Sherry Alexander Writes
  • Welcome
  • About
  • Blog
  • Guest Student Essays
  • Guest Student Stories and Narratives
  • Inspiration
  • MY Books for Children and Tweens

An Evaluation of Senator Warren's Argument on Student Loan Debt by A.S.

4/13/2022

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Andre Hunter on Unsplash
On August 21, 2021, Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren, was interviewed on MSNBC regarding her stance on the ability of President Biden to cancel student debt which is a concern for the 43.4 million borrowers. An evaluation of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s claim during the interview that “The President has the authority to cancel student loan debt” demonstrates her use of inductive reasoning to further her personal opinion and claim with hypophora rhetoric, brief examples to describe the links between her ideas, persuasive and expository word choices, repeated words for emphasis in a critical and assertive tone with loaded questions, burden of proof and bandwagon fallacies.

To begin, it is important to identify Senator Warren’s claim. When asked a question based on  the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s statement that only Congress could cancel student debt, Warren emphatically answered, “The President has the authority to cancel student loan debt” (“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:16-08:19). She immediately justified her claim with the argument that previous presidents have done it. Her use, though, of previous presidential actions is a weak reason and offers no proof that in fact, President Biden has the authority and that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was wrong. Since a poll by CNBC published in December 2021 shows that “more than 60% of voters support some student loan debt forgiveness”, it can be assumed that this is a popular view. This makes her argument a bandwagon fallacy meaning that  “The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity” (“Your Logical Fallacy Is Bandwagon”). Senator Warren’s stance, without valid evidence to support her claim, becomes more of a personal opinion than a verifiable fact.

Furthermore, Senator Warren uses inductive reasoning to draw conclusions and combines it with a burden of proof fallacy. For example, her statement “The laws are very clear on this. What we need President Biden to do is pick up that authority and use it” (“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:39-008:47) her claim makes President Biden appear guilty of withholding the canceling of student debt when, in her words, he has the authority to do so. This is inductive reasoning because it sets up a no win situation for the President. It also creates a burden of proof fallacy in her logic because she doesn’t have to prove what laws she is talking about, instead she shifts the burden of proof to the president when she states that all he has to do is “pick up that authority and use it”.

In addition, the main link to her ideas and claims is that if one President, without consideration of the facts or situation that faced the previous presidents, did it, then the next one can too. To connect her argument that President Biden can cancel student debt to the previous presidents’ actions she uses the logic fallacy of the loaded question to support her claim. She asks “You know how I know that?” Then without allowing an answer or rebuttal, she answers it herself by stating, “Because President Obama did it. And because President Trump did it . . .”(“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:16-26). The loaded question fallacy is a way to deflect any answers that might deny her claim. Her use of this type of question, where the speaker asks and then answers it herself, is an example of hypophora, a rhetorical device, which in this case is used to emphasize her claim. An examination of Senator Warren’s links to her ideas are weak since they lack sufficient evidence to explain exactly what the previous presidents did and why.

Equally important to consider in evaluating Senator Warren’s claim, is to see how she justifies her position and her personal point of view with the words she chooses to use. Two phrases that she repeats to convince listeners that she is right are “economic justice” and “racial justice. The general view of economic justice is that the economy would be better if it was fairer, and that justice and the economy need to be on the same team to help people create better lives. By using the phrase “It is a matter of economic justice” ((“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:48-50), Warren is trying to convince listeners to believe that by not using his “power” to cancel student debt, the President is wrong and she is right. She uses an expository set of words to emphasize her claim. It’s the same reason she says “It is also a racial justice issue. African-Americans borrow more money. . . and have a harder time paying it off . . .” (“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 09:18-28). She is well aware that  in today’s climate these are persuasive words that intensify her claim because now it points a finger at President Biden as if he is holding African Americans back by not using his authority to cancel student loan debt.

Finally, both Senator Warren’s points of emphasis and tone are designed to draw her listeners into her argument and bring them to her conclusion. The main point of emphasis is “The President has the authority to cancel student loan debt” (“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:16-08:19). In her speech she uses the word “authority” four times, and bases her entire argument around that word. She also uses the two phrases, economic and racial justice, to drive her point home that her claim is well founded because the President has a moral obligation to cancel student debt. As for her tone, it is assertive, meaning clear and direct, and effective. Warren is an accomplished speaker and she measures her words to create the effect that she wants. For instance, she raises her pitch and leans her face forward into the camera when she asks her question “You know how I know that?”(“Sen. Warren: Biden Canceling Student Loan ... - Youtube.com.” 08:19-20). In contrast, she uses hand gestures to show she is counting each time she uses the previous presidents names as proof of her argument. She even pauses and repeats the word “cancel” several times. It is evident that Senator Warren’s assertive tone during this interview is designed to emphasize her points and add truth to her claim.

In conclusion, an evaluation of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s claim during the interview that “The President has the authority to cancel student loan debt” demonstrates her use of inductive reasoning to further her personal opinion and claim with hypophora rhetoric, brief examples to describe the links between her ideas, persuasive and expository word choices, repeated words for emphasis in a critical and assertive tone with loaded questions, burden of proof and bandwagon fallacie

​

0 Comments

Why Space Exploration is Worth It! By A.S.

3/22/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Fifty three years ago, the whole world waited breathlessly until they heard Neil Armstrong transmit loud and clear “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” Apollo 11 made that  successful lunar landing on July 24, 1969. Since that day, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has led the United States in space exploration to discover the wonders of our planet, the solar system, and the universe. Yet, some argue that exploration is too costly, too risky for astronauts, and there is a possibility of bringing back an unknown bacteria that would endanger the entire earth. Anyone advocating against space exploration should stop because the benefits of space exploration outweigh the cost, the risk to astronauts is less than walking across the street, the possibility of a space disease coming to earth is just as great as an astronaut taking one into space, and the numerous commercial and scientific advances are all why space exploration is worth it.
    One reason space exploration opponents should stop justifying their objections is the comparable cost factor. In contrast to the argument that space exploration is too expensive, the reality is that cost is a factor in everything the government does, and it is no different with space exploration. However, the money spent is not just for the thrill of a few astronauts riding a fast rocket into the unknown. Someone has to plan, design, and build that rocket with all the equipment necessary to send it there in the first place. According to an article, “Why Space Exploration is Always Worthwhile” published on the Planetary Society’s website, an organization led by Bill Nye that explains scientific information to the public, “Public opinion research has shown that people estimate NASA to take up as much as a quarter of the U.S. federal budget, but in fact, NASA’s budget only represents about 0.5% of the total federal budget and the proportion is even smaller for other spacefaring nations.” In 2020, NASA spent $22.7 Billion dollars according to an article in Investopedia by Stephen Simpson as compared to the $56.9 Billion Americans spent on video games and equipment reported by Nex Gen Personal Finance’s blog by Mason Butts. It’s true that NASA’s budget doesn’t count for all monies spent, private companies do it too. In fact, American astrophysicist, planetary scientist, author, and science communicator, Neil deGrasse Tyson stated that “Three quarters of all money spent on space today is for commercial products, for industries that use GPS, for weather satellites, for communication satellites, DirecTV”, (“Why Are We Going into Space” 00:43-00:52).  Obviously, space exploration opponents should stop voicing their complaints about the money spent because the cost of space is not expensive when the advances in technology, consumer products, science and even medicines are considered.
    Another reason that challengers to space exploration should stop their opposition is the proportionate risk factor. A Scientific American blog titled “Do We Really Need to Send Humans into Space?” acknowledges that astronauts’ lives are at risk. “People venturing into space are fragile: They require a continuous supply of oxygen, water, food and shelter. They must endure long intervals of weightlessness. Their physical capabilities remain constant across generations. And their loss, when it occurs, casts a pall over our would-be joy of identifying with their exploration” (Goldsmith, Rees). In comparison, the lives of all explorers are at risk whether in space or on earth. For example, just like today’s astronauts understand the risk, the early explorers to America knew that too. They had to travel across an uncharted ocean in leaky rat-infested ships with limited provisions to a land they only hoped would be there. However, their sacrifices discovered a new world and here we are today. NASA estimates that there is a 4 percent chance of death when you look at the number of people who went into space and the number that died. That is a lot less than the 17 percent of pedestrians (here on Earth) who died in traffic accidents (“Pedestrian Safety”). Yes, there is risk, but the  “Capabilities developed and knowledge gathered from space exploration contribute to ongoing efforts to understand the threat to Earth posed by asteroids, and to devise means for protecting the planet” (“Benefits Stemming From Space Exploration-NASA”). Astronauts know the risk, and they accept it just like those explorers looking for North America across 4,000 miles of open ocean in the 15th century. It was worth it to the early explorers and according to Christa McAuliffe, teacher and astronaut, who lost her life aboard the Shuttle Challenger, “Space is for everybody. That’s our new frontier out there, and it’s everybody’s business to know about space.” Obviously, space exploration naysayers should recognize that risk and exploration go hand in hand and stop using the possible hazard as an argument against discovering what is beyond our atmosphere.
    Those who dispute space exploration because of the possibility of an unknown bacteria entering the Earth should consider the scientific preparation factors. Even if astronauts think space is worth the possible danger, it is not logical to think that unknown microbes or bacteria don’t even exist in space. We have them on Earth so other planets must have their own too. A leading astrobiologist and cosmologist, Paul Davies even “warned that viruses may not only be found on Earth, but might occur – should life exist – elsewhere in the universe.” Yet, it seems that the bacteria our astronauts take with them from Earth into space, the moon, or even Mars would be just as dangerous to that planet as bacteria that came from that planet to us on earth. No one wants to risk bringing back something contagious to the earth and scientists are always on guard and taking precautions. For example, scientists are using laboratories in space to find how to stop and or treat diseases on earth by finding “A protein that causes disease and a medicine that suppresses it” according to a NASA editor, Michael Johnson. In addition, there  is always a possibility of some unknown bacteria entering our atmosphere from space by a meteor. And, you have to agree that astronauts could possibly bring something back, but there are so many things being found out through our scientific experiments in space to prolong life, to cut diseases, and to find cures that the benefits far outweigh the  “possibility” of bringing a deadly bacteria back to earth far outweighs (Johnson). Surely, space exploration skeptics must recognize that while it is possible that a contagion could come to earth, the reward of finding causes and cures for diseases that already plague Earth far outweighs the risk.
    A third critique of people advocating against space exploration is that there are few results that help life on Earth. That is definitely not true. The amount of technological advances and the consumer products that have been developed are too numerous to explain in this essay. For example, just a few of the items and technology that have advanced and benefited everyday life on Earth from space exploration include the “cameras in Smartphones, invisible braces, Lasik cochlear implants, memory foam, portable cordless vacuums” (Vishal). In addition, “Space exploration has contributed to many diverse aspects of everyday life, from solar panels to implantable heart monitors, from cancer therapy to light‐ weight materials, and from water‐purification systems to improved computing systems and to a global search‐and‐rescue system” (“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration-NASA”).  Added to all of that are the wonders we have learned about the solar system, the universe, and just how small Earth is in comparison to the galaxies upon galaxies. Then there is the monitoring that is constantly on the watch for asteroids that might hit Earth. “Capabilities developed and knowledge gathered from space exploration contribute to ongoing efforts to understand the threat to Earth posed by asteroids, and to devise means for protecting the planet” (“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration-NASA”). All of these advances come from space exploration. Clearly, people who are critical of space exploration should stop, because the results of  numerous technological advances are well documented and one in particular, the cell phone, makes communication easier than using two cups and a string.
    In the final analysis, the argument that space exploration is too costly, too risky for astronauts, opens the possibility of bringing back an unknown bacteria that would endanger the entire earth has some merit and concerns that should be considered. On the whole, however, anyone advocating against space exploration should stop, because the benefits of space exploration outweigh the cost, the risk to astronauts is less than walking across the street, the possibility of a space disease coming to earth is just as great as an astronaut taking one into space, and the numerous commercial and scientific advances including the added protection from asteroids and a renewed understanding of the universe is worth it.




Works Cited List
Amadeo, Kimberly. “How $1 Spent on NASA Adds $8 to the Economy.” The Balance, The Balance, 20 Jan. 2022, https://www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321. 
Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration - NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf.
Berger, Eric. “Report Finds That US Accounts for More than Half of Global Space Spending.” – Ars Technica, Ars Technica, 6 Jan. 2022, https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/report-finds-that-us-accounts-for-more-than-half-of-global-space-spending/?amp=1. 
Butts, Mason. “Ngpf Blog.” QoD: How Much Money Did Americans Spend on Video Games in 2020? - Blog, https://www.ngpf.org/blog/question-of-the-day/question-of-the-day-how-much-money-did-americans-spend-on-video-games-in-2020/#:~:text=%22Spending%20on%20video%20games%20set,percent%20increase%20compared%20to%202019. 
Carr, Belinda. “Is Space Exploration a Waste of Money? - Youtube.” Youtube, 13 Feb. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3GycoUxRQ4. 
Davis, Nicola. “Viruses May Exist 'Elsewhere in the Universe', Warns Scientists.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 6 Sept. 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/06/viruses-may-exist-elsewhere-in-the-universe-warns-scientist. 
Foust, Jeff. “Weighing the Risks of Human Spaceflight.” The Space Review: Weighing the Risks of Human Spaceflight (Page 2), https://www.thespacereview.com/article/36/2.
Goldsmith, Donald, and Martin Rees. “Do We Really Need to Send Humans into Space?” Scientific American Blog Network, Scientific American, 6 Mar. 2020, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-we-really-need-to-send-humans-into-space/.
Johnson, Michael. “Finding the Keys in Space to Treat Diseases on Earth.” NASA, NASA, 6 Mar. 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/b4h-3rd/eds-space-research-to-treat-earth-diseases. 
Lichtenstein, Drew. “Bad Things about Space Exploration.” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, https://sciencing.com/bad-things-space-exploration-8523069.html.
“Majority of Americans Believe Space Exploration Remains Essential.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 19 Aug. 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/. 
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Why Are We Going into Space ... - Youtube. Dubai Future Talks, 27 Apr. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOnuLXh20uE. 
“Pedestrian Safety.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6 Mar. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html. 
Simpson, Stephen D. “The Reality of Investing in Space Exploration.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 21 Sept. 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/the-reality-of-investing-in-space-exploration.aspx.
Stone, Kevin R., and Orthopedic surgeon. “Top Five Reasons to Avoid Space Travel.” The Stone Clinic: World-Class Orthopedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, 5 May 2020, https://www.stoneclinic.com/blog/top-five-reasons-avoid-space-travel.
Thakur, Vishal. “What Are Some Common Things We Use That Have Come from Space Tech?” Science ABC, Science ABC, 16 Jan. 2022, https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-are-some-common-things-we-use-that-have-come-from-space-tech.html. 
“Why Space Exploration Is Always Worthwhile.” The Planetary Society, https://www.planetary.org/articles/space-exploration-is-always-worthwhile#:~:text=Spending%20on%20space%20supports%20highly,the%20world's%20most%20pressing%20problems. 


0 Comments

Black History Month: Harriet Tubman by AS

3/2/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
                                           “We Out”

One woman I’ve admired ever since I was little is the great Harriet Tubman. She was born into slavery during approximately 1820. (the actual date is unknown because slaves birthdates weren’t recorded) She fled slavery in 1849 with a desire to free other slaves, even though it would put her life in danger. She was called the Moses of the Underground Railroad as she crossed the lines of freedom thirteen times to free more than 70 slaves through the underground railroad to Canada. Each time they crossed the line she screamed “We out!”

Harriet Tubman was not only an advocate for freedom, she was also a spy for the union army during the Civil War. For her efforts to end slavery during the war, she was the first black women to join the military. Her reports on troop placements and supply shipments by the confederate army helped the union end the war and free the slaves. I admire her for her courage, bravery, and selflessness on behalf of all the slaves of that time. She was really an amazing woman.



​




0 Comments

Analysis of Whitman's "A Child Said What Is Grass" by AS

12/17/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Adonyi-Gabor/Unsplash
Walt Whitman’s poem, “A Child Said, What is Grass”, uses figurative, connotative and technical words and phrases such as a flag, death, uncut hair, and a child to refine the meanings of key terms such as grass and the phrase, “the smallest sprout shows there is really no death” throughout the poem. Whitman writes in a free-form style that follows his thoughts as he tries to answer a child’s question through phrases such as “I guess” and “It may be” which contribute to the overall structure and meaning that becomes more of a prayer or chant than a poem as it delivers an aesthetic impact on the beauty that lies in the connection between life and death as well as racial equality.

The very beginning of Whitman’s poem starts with the title question “A Child said, What is the grass?” Whitman makes it clear that he has no idea how to answer the question at the start,  and that begins his examination of the possibilities as they float through his mind. His words create a picture of grass. It’s not just a green carpet nature laid over the soil, but something much more. It knows no boundaries, it has a beginning, and it’s a never-ending story of both nature and the life cycle. All of this is written free-form, which contributes to the overall structure and meaning  through his choice of words that help the reader to imagine grass from different perspectives. Every word and phrase that Whitman chooses to use not only adds to the aesthetic impact, but are refined to create the answer to the meaning of grass, not for the child who asked, but for Whitman himself.

In his use of figurative words, the poet drew on specific words that invoked different meanings to the word grass. Each metaphor, connotative, and technical word Whitman chose refines the connection of grass to nature and the cycle of life. He specifically uses imagery, symbolism, metaphors, and personification. He chooses words such as: “flag” (Whitman 3) which is a symbol of war, pride, a feeling , or a country; a “handkerchief” (Whitman 4) which is used to cover the mouth in a dust storm or even a loaf of bread on a kitchen counter;  and “a child” (Whitman 7) which represents youth, inexperience, or a newness. All of these words make an image in the reader’s mind and are included to create that picture through metaphors and symbolism. Another part of figurative language Whitman uses to develop his idea of grass is personification. Grass as a child is personification giving the object human qualities such as innocence, youth, and growth. A connotative example is his use of “uncut hair” (Whitman 12). Grass is not uncut hair in the literal sense but it does create an image of the nature of grass which continues to grow unless cut. Not all of Whitman’s chosen words are figurative or connotative, some are also technical, or true, such as his choice of “to die” (Whitman 32) and “Hieroglyphic” (Whitman 8). Alone, the two words truly mean the end of life and a type of lettering, but he uses them symbolically within a phrase to provide a different meaning. Whitman was a poet, and the words he selected throughout this poem add another dimension to the word “grass”, and portray it as much more than the green vegetation that grows on lawns. 

In the same way Whitman chooses specific words, he combines them to craft phrases that help identify grass by refining the alternative meaning. For example, “The beautiful uncut hair of graves” (Whitman 12) and “The smallest sprout shows there is really no death” (Whitman 28) both provide a new effect to his word choices as he defines it as more than just another type of vegetation. They show that it is also part of the cycle of life, people die and their bodies feed the grass, the grass starts as a small sprout and grows into a blade. In one of the more important uses of a phrase to make the reader stop and think, Whitman emphasizes that grass grows everywhere, and knows nothing of racism. He says it is “Growing among black folks as among white” (Whitman 10). Grass is not racial, and explaining it this way makes the reader understand that people shouldn’t be either. Racism separates people, and since Whitman wrote this after the Civil War, his comparison of how grass knows no boundaries, or no racism, seemed right for then and now. It’s not just the poet’s figurative words and phrases that help develop the answer to the child’s question, but it is also the way he structures his poem.

In contrast to poems that have a rhyming structure, Whitman’s poem is more like a man thinking about a question a child raises that he doesn’t know how to answer. The overall structure is in free verse. The definition per Literary Devices of free verse is: “A literary device that . . . is free from limitations of regular meter or rhythm, and does not rhyme with fixed forms. In this way, the poet can give his own shape to a poem however he or she desires.” The phrases Whitman contributes to the overall structure are like a chant that repeats it over and over with word phrases such as “I guess. . .” (Whitman 3,4,7,8), “And it means. . .” (Whitman 9),  “And it may be. . .” (Whitman 14-16), and also “And now it seems to me . . .” (Whitman 12). These phrases are connected to other ideas or notions so they continue his stream of thought shared in free verse. The structure he uses adds meaning because the poet shares his feelings and his emotions with phrases such as “I wish I could translate the hints….” (Whitman 23). The use of emotion and symbols within the structure of free verse creates an aesthetic impact,  and they also help the reader to see that grass is not only artistically beautiful but can stand for something else. 

In conclusion, Walt Whitman’s poem, “A Child Said, What is Grass”, uses figurative, connotative. and technical words and phrases such as a flag, death, uncut hair, and a child to refine the meanings of key terms such as grass and the phrase, “the smallest sprout shows there is really no death” throughout the poem. He  writes in a free-form style that follows his thoughts as he tries to answer a child’s question by using phrases such as “I guess” and “It may be” which contribute to the overall structure and meaning as more of a prayer or chant while it delivers an aesthetic impact on the beauty that lies in the connection between life and death as well as racial equality. It is Whitman’s way of saying that death and life may have a different meaning than most people think, and that meaning may be in the lack of boundaries found in the vegetation known as grass.


0 Comments

Human Intervention Helps Protect the Pacific Flyway by A.S.

11/22/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
   
When Fall’s leaves turn yellow, orange, and red, it’s time to look to the skies as waves of birds pass overhead. Seabirds, geese, ducks, swans, crows, songbirds, and sandhill cranes are joining hundreds of species traveling south to breeding grounds and wintering habitats along the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway extends 4,000 miles from Alaska to South America and provides the essential food, water, and rest for the long journey. In a video created by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the importance of understanding what the birds need is the  “. . . first step to understand is . . .what factors and threats that they're experiencing throughout the annual cycle”  (“Voices of the Pacific Flyway - Youtube.” 5:10-5:27). Migration survival depends on available resources and the factors and threats that threaten those resources. However, without help those resources will disappear and so will the birds. Human intervention helps protect the Pacific Flyway for the thousands of migrating birds so they can survive the loss of habitat from agriculture expansion, the severe drought in the West, the lack of food, and the effects of the increased temperature, lack of water, and severe weather conditions because of climate change.
      One way humans can help protect the Pacific Flyway is to understand that during the spring and fall, numerous songbirds, and almost all waterfowl, migrate because of changing weather conditions and to find food. An article by the Audubon Society found that  “The birds of the Pacific Flyway depend on a diverse chain of habitats, from Arctic tundra and northwestern rainforest to tropical beaches and mangroves” (“Pacific Flyway”). While most of the flights occur at night, the birds need food and places to rest during the day, and while they rest they actually benefit people.  A study by the US Fish and Wildlife agency on waterfowl stated that, “Migratory birds provide ecosystem benefits that include pest control, pollination of plants and serve as food sources for other wildlife” (“U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Waterfowl” ). Migration along the flyway helps both the birds and humans, yet without the support of concerned humans migration habitats will disappear and so will the birds and the benefits they bring to people.
     However, before humans can help, it’s important to understand how agriculture and grazing are damaging habitats. According to U.S Fish and Wildlife, industrial agriculture takes up one- third of the earth’s surface, and the chemicals used to protect plants from pests make the streams and fields no longer habitable for migrating birds. A study completed by the Center for Biological Diversity concluded that “ . . . farming focused on livestock production is driving the extinction crisis [of birds] by eating up habitat wildlife need to survive.” Researchers also found that by 2050 agriculture expansion will be “... on pace to destroy more than 1.2 million square miles of natural habitat, an area roughly the size of India.” The loss of natural habitat is responsible for the disappearance of over three billion birds in North America since 1970 (“Flyways”). The graph below shows how the decline in drier habitats such as grasslands, forests, and shrub-steppes are declining, but some help also comes from the hands of caring organizations such as the Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge plants alfalfa, corn, barley, clover, ryegrass, and orchard grass in their fields for migrating birds and then allows grazing after the birds leave. The plantings provide habitat for geese and numerous species of migrating birds. Intervention, though, is also needed when drought threatens migration habitat. 
    In the same way that people are becoming aware that expanding agriculture and farming threatens habitat for migrating birds, the lack of water or a severe drought is recognized for its impact on habitats for both migrating waterfowl and species that prefer drier ground. It also impacts humans, and in some areas it has become a  balancing act between water for people and water for birds. It’s no secret that the western United States is currently experiencing a deep drought. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) map at the end of the paragraph shows the severity of drought in the west on August 3, 2021. The lack of rain and hotter temperatures decreases the amount of water available for migrating birds in lakes, wetlands, and streams. It also causes the use of water for irrigation to be cut off as it was recently done in Oregon’s Klamath Valley. With no water for fields, there was no water for birds. The same thing is happening throughout the flyway. Even California’s Sacramento Valley has seen habitat loss due to drought according to US Fish and Wildlife. It found, “... reduced seasonal flooding of wetlands and farm fields threatens a globally important stopover site for tens of thousands of migratory shorebirds in California's Sacramento Valley” (“U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Waterfowl - FWS.”). Without water, habitat is lost and so is the rich food source that migrating birds rely on for their journey. Washington’s Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge manages the effects of drought through the use of dikes, flooded fields, and a lake. The Carty Lake fills with water from the Columbia River during the spring when the river rises from melting snow packs, and provides spring and summer habitat. Lake levels lower in the summer months but rarely evaporates. Human intervention clears debris and repairs dikes to make sure flood water continues to enter the lake. This action saves wetland habitat from the effect of drought, but a lack of water in other areas means a scarce food supply for the rest of their journey south.
    Not only can humans intervene to save essential  habitat and water as vital resources for migration, but they can impact food sources for birds as well. Just like bears that gorge themselves on anything they find to eat to increase their body fat in preparation for their hibernation, birds that travel 4,000 miles need to eat to fatten up too. The book “The Pacific Flyway: Waterbird Migration from the Arctic to Tierra Del Fuego”, makes this comparison:  “Like professional athletes, long-distance migrates undergo highly sophisticated preparations to maximize strength and endurance. A key issue . . . is balancing fat stores against flight efficiency” (Hammerson, 26). These fat stores come from the refueling the birds find at their stopovers. Unfortunately, food supplies are not always available. The article “Refuge No More: Migratory Birds Face Drought, Disease and Death on the Pacific Flyway” uses the  rice fields in the Sacramento Valley as an example of how a food supply can be affected by nature but helped by humans.  The fields supply migrating waterfowl with “. . . . about half of their diet in the fall and winter from the decomposing rice stalks after harvest”. Yet, the lack of rain meant that rice farmers couldn’t flood their fields to decompose the stalks, so less food was available for the birds. Recognizing the impact on migration, The Central Valley Improvement Project Act of 1992, assured a supply of water to California's Central Valley to protect and manage wetlands. The managed area is like a farm, but instead of providing animals food it provides migrating birds food. Human intervention has made a difference in the Central Valley, but can it help with climate change and the impact it has on birds.
     Notably, habitat, drought, and food are all needed by migrating birds, but climate change is the real threat and only humans can make a difference. The article “Pacific Flyway” by The Audubon Society says, “Rising temperatures and shifting weather patterns affect birds' ability to find food and reproduce, which over time impacts local populations, and ultimately continent-wide populations, too.” Besides the rise in temperature and lack of normal rains that damage habitat, the sudden weather changes brought on by climate change can affect migration too. The navigational ability of migrating birds is affected by weather changes by forcing them to take a different route or to avoid an area altogether. While flying with the wind at their backs might seem like a good thing, strong head wind from the direction they are heading can ground them. Humans can help if they reduce their use of fossil fuels, quit burning down forests, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 
     In conclusion, humans have taken action to preserve wetlands by making sure water is available to support wetlands like the Central Valley Improvement Project Act. They have also planted fields of corn, ryegrass, and alfalfa while building dikes and creating a lake to support migrations of thousands of birds like Washington’s Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge. Migration survival depends on these available resources which makes it extremely important that people help reduce the factors that threaten those resources. The birds can’t do it, but people can, and their intervention is important to protect the Pacific Flyway for the thousands of migrating birds so they can survive the loss of habitat from agriculture expansion, the severe drought in the West, the lack of food, and the effects of the increased temperature, lack of water, and severe weather conditions because of climate change. Their continuing efforts will allow us the ability to watch waves of migrating birds fly overhead for generations to come.










Works Cited List
“Flyways.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Department of the Interior, USFWS, 5 Feb. 2020, https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/flyways.php.
Hammerson, Geoffrey A., et al. The Pacific Flyway: Waterbird Migration from the Arctic to Tierra Del Fuego. Sasquatch Books, 2020.
Hubbart, Sarah. “Climate Change, Migratory Birds, and the Future of America's Flyways.” NEEF, 30 July 2021, https://www.neefusa.org/nature/plants-and-animals/climate-change-migratory-birds-and-future-america-s-flyways. 
“Impact of Habitat Loss on Species.” WWF, WWF, https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/wildlife_practice/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/. 
“Pacific Flyway.” Audubon, National Audubon Society, 28 Sept. 2021, https://www.audubon.org/content/pacific-flyway.
“Refuge No More: Migratory Birds Face Drought, Disease and Death on the Pacific Flyway.” The Good Men Project, 18 Aug. 2021, https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/refuge-no-more-migratory-birds-face-drought-disease-and-death-on-the-pacific-flyway/. 
“U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Waterfowl - FWS.” USFW, USFW, 20 Aug. 2021, https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/Population-status/Waterfowl/WaterfowlPopulationStatusReport20.pdf.
“Voices of the Pacific Flyway - Youtube.” You Tube, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 15 Jan. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_CqIJbZx4I.







​

0 Comments

An Analysis of  Sabina Murray's Balboa by A. S.

10/6/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Dan Stark on Unsplash
Two themes of “Balboa”, a short story by Sabina Murray, are that a person’s history can create a larger-than-life ego and that absolute power corrupts. Both themes develop through Balboa’s journey from pig farmer to Spanish explorer, interact as his ego elevates him into a God feared by the Indians of Columbia, and build on one another to create a complex account of how his unlimited power is corrupted as he viciously takes lives without remorse.
This is a  brief summary of Murray’s short story about the Spanish explorer, Balboa. Wanting to claim the  South Sea, or the Pacific Ocean off Columbia in South America, for Spain, Balboa is trudging up a mountain side. As he climbs, he remembers how he went from a pig farmer in deep debt who stowed away aboard a ship to a powerful man known as a god to the native tribes. His desire for power led him to overthrow the governor and set the native tribes against each other. His relationship with the tribes is founded on fear as they have seen him send his war dogs to tear apart chiefs, warriors, women, and children. He knows that the governor he overthrew is on his way back to Columbia to imprison him for his rebellion, so he hopes that all will be forgiven if he claims the ocean for Spain.
The theme about Balboa’s ego, or his self-image, shows the progression of Balboa’s personality from a lowly pig farmer to an explorer. To get away from his gambling debts he stows away on a ship bound for South America. When discovered, as Murray says, “wrapped in a sail” the crew led by Enciso takes pity on him and puts him to work as a member of the crew. His self-image changes as he gains credibility with Enciso and goes with him to Darien on the New World’s east coast. It is here that his personality evolves. Knowing that the Spaniards believe the Indians are merciless, Balboa recognizes the way to conquer the tribes is to spread disagreement among them. He is no longer “escaping his creditors . . .” but since his reputation has spread, he now thinks of “himself as a lion” (Murray; 114, 22).
The second theme used by Murray is that unlimited, or even absolute, power corrupts. This is demonstrated when Balboa begins to think her is stronger than the governor. To Balboa, Governor Enciso, is a weak man and an even weaker governor. He wants the power that Enciso has, so he “. . . organized the rebellion, supplanted the governor” and justifies it in his mind as “all of this done with great efficiency and intelligence” (Murray, lines 78-79). Once Enciso is put on a ship back to Spain, Balboa creates terror to the point that they “think of him as a God” (Murray; 141).
The two themes interact when Balboa excuses his action of overthrowing the governor by thinking, “How could Balboa not act? Enciso did not understand the Indians as Balboa did” (Murray, line 129-130). His ego has reached a point where he now feels that he can turn the Indians on each other, and the reader begins to see how power corrupts. Siding with one tribe, he begins a war using great mastiffs and wolfhounds as Spanish war dogs. “The blood from his great war machine made the rivers flow red with his name” (Murray;137-138) He continues to show his ego driven power until as Murray puts it, “Balboa is loved by no one and feared by all. He has invented an unequaled terror” (Murray; 140-141). The interaction between his ego and the power he acquired is evident in the cruelty he uses to defeat those he considers opponents.
 Balboa’s absolute power increases his ego and the two build on one another to the point that he not only thinks it is his duty to kill the Indians for Spain, but he believes it is God’s will. For example, when a monk criticizes him for all the killing, he tells himself “What did the monk understand . . . He said that he was in the New World to bring the Indians to God. So, the monk converts the Indians, and Balboa to God sends them on to God. They work together” (Murray; 163-165).  Since Balboa’s ego increased as his power increased, they built on one another to the point that he felt no remorse in the lives he claimed. To him, it was a sense of duty to quickly kill them and send them on to their gods.
In conclusion, ego and absolute power corrupts are the themes of “Balboa”, a short story by Sabina Murray. Both themes develop through Balboa’s journey from pig farmer to Spanish explorer, interact as his ego elevates him into a God feared by the Indians of Columbia, and build on one another to create a complex account of how his unlimited power is corrupted by his self-image as a lion when he viciously takes lives without remorse. In the end, he knew “his cruelty will be recorded along with whatever he discovers,” and it cost him his life. (Murray; 151-152).

​

0 Comments

How Wolves Saved Yellowstone by A.S.

3/19/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
 Yellowstone National Park is home to one-half the world’s hydrothermal features, vibrant landscapes, mountain wildernesses, and according to a park brochure titled, “Wildlife,” it has “the largest concentration of mammals in the United States.” Yet, that wasn’t always the case. Before 1995, the park had one big problem-a vital predator had vanished. This absence for over 70 years resulted in extraordinary damage to the trees, the animals, and even the waterways. Something had to change, and scientists wondered if returning that predator to the park could be the answer. This is the story of why and how the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone saved the park by creating dramatic changes in the ecosystem for animals, plants, and rivers. However, it is important to first understand why there were no wolves in Yellowstone. 

In the beginning, wolves were a major predator in America. According to conservationist and nature author, Judy Lehmberg, in her CBS article, “Nature Up Close; The Best Wolf Ever”, there were over “400,000 gray wolves” called the United States home when the Europeans first arrived. Yet, “but by 1930 that number was very close to zero, including in Yellowstone.” When the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act of 1872 was enacted, it offered some protection for the animals, plants, and rivers to keep the park’s “natural condition” (National Park Service). That natural condition included wolves. However, as history has shown, wolves were hunted, trapped, and shot. The decreasing number of wolves in the last 250 years proves that there was no protection for wolves. In fact, most people thought, “. . . fewer wolves meant more deer, elk and moose” (Lehman). While hunting wolves was allowed, the government’s approval was in the form of a bounty on wolves in 1914. The United States considered all wolves to be, “destructive to agriculture” (Dixon). Wolves didn’t have a chance. They continued to decline year after year until almost no wolves were left in the United States. As for Yellowstone, the last two wolves were shot in 1926. It wasn’t until 1973 that wolves took their place on the newly adopted Endangered Species Act, but the damage to the park’s ecosystem was already clear and a change was needed if the natural beauty of the park was to be saved. Something had to change. 

Nevertheless, knowing something is wrong and discovering exactly what it is are two different things. Mara Dolph, a conservationist biologist, in her article, “What Happens When the Top Predator Is Removed From an Ecosystem?” explains that, “Ecosystems are complex and diverse, with many levels and intricate relationships between organisms. Removing any level from an ecosystem disrupts a delicate balance that may have evolved over millions of years”. Park rangers and scientists observations in Yellowstone noticed that the number of foxes, badgers, beavers, songbirds, and moose were decreasing each year, which told them that the system of checks and balances in Yellowstone’s ecosystem didn’t add up. The damage was evident as explained in a video created by Everything Science:

     The deer and elk populations increased substantially resulting in over grazing      particularly of the Willows and other vegetarian important to soil and riverbank structure leading to heavy erosion as a top predator wolves were one of Yellowstone's linchpins holding together the delicate balance between predator and prey the removal in the early 20th century disrupted food webs and set up something called a trophic cascade the Wolves natural predators in this case the elk multiplied all while consuming increasing amounts of foliage this hurt the species that relied on that vegetation like the birds who nested in the trees and the beavers who use the Willows to create their dams and without the beaver dams hundreds of native fish species started to decline and as the fish declined so did the animals that fed on them like the foxes and bears but removing a single species a cascade of negative effects propagated outward throughout the ecosystem (“How the Wolves Saved Yellowstone” 00:59-01:47). 

However, even though there were other predators in Yellowstone, wolves were the major predator of elk, so  “. . .  the elk pushed the limits of Yellowstone's carrying capacity, and they didn't move around much in the winter-browsing heavily on young willow, aspen and cottonwood plants” according to Brodie Farquhar in his article, “Wolf Reintroduction Changes Ecosystem”. The deer and elk herds overgrazed the willow and aspen stands. The trees produced new sprouts, but “. . . most of these sprouts were consumed by elk, preventing recruitment of new saplings and trees” (Smith-Douglas 213). The decrease in trees meant a decrease in songbirds who nest and feed in the trees. It also affected the beaver populations who “. . . rely on tall, abundant willow stands for dam-building material and winter food caches” (Smith-Douglas 212) The absence of beavers “led to a number of hydrologic changes, including widening. . . of stream channels and a drop in the floodplain water table” (Smith-Douglas 213) Scientists determined, the only way to stop the damage was to bring back the top elk predator and reintroduce wolves to save the park. 

Consequently, wolves, not just any wolves, were reintroduced. “Biologists decided that the best wolves were ones that knew how to hunt Yellowstone prey . . . Thus, we have Canadian wolves in Yellowstone” (Halfpenny 11). When they were released, the wolves did what they were supposed to do and started hunting elk. “With elk on the move during the winter, willow stands recovered from intense browsing, and beaver rediscovered an abundant food source that hadn't been there earlier” (Farquhar). The beavers built new dams and the rivers began to recover. The video by Sustainable Human, “How Wolves Changed the Rivers,” described the dramatic effect when wolves started moving the elk as “The wolves changed the behavior of the rivers. They began to meander less, there was less erosion, the channels narrowed” (03:13-03:17). The absence of wolves damaged the park, but their reintroduction helped repair the damage.

In conclusion, the removal of wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem caused severe problems when there was no predator to move the elk and lower the numbers in their herds. However, the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone saved the park by creating dramatic changes in the ecosystem for animals, plants, and rivers. The lesson learned is best stated by Katharine Lackey, “. . . most ecologists say removing predators today would be a mistake. The way ecosystems put themselves back together after such a problem is still something scientists are trying to understand. The lesson is let’s not let things get as bad as they did with 70 years without wolves.”
 





Works Cited:

Dolph, Mara. “What Happens When the Top Predator Is Removed From an Ecosystem?” Education, Seattle PI, 21 Nov. 2017, education.seattlepi.com/happens-top-predator-removed-ecosystem-3496.html.

Farquhar, Brodie. “Wolf Reintroduction Changes Ecosystem.” My Yellowstone Park, My Yellowstone Park, 30 June 2020, www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem.

“Gray Wolf.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm.

“How Wolves Change Rivers - YouTube.” Sustainable Human.org, 13 Feb. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSBL7Gk_9QU. 

Lackey, Katharine. “Yellowstone's Wolves Are Back, but They Haven't Restored the Park's Ecosystem. Here's Why.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 2018,www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/07/wolves-reintroduction-yellowstone-ecosystem/.

Lehmberg, Judy. “Nature up Close: The Best Wolf Ever.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 21 Oct. 2018, www.cbsnews.com/news/nature-up-close-the-best-wolf-ever-yellowstone-national-park/.

Smith, Douglas W., and Gary Ferguson. Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone, Lyons Press, 2012, pp. 212, 213, 215).

“Wildlife.” Yellowstone Wildlife, Yellowstone Media, 1999, www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/wildlife.htm.

“Yellowstone National Park Protection Act (1872).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/yellowstoneprotectionact1872.htm#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20Congress%20established,Park%20Protection%20Act%20into%20law.&text=AN%20ACT%20to%20set%20apart,River%20as%20a%20public%20park.
 







​

0 Comments

The Purposeful Rhetoric of “Life After People” by AS

2/17/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by aladdin hammam
Dolores Vasquez’s purpose in her article “Life After People” is to persuade and inform through rhetoric such as logic, reason, and imagery in declarative statements and descriptive phrases, to advance her perspective of what would happen to the earth if people suddenly disappeared. To accomplish her goal, Vasquez establishes the focus of the article with a rhetorical question, “What would the world be like if people suddenly disappeared?” (Vasquez, 1). Furthermore, she asks readers, “Imagine the immediate consequences . . .” (Vasquez, 2). This sets the stage then for her to appeal to the readers’ sense of logic and reason through emotions that are created by imagery.
            To further her purpose in a logical manner, Vasquez uses declarative sentences to provide information and facts right at the beginning. For example, in lines five and six, she states, “Without people to fuel them, power plants stop providing electricity-within hours.” This statement is in agreement with author Richard Gary in his article, “What Would Happen in an Apocalyptic Blackout?” Gray writes, “When a power plant goes down, for example, it causes an abrupt spike in load on others on the network, which in turn slows down the generators at these plants and causes the frequency held on the grid to decrease. This risks destabilizing the delicate balance that electricity grids are held in, and operators have to deploy countermeasures rapidly – often within milliseconds – to prevent sections of the grid being cut off.” Since it is true that “operators” keep the power running, then Vasquez’s statement sets a logical premise for her opinions. However, logic alone is not enough to complete the picture the author is trying to create. She also needs to help them think about what she is saying, so she uses reason in the form of another rhetorical question. “But what happens later?” (Vasquez, 4).
            Logic and reason are closely related, and it is this rhetoric technique that Vasquez uses to persuade her readers. Since her goal is to persuade readers to understand the consequences of a depopulated planet, she offers something readers can relate to emotionally and intelligently. “We use electricity to make toast and to power TVs and computers, but the absence of electric energy has huge effects . . .” (Vasquez, 6-7). Everyone can agree now that if electricity is cut-off then there are real life consequences. She continues adding reason chronologically in the following paragraphs after asking, “But what happens later?” She does this by presenting a situation in line 21, “Meanwhile, at nuclear power plants, the cooling ponds for spent fuel rods gets hotter and hotter.” While the reader might think they know the outcome, they may not be sure. The question of ‘What next?’ makes the reader ready to listen, and Vasquez gives them the answer. “Soon the water boils away, and the rods cause fires and release radiation into the air, where it is carried by the wind. Plants and animals in affected areas die.” (Lines 22- 24) The outcome of this event justifies the author’s position and persuades readers to think about her claim. Logic and reason are not the only two examples of the rhetoric Dolores Vasquez uses to persuade and inform. She also uses imagery.
                  In the author’s attempt to persuade and inform her readers, she paints mental pictures with her words to advance her perspective. She writes descriptive sentences and phrases such as “Dairy cattle die of thirst in their pens . . .”(Lines 15-16) and “Some sports stadiums become giant bat caves” (Lines 15-16; 31-32). Her descriptions carry a truth because dairy cattle would die if no one was there to feed and water them in an enclosed pen. In addition, it is easy to imagine large empty stadiums with no one there to maintain them becoming a habitat for birds and bats. Both sentences create a mental picture, or an image, readers can believe. Vasquez maintains this imagery throughout her article. In lines 38 and 39, she states, “. . . skyscrapers begin to tumble. Bridges fall. The hulks of cars and buses start to disintegrate.”  The picture of a huge change to the modern world is complete, and the author has persuaded and informed readers of the consequences if people suddenly disappeared.
In conclusion, Dolores Vasquez’s use of rhetoric techniques such as logic, reason, and imagery in, “Life After People”, to appeal to readers through declarative sentences and descriptive phrases does advance her purpose to persuade and inform. It is clear that the author can visualize what would happen to our world if people disappeared, and she was able to share that perception by persuading readers to visualize it too.

​

0 Comments

Benefits of Being Vegan by KJY

2/9/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Did you know that Kyrie Irving is Vegan? He is a 26-year-old NBA champ and is a five-time NBA All-Star. He switched to a vegan diet after watching a health documentary called “What The Health.” Becoming vegan can help athletes increase stamina and endurance, which can positively affect their performance. I’ll convey a variety of major biological benefits that a vegan diet can give an individual even if they are not an athlete. People who want to be healthier and have increased physical ability or people who are anti-plant based should try being vegan because it helps increase blood flow, lowers the chance of heart disease, reduces inflammation, and provides more endurance.


     One reason people who desire increased health should try being vegan is increased blood flow. The Game Changers website worked with professors and found data while working with: Harvard University, American College of Cardiology, University College London, City University of London, Yale University, and Dartmouth College. A plant based diet increases blood flow thus aiding in endurance and quicker recovery from exercise. According to their studies; “Research has shown that just two hours after eating a heavy animal-based meal, arteries can constrict by 40%, essentially causing a traffic jam. The calorie-matched plant-based meal allowed them to open freely for quick, easy transit (15)” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). The citation above shows that eating food that is not plant based makes your arteries and veins contract making it harder for the blood to get through. This makes it harder for parts of your body (like organs) to receive the nutrients from your blood in different parts of the body. “There is also a common ingredient found in plant-based foods like spinach, lettuce, carrots, and beets that actually signals our blood vessels to open, allowing more blood to flow through at a faster pace (16). This ingredient is nitrates which, unlike the cancer-causing nitrates in cured meats like bacon (17), serves another important function” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). The citation above exhibit’s that certain edible plants have nitrates that help open up your veins and arteries unlike the statistics of those who consumed animal products. This makes it easier for your heart so that it doesn’t pump at too fast of a rate. The text above reveals how plant based eating opens up veins which allows more blood to come through to deliver more nutrients to important parts of the body. A Vegan diet also makes the blood not be too thick of a consistency so that it doesn’t cause blocks in veins, arteries, or organs. There are certain chemical compounds in plant based foods called nitrates that help naturally open up veins and arteries. These are not bad nitrates or nitrites; they are only found in plant compounds, not animal products. The studies also show that eating animal products is even worse for you because they make your veins and arteries contract which decreases the amount of blood able to travel through your veins. People who desire to be healthier should try being vegan because it increases their blood flow.

     People who want to be healthier should try consuming a plant based diet, because it can reduce chances of heart disease. The researchers concluded; “Cardiovascular disease, which includes heart disease, stroke, and hypertension (also known as high blood pressure), is the world’s number-one killer, claiming twice as many lives as cancer (1,2). In the US, about half of all people have it, and one in four will die from heart disease (3,30)” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Optimizing Health”). The studies above have shown that consuming animal protein has been shown through experiments to increase chances of heart disease well known to many people in the U.S.A. Many people who gain heart disease also acquire higher chances of death by heart disease. “A 2016 cohort study led by Harvard involving 131,342 participants found that every 10% increase in calories from animal protein led to a corresponding 8% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, and concluded that “high animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality” (31). (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Optimizing Health”). The citations above convey that even the slightest increase of animal products will swell your chances of heart disease. Harvard came to the conclusion that more animal protein raises chances of dangerous heart disease. Whereas consuming plant protein reduces that possibility of heart disease. This study is also done on a large scale showing no favoritism in the variety of different people in the world.  “The Heart is the centerpiece of life and. More often than not in America, it is the centerpiece of death. Malfunction of the heart and/or circulatory system will kill 40% of Americans, more than those killed by any other injury or ailment, including cancer. Heart disease has been our number one cause of death for almost 100 years. This disease does not recognize gender or race boundaries; all are affected” (Campbell 101). Campbell expounds how studies have shown that people who consume animal products are more likely to have heart disease. Heart disease is shown to be one of the top killers of humans in the U.S. Consuming animal proteins seems to also have an effect on heart disease. The data from Harvard and Campbell have shown how eating plant based can positively affect major aspects of your life. While eating animal products may be more comfortable, in the long run eating plant based will reduce your chances of heart disease and death. People who want to be healthier should try being vegan because it helps decrease chances of heart disease. 

     Another reason people who want increased health should try eating plant based because it reduces bodily inflammation. The researchers came to the point; “Inflammation is our body's natural immune response to injury, foreign invaders, or even exercise” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). The info above shows how inflammation is a naturally occurring part of life, especially in recovering from physical challenges. “Left unchecked, or further intensified, inflammation can prolong healing time from injuries or sickness, and also increase soreness and swelling, slowing recovery between workouts and competitions. Chronic inflammation often begins with the same cellular response, but shifts in nature when the immune system fails to heal the injury effectively, eliminate the foreign invaders, or continues to respond to a threat that no longer exists” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). In the citation above it conveys that in Chronic Inflammation, sometimes the bacteria may attack healthy tissue and joints. This can cause even longer recovering times, and possibly long term injuries. “With research showing that a single hamburger can increase measures of inflammation by 70 percent (27)”(“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). The text above shows that animal products have an abundance of pro-inflammatory molecules and bacteria. Eating more animal products causes more inflammation. Plants naturally have anti-inflammatory molecules which reduce inflammation. “The contrast between these two classes of food is dramatic, with plants having on average 64 times the antioxidant content of animal foods (28). This helps explain why switching to a plant-based diet can help reduce measures of inflammation by 29 percent in just three weeks (29)” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). This info above shows the dramatic change in lowering inflammation a plant based diet has. “Eating plants also combats the inflammation caused by animal foods (27,35). Therefore, decreasing animal foods while increasing plant foods has a dual effect: it not only replaces pro-inflammatory compounds with anti-inflammatory ones, but also frees up the beneficial plant compounds to address the inflammation caused by exercise, injury, and sickness (36). The reduction in both acute and chronic inflammation reveals why so many plant-based athletes, including those featured in The Game Changers, report reduced DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness), quicker recovery times after workouts and competitions, faster healing from injuries, reduced tendonitis and joint pain, improved immunity, and significantly increased career longevity” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- The Plant-Based Advantage”). The citations above show that you will receive more inflammation eating animal products because of certain toxins and pro-inflammatory compounds. When you have more inflammation it takes longer for your body to heal from soreness or other injuries. It is proven through studies that animal based foods have many pro-inflammatory chemical compounds and therefore cause more inflammation. Inflammation can also cause healthy tissue to be damaged if rates of inflammation are too high. Eating plant based causes a decrease in inflammation in a very quick amount of time. Our bodies weren’t created to deal with these major amounts of inflammation and toxins. Eating vegan helps because plants naturally have anti-inflammatory compounds and also have high doses of antioxidants which help your body keep free radicals out. Free radicals are molecules frequently linked with heart disease, cancer, and other diseases. People who want to become healthier ought to try being vegan because it reduces inflammation. 

     Another reason that people whose goal is to become healthier, should try eating plant based is due to the fact that it increases endurance. The researchers concluded; “...Nitrate-packed vegetables make muscles more efficient and help preserve our limited fuel supply, which can significantly affect stamina. In one study, for example, simply adding beet juice allowed test subjects to cycle 22% longer than those in the control group (12)” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Increased Stamina”). The text above reveals that consuming foods high in nitrate helps increase endurance. Plants have the highest levels of healthy nitrates and nitrites. “In another study, recreational runners were able to shave 6% off their 5K run times just four days after switching to a plant-based diet. In this case, the researchers hypothesized that the anti-inflammatory nature of the antioxidant-rich plant foods also contributed to the faster run times (13)” (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Increased Stamina”). These studies show the results of two groups performing endurance exercises. One consuming plant based food and the other group eating animal products. As the text states the athletes consuming plant based food had a higher percentage of endurance through the whole test. More plant nitrates and antioxidants help open up the blood vessels which helps the blood flow easier to different organs and arteries providing the nutrients faster. These pieces of content reveal how consuming plant based foods will influence your bodily functions of endurance and inflammation rates. People who want to be healthier overall should try being vegan because it helps increase levels of endurance. This next section will display a fallacy thought to be a true fact of people who are vegan.

     A lot of people believe that when you are eating plant based foods that you don’t get enough protein to support your body. According to the researcher’s studies; “Contrary to popular belief, the largest study comparing the nutrient intake of meat-eaters with plant-eaters showed that the average plant-eater not only gets enough protein, but 70% more than they need. Somewhat ironically, even meat-eaters get roughly half of their protein from plants (7). This should come as no surprise if you’re aware of the fact that a peanut butter sandwich contains about as much protein as three ounces of beef or three large eggs (8). (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Increased Stamina”). One misconception from the citation above is that plant protein doesn’t have all the essential amino acids. If you eat a variety of plants you will get all the amino acids just in varying proportions. The researchers concluded; “This would explain why, when it comes to gaining strength and muscle mass, research comparing plant and animal protein repeatedly demonstrates that as long as the right amount of amino acids are consumed, the source is irrelevant (11). Since we know that getting enough protein from plants needn’t be an issue, the far more important issue now comes into play: the package this protein comes in'' (“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary- Cutting Out The Middleman”). The studies above shows that plant eaters can still get enough protein daily through beans, legumes, and grains. When most people think about being vegan is as if you eat only salads for every meal. The text indicates how even meat eaters get a large amount of their daily protein from plants naturally, which is not what meat eaters are purposefully trying to do. This shows how most protein is easiest to get from plants because people who eat animal protein naturally consume plant protein. Some people think that animal protein is better for you because it has all the essential amino acids. These amino acids can only be received by eating them because our bodies don’t naturally produce them. Plant food also has all the amino acids even though most people assume that they don’t. In this paragraph, we talked about a common misconception of people who are eating plant based/Vegan. So over this whole argument, we went over how being plant based can help increase blood flow, reduce inflammation, lowers the chance of heart disease, and provides more endurance. The counterclaim was that people who are eating vegan don’t get enough protein. Where do cows get their protein from? They mostly eat grass which provides them with large amounts of protein. This proves that plants can also have protein. Increased blood flow occurs when you eat plant based which provides your body with more plant nitrites and nitrates that naturally communicate to your body to open up blood veins and arteries to let more blood through. It reduces inflammation because meat contains many proinflammatory molecules which increase bodily inflammation. Taking meat out of a diet will decrease inflammation due to the fact stated above. Consuming vegan products will decrease the chances of heart disease. Many studies have shown that eating animal protein has a large effect on the chances of having heart disease. Finally another perk of eating plant based is how it affects your endurance. It will increase your endurance because of the nitrites and nitrates which were talked about above. Those two molecules tell your veins/arteries to open up so that means that more blood travels through your body without your heart having to work as hard. This means that when it’s time to exercise it is easier to consistently do it longer because more nutrients are flowing through your bloodstream.
     All this information has hopefully helped give you a better understanding of the benefits of being vegan. The next step is to choose whether this the right diet for you and to slowly implement it into your daily lives more and more. Being vegan is more than just a fad diet, it helps you perform at a higher level during physical activities. Many elite athletes have made the switch to a plant based diet and are now promoting them but the choice is yours to make. 




Works Cited List

Campbell, Thomas M., and T. Colin Campbell. The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition. Benbella Books, 2016.
“The Game Changers Official Film Website: Documentary.” Edited by Mechura Stephanie and Swietlik Dan, The Game Changers, 20 Sept. 2019, gamechangersmovie.com/.



​

0 Comments

Why We Should Go Nuclear by A.C.

1/19/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Boudewijn Huysmans
In the world of energy production, there are many problems that need to be solved, and there is an energy source that can solve many of these issues. The energy source is called nuclear power, and it can address the many problems with energy production today such as reliability, cleanliness, and climate change. Current nuclear energy technology utilizes nuclear fission, the splitting of atoms, to produce energy. Many people have been led to believe that nuclear energy is highly dangerous because of accidents, waste, and weapons, but is it possible that the dangers of these problems have been significantly overblown, and even more common, familiar forms of energy are actually more dangerous? American voters should push for greater reliance on nuclear energy since it is reliable, clean, and safe, and it can help fight climate change, supplement renewables, and it is an energy source that is continuing to improve. 

To start off, people should push for nuclear energy since it is highly reliable. Nuclear energy is the most reliable form of energy production. No other form of energy production comes close to the reliability of nuclear energy. A good way to measure the reliability of a power plant is by looking at its capacity factor. This is the measure of how often a power plant runs during a period of time. It is given as a percentage and is calculated by dividing the power output over a period of time by the maximum possible output during that period of time. For example, if a power plant produced 500 megawatts of electricity in a year, but could have produced 1000 megawatts if it ran at maximum output that whole year, the capacity factor of the power plant for that year would be 50%. According to a graph made by the Department of Energy, nuclear power plants had a capacity factor of “93.5%” in 2019. For comparison, natural gas plants in 2019, which were the second highest to nuclear, had a capacity factor of “56.8%”. Coal plants had a capacity factor of “47.5%”, and solar plants had a capacity factor of “24.5%” (“Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close.”). As you can see, nuclear power plants were far more reliable than other types of power plants. This is due to the fact that nuclear power plants require less maintenance and can go longer periods of time without needing to be refueled. The reliability of nuclear power plants cannot be beat, so people should push for nuclear energy since it will guarantee a stable supply of electricity. 

People should also push for nuclear energy since it is a clean source of energy. Nuclear power plants do not emit any type of pollutants into the atmosphere. For comparison, fossil fuels release pollutants into the atmosphere, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which are responsible for many diseases. Per the Nuclear Energy Institute: “These pollutants contribute to stroke, heart disease, neurological disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases, including asthma. Without nuclear power, NOx and SO2 levels in the U.S. would increase by more than 26 percent” (Air Quality). Nuclear energy helps to reduce the amount of harmful pollutants being released into the atmosphere. Without them, the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere would be much higher, and overall public health would be worse. Many people will ask the question of nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste which can be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. The nuclear sector is the only energy producing sector that takes full responsibility for all of the waste that it produces. According to the Department of Energy, “...the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s…” (“5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel”). This is actually a relatively small amount of waste.

For comparison, coal plants produce significantly more waste. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “...nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014” (“Coal Ash Basics”). This waste is harmful to both the environment and human health and it is poorly contained. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is safely stored in its entirety to prevent environmental contamination. This waste also isn’t useless. According to the Department of Energy, “Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts” (“5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel”). Not only is this waste safely contained, it can also be recycled to be put back into a nuclear reactor. Nuclear energy is very clean, so people should support it since it will help ensure good physical health.        

Another reason voters should consider nuclear energy is that it is very safe. This may seem backwards to many people. They will immediately think of nuclear accidents such as the ones at Chernobyl and Fukushima and say, because of those, nuclear energy is dangerous. Although these events were significant, nuclear energy overall has killed far fewer than other sources of energy production. According to the World Health Organization, “Ambient air pollution accounts for an estimated 4.2 million deaths per year…” (“Air Pollution”). Air pollution kills a significant number of people each year, and a large portion of this air pollution comes from power plants that utilize fossil fuels. Because of this, fossil fuels have killed a significantly larger number of people than nuclear energy over the course of history. According to a graph made by Hannah Ritchie from Our World in Data, nuclear energy has killed “0.07” people per terawatt-hour of energy produced. For comparison, coal has killed “24.62” and oil has killed “18.43” people per terawatt-hour of energy produced (Ritchie). She also states “Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.7% fewer than coal; 99.6% fewer than oil; and 97.5% fewer than gas” (Ritchie). All of this data includes the death tolls from the major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Based on these statistics, nuclear energy is a much safer form of energy production than other more common sources such as fossil fuels. Unfortunately, most people don’t know this. Nuclear accidents get all of the attention so people think that nuclear energy is very dangerous, but in reality, it really isn’t, and fossil fuels have silently killed millions more over the course of time. Another issue some people will bring up is nuclear weapons. The concern is a nation will build nuclear power plants then utilize the waste products to build nuclear weapons. Although this is possible, it is not a practical way of building nuclear weapons. According to James A. Lake, Ralph G. Bennett, and John F. Kotek from Scientific American, “When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials” (“Next Generation Nuclear Power”). Countries that want to develop nuclear weapons will typically build facilities that are specifically made to produce materials for nuclear weapons rather than using civilian power plants to accomplish this task. People need to shy away from fossil fuels and move to nuclear as it will create an environment that is safer for their well-being. 

When looking at how to combat climate change, voters should consider nuclear energy since it can help fight this issue. Climate change, which is caused by humans releasing carbon into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, could result in failing ecosystems, failing food supply, and more frequent significant weather events. Nuclear energy could help combat this since nuclear power plants do not produce any carbon emissions and their carbon footprint is also very small. According to the World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar” (“How Can Nuclear Combat Climate Change?”). By increasing our reliance on nuclear energy, carbon emissions could be significantly decreased while still supplying reliable, consistent power production. France is a country that is a good example of this. They state, “France generates over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power – the largest nuclear share of any country globally – and its electricity sector emissions are one-sixth of the European average” (“Climate Change”). France has built up a high reliance on nuclear energy and this has enabled them to have much lower electricity sector carbon emissions than most other European countries. Climate change is a serious threat to us all, and voters should push for nuclear energy since it can help us fight this problem.

Voters need to push for nuclear energy since it can supplement renewable energy sources. Renewables, such as wind and solar, are very inconsistent. It is difficult to integrate such inconsistent power supplies onto a power grid. If the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, they won’t be producing adequate electricity to keep up with demand. According to the Thunderbird School of Global Management from Arizona State University, “The number one challenge for renewable energy is the fact that, in most cases, it’s not always on. You get power when it’s sunny or windy and when it’s not, you don’t. That kind of intermittent generation wouldn’t be a problem if we had a cost-effective, reliable way to store power – but we don’t, yet” (“5 Challenges for Renewable Energy”). Current battery technology isn’t cheap and good enough to store large amounts of electricity that can be used at a later time when renewables aren’t generating enough power. Until battery technology improves, there needs to be a source of power that provides a consistent load of electricity to ensure there is always enough electricity to meet demand when renewables aren’t performing. Nuclear energy is the perfect choice for this job since it is clean, low carbon, and highly reliable. By pushing for nuclear energy, we can help renewables achieve their goal of a cleaner environment and reduced carbon emissions.

The final reason people should push for nuclear energy is that reactor technology is improving. Many of the reactors currently in use around the world are old and have their problems. There is a new generation of reactors, called the Generation IV reactors, which are being developed by an international coalition of 14 countries, including the United States. According to the Department of Energy, “These innovative systems are expected to be cleaner, safer and more efficient than previous generations” (“3 Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030”). These reactors, such as the molten salt reactors (MSRs) and the sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs), will be able to solve the current problems with nuclear energy. The Department of Energy says that MSRs “...can be tailored for the efficient burn up of plutonium and minor actinides, which could allow MSRs to consume waste from other reactors” (“Reactor Systems”). The MSRs could be able to use nuclear waste from other reactors as fuel. This would reduce the amount of nuclear waste currently being stored. They also state “...SFRs to use both fissile material and spent fuel from current reactors to produce electricity” (“Reactor Systems”). SFRs could be utilized to consume waste from other reactors as well. MSRs have some other benefits in addition to consuming nuclear waste. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “They operate at higher temperatures, which lead to increased efficiencies in generating electricity. In addition, low operating pressures can reduce the risk of a large break and loss of coolant as a result of an accident, thereby enhancing the safety of the reactor” (“Molten Salt Reactors”). Despite nuclear reactors already being safe and efficient, MSRs are even more safe and efficient than current nuclear reactors. They also state, “MSRs also generate less high-level waste...” (“Molten Salt Reactors”). MSRs produce less highly radioactive waste as well, which means less waste would have to be stored compared to current reactors. The public needs to push for nuclear energy because with more public and political support, nuclear reactor technology will improve even further. 

In conclusion, American voters should urge and elect officials to build a greater dependence on nuclear energy. Many people who opposed nuclear energy may have believed that nuclear power plants are dangerous, provide materials for nuclear weapons, and produce abundant waste, but as the evidence above has shown, nuclear power plants are much safer for human health than fossil fuels, they usually are not used to make nuclear weapons, and the waste they produce is relatively small and is stored safely, unlike fossil fuels that produce significantly more waste that is pumped into the atmosphere for us to breathe. First, nuclear energy is much more reliable than other forms of energy production. Secondly, nuclear energy is very clean as it does not pollute the environment and the atmosphere. Thirdly, nuclear energy is a safer form of nuclear energy since it kills far fewer people than other forms of energy. Fourthly, nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions which helps in the fight against climate change. Fifthly, nuclear energy can help supplement renewable forms of energy since they are unreliable.

Finally, nuclear energy is improving with new reactor technologies that can solve the current problems with nuclear power. The many problems in the world of energy production can be solved with nuclear energy, but this can’t happen without public support, so go out and press your government officials to seriously consider nuclear energy, and make informed voting decisions that will benefit nuclear power. 
            

Works Cited List“3 Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030.” Energy.gov, 7 Mar. 2018, www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030.

5 Challenges for Renewable Energy. (2018, September 03). Retrieved December 01, 2020, from https://thunderbird.asu.edu/knowledge-network/5-challenges-renewable-energy

“5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Energy.gov, 30 Mar. 2020, www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel“

Air Pollution.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution.

“Air Quality.” Nuclear Energy Institute, www.nei.org/advantages/air-quality. “Coal Ash Basics.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 5 June 2020, www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics.

“How Can Nuclear Combat Climate Change?” Nuclear Energy and Climate Change - World Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change.aspx.

“The Nuclear Debate.” The Nuclear Debate - World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2018, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/the-nuclear-de bate.aspx.

“Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close.” Energy.gov, 22 Apr. 2020, www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close Lake, James A. “Next Generation Nuclear Power.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 26 Jan. 2009, www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/.

Ritchie, Hannah. “What Are the Safest and Cleanest Sources of Energy?” Our World in Data, 10 Feb. 2020, ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy.
​
“The Nuclear Debate.” The Nuclear Debate - World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2018, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/the-nuclear-de bate.aspx. 
​

0 Comments
<<Previous

    Guest Essays

    Due to the fact that all students who share their essays are under the age of 18 years, the student's name will be identified only by their initials. All rights are maintained by the student, and no essay may be reproduced or copied. 

    Archives

    March 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly