has many side effects and if these side effects are frequently happening while taking the product, it could cause dangerous problems to the body in the long run. This problem could be solved in other ways if it is not too severe such as, going to bed earlier, exercising your brain more by reading, etc. Also, by eliminating things in the best way that we can from our lives that are big distractions. I am not saying that doing these alternative activities will help anyone who can’t focus to focus better, but it is worth it to take a shot at those alternatives first rather than jumping straight to a drug that may do more damage to the body than good. The pharmaceutical industry is a great way to find what one is looking for when it comes to certain issues, but it is also easy to misunderstand or miss what the outcome of a product may do to us in the long run.

https://www.google.com/#q=adderall+side+effects

http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/adderall-effects-on-body

Health relating to doctors By: Traci Alig

Many of us go to doctors’ offices throughout our lives for yearly check-ups or for shots. My question is, is this really necessary for our health? Shots and vaccines can have serious side effects yet we look at shots and vaccines as a better alternative to avoid getting sick. We go to the doctor because we are told it is the safe action to take to manage good health. We are told to get necessary shots and yearly check-ups, yet if we don’t do these things, does it affect us as much as we are told it will? Statistics show that early on in life, as a baby, getting sick more often will boost a baby’s immune system. As said in an article, “There is a theory called the hygiene hypothesis that says exercising the immune system early in life (by exposure to germs) helps strengthen it and prevents allergies and asthma later in life.” (Baby & Toddler Club, Mansberg, p.1). This statement explains by exposing a child to germs, early on in life, will help build a stronger immune system for that child as they get older.

In chapters one through four going to the doctor is mentioned quite a bit, most of the reading being spoken about going to the doctor as if it is a “normal” thing to do. I believe that going to the doctor is very helpful, but I do not believe that it is as necessary or important as it is made out to be in the aspect of being told to get the certain shots that we are told to get. I have never had a shot in my life and I got just as sick as any one of my friends did growing up. The talk about getting shots may be overrated at times, as proved in this article. Exposing a child to germs, at a young age, will most likely build their immune system to be stronger later on in life. So the question is, does one suffer through being sick at a young age when one is not aware of what is happening to him/her or does one suffer through possibly being prone to getting sick more often later in life? Either way getting sick is not as dangerous as some may make it out to be when monitored.

https://woolworthsbabyandtoddlerclub.com.au/baby/baby-health-and-nutrition/can-getting-sick-help-build-your-babys-immune-system/

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-side-effects-and-adverse-events