Sherry Alexander Writes

How Wolves Saved Yellowstone by A.S.

3/19/2021

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

Photo 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

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

Photo 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

Ban the Bags! by A.M.

1/18/2021

0 Comments

Photo by roberta errani

People tend to take the most convenient path even though it may have bad consequences since the consequences don’t immediately or directly affect the person. This includes the usage of single-use plastic bags. Using them has bad consequences, but these consequences don't immediately or directly affect us. For their bad impact they urgently need to be banned. This means a full ban of their usage and not just a tax. People who are against the ban of plastic bags may be clinging to reasons such as your freedom of choice and plastic bags are not causing the environment harm, but instead it is our misuse of them. However, are these concerns unwarranted? Is it feasible that these concerns are void and outweighed by the benefits of a ban on plastic bags? Anyone around the world who uses plastic bags should believe in and support a ban on plastic bags; humans are in danger from plastic bags, they cause environmental damage, are non-biodegradable, create great wastes when being made, and it harms and kills animals; for these reasons we must make all types of plastic bags banned worldwide.
    To commence, individuals who use plastic bags should make the switch to reusable bags, for the risk they cause to human safety. Debatewise, a debating website, looked into both sides of why plastic bags should be banned or not banned. One reason some people may be refuting the ban is they want freedom of choice, [w]hy should we not be free to chose to take a plastic bag? As with everything else there must be a market price for plastic bags that includes the cost of making them and the cost to the environment in the monetary cost (therefore providing revenue to clear up the leftover plastic bags), at this particular price there will still be some people who are willing to pay the cost for the convenience of just being able to pick one up with the shopping, or if a shopper has forgotten to bring their own bags with them they should be able to buy plastic bags at the shop. There is no need for an outright ban on plastic bags.
For example, if one person stopped using plastic bags for the harm they caused and another did not. The person who stopped using single-use bags could be killed by the other’s ill choices. Yes, your plastic bags you thought only hurt other creatures can kill you. Britta and Qamar, two research scientists for Curious Kids, worked on and published an article on August 2nd regarding how plastic bags harm the environment. This quote was uncovered in the article, “Many people don’t realise that plastic bags can also cause flooding. Previously in Ghana (in West Africa), plastic bags blocked storm water drains during a big rainstorm. This caused flooding so bad that people were killed.” This may come as a shock to anyone who does not believe in the ban of plastic bags, but they endanger human beings. For the threat to our safety and others, plastic bags must be banned.
    In addition, the input of a ban on plastic bags is necessary for the harm they cause on the environment. Plastic bags are an eyesore to us on land and smother plants on the sea bed. Britta and Qamar wrote this, “Plastic bags can also smother corals and other seabed communities”...“On land, plastic bags are an eyesore. They get stuck in trees, along fence lines, or as litter at our parks and beaches.” Plastic bags are killing essential plants on the seafloor and are atrocious to look at when discarded in nature. An example of the harm they cause the oceans is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Akpan, a digital science producer for PBS NewsHour and is co-creator to ScienceScope, wrote, “617,000 square miles...” This is the area of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Which from an article posted on the February 11, 2020 from The Ocean Cleanup is the size of …“an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France.” The National Geographic Society posted on the ninth of October in 2012 that, “In reality, these patches are almost entirely made up of tiny bits of plastic, called microplastics. Microplastics can't always be seen by the naked eye. Even satellite imagery doesn't show a giant patch of garbage. The microplastics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can simply make the water look like a cloudy soup”...“The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a collection of marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean. Marine debris is litter that ends up in oceans, seas, and other large bodies of water.”   This example was of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is only one of the larger patches of garbage in the oceans. These patches are, as said in the quote above, made mostly of micro plastics. Plastic bags cause harm to the seabed plants and on dry land can be eyesores to humans. Due to the endangerment to the environment, it is essential to ban plastic bags.
    Connecting to the reason above, plastic bags urgently need to be banned for being non-biodegradable. Plastic bags cause harm to the environment, but the biggest concern is once they get there, they will not go away for a long time. From the Center for Biological Diversity comes a post, entitled 10 Facts About Single-use Plastic Bags, states, “It takes 500 (or more) years for a plastic bag to degrade in a landfill. Unfortunately the bags don't break down completely but instead photo-degrade, becoming microplastics that absorb toxins and continue to pollute the environment.” From this article, once a plastic bag gets into the environment, there seems no end when it will stop causing harm. This is a major problem. From Debatewise this piece of information comes, “An estimated 17 billion plastic bags are given to British consumers. We do not need this many plastic bags in the world. The pollution caused by their creation alone is enough to warrant a ban on their manufacture and their use. In addition, they do not degrade well in our rubbish dumps, so they will remain on this planet forever more. We cannot have this accumulation of plastic bags and the only way forward is to ban their distribution and use.” Having so many plastic bags produced and distributed each year is madness, and there being no end to their harm seems reason enough to ban plastic bags.
Trailing, single-use plastic bags should be banned across the globe for their waste when being made. This refutes and counteracts the claim from Debatewise of, “We all have to USE the plastic bags instead of MISUSING it. All of us throw the used plastic bags on roads and other places. Infrastructure needs improvement to recycle plastic bags. plastic bags can be totally recycled. If we are not using plastic bags then we’ll rely on other resources which are paper bags, reality check : production paper bags cannot fulfill the requirements of today’s world.” This reason does have sense when talking about it being in oceans, but the people who may be latched on to this reason have not looked into the strain plastic bags have on the environment before reaching the consumer. The making of plastic bags is a complete waste. When counting what goes into plastic bags you must include both the compounds that make up the plastic bags and the ones used to put those compounds together. From Debatewise comes this statement, “Plastic bag production uses almost 10 percent of the world’s annual oil supply. Only 3.5 percent of this number are recycled. This means that much of the planet’s precious natural resources are being used to produce plastic bags that many of us maintain are unnecessary. The chemicals and compounds that go into making plastic bags could also be utilized in a far more effective manner.” This means infrastructure and guiding the use of the plastic bags will not completely fix the problem of plastic bags. Showing the most effective way to protect the environment from plastic bags is to ban them in all types worldwide.
Finally, plastic bags most definitely need to be banned for the harm they cause animals. Plastic bags directly harm the animals, not just their habitat. Uncovered in Curious Kids article “Turtles (and other animals) may mistake plastic bags for food. Turtles like to eat jellyfish, and we think turtles eat the plastic bags because they resemble jellyfish. When turtles eat plastic, it can block their intestinal system (their guts). Therefore, they can no longer eat properly, which can kill them.” If the animals aren’t mistaking the bags for food they are tangled in it. This can be found later in the Curious Kids article, “When plastic bags end up in our oceans, animals (including seals, dolphins and seabirds) can get tangled up in them. An animal with a plastic bag around its neck will have trouble moving through the water, catching its prey or feeding, and escaping predators.” As the article says animals caught up in a plastic bag will have its ability to travel hindered. This can potentially starve them or help other species be able to eat them. To be specific on how many animals plastic bags kill, this piece of information has been collected, “100,000 marine animals are killed by plastic bags annually...” (10 Facts About Single-use Plastic Bags). For this reason plastic bags should be banned, or at the bare minimum, cause you to stop using them.
    To come to a close, everyone who uses plastic bags should switch to reusable bags and support the change by calling for a ban on plastic bags. This means all types of plastic bags everywhere. Anyone who did not believe in using reusable bags and battled the ban might have been worried about their freedom of choice and the belief that bag don’t actually hurt the environment, just the misuse of them. These concerns are important, but you may have been overlooking the major damage plastic bags cause. Having freedom of choice is important, but some don’t care about the environment. These people who don’t care shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the planet for those who do. The other claim of bags not harming the environment, but instead the misuse of them, is only partly true. The misuse of them does affect the damage they do, but the sheer number of them has its toll on the environment, not to mention how bad it is just making them. Some reasons for why plastic bags need to be banned is that many people do not know, is they are harmful to humans. Plastic bags can clog drains and cause flooding in a storm. These plastic bags also cause environmental damage by smothering coral in oceans and being an eyesore to people. An example being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is 617,000 miles squared. Not only do these bags hurt the environment, but when they get there, they don’t go away for a very, very long time, 500 or more years. Ensuing that, not only do these treacherous bags cause damage after they are handed out, they also are a great waste in the process of them being made. The compounds needed to make the bags alone are bad, not to mention the chemicals and materials put into the making of the compounds together. The final plea is one of the most tragic, it is they kill an estimated 100,000 marine animals a year. Some animals mistake them for food and others get trapped in them. Both of these scenarios end in almost certain death for the animal. Don’t take the most convenient path if it has bad consequences even if they might not immediately or directly affect you.

Works Cited List

10 Facts About Single-Use Plastic Bags, www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/sustainability/plastic_bag_facts.html.

Akpan, Nsikan. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch Weighs More than 43,000 Cars and Is Much Larger than We Thought.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 22 Mar. 2018, www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-weighs-more-than-43000-cars-and-is-way-bigger-than-previously-thought.

Britta Denise Hardesty Principal Research Scientist, and Qamar Schuyler Research Scientist. “Curious Kids: How Do Plastic Bags Harm Our Environment and Sea Life?” The Conversation, 2 Aug. 2019, theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-do-plastic-bags-harm-our-environment-and-sea-life-98859.

“Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” The Ocean Cleanup, 11 Feb. 2020, theoceancleanup.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch/.

Krosofsky, Andrew. “Just a Few Choice Arguments as to Why Plastic Should Be Banned.” Green Matters, Green Matters, 22 Oct. 2020, www.greenmatters.com/p/plastic-should-be-banned-arguments.

National Geographic Society. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/.

“Should Plastic Bags Be Banned?” DebateWise, 9 July 2020, debatewise.org/1011-should-plastic-bags-be-banned/.

0 Comments

Stop the Drill! by K.M.

1/18/2021

0 Comments

Photo by Zbynek Burival on Unsplash

Many common actions we do have huge negative effects on our planet and its inhabitants. Some reasons you may think drilling is good, is it has immediate economic benefits. By removing the oil, it also reduces pressure causing less gases to be released. If the oil that is pushing the gases to the surface is not dealt with, more marine life will die. You may think the positives of oil drilling outweigh the negatives, but could it be, the negatives actually out way the positives? Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in Alaska, should use a better, renewable source of energy, since drilling for oil can cause harm to wildlife and marine life, drilling can heavily affect the environment, it has a negative effect on plants, and it can cause climate change to speed up.
            Advocates of drilling, you should think about using a more renewable source of energy for the wildlife and marine life that are in danger if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. One reason is drilling can affect the way animals go about their habitat. The second reason is if an oil spill were to occur, it would mean animals’ lives. The next two quotes come from the Wilderness Society's article “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment”: "Oil and gas extraction is a menace to wildlife. Loud noises, human movement and vehicle traffic from drilling operations can disrupt avian species’ communication, breeding and nesting..." In this quote, it reveals how oil drilling can negatively affect wildlife. “Big oil spills are known killers of wildlife… Smaller spills, including of other substances in the oil extraction process... can also be dangerous. During oil extraction on land, drilling fluids are injected into the well for lubrication. These oil-based fluids known as "mud" are supposed to be captured in lined pits for disposal, but they’re often spilled and splashed around the drilling site....” This quote states that oil spills, big or small, can kill wildlife or marine life. It also states substances used in the extraction process can spill and kill wildlife and marine life. On the contrary, this next quote informs us that underwater oil pockets can seep out causing a small amount of marine life to die. "...natural oil seepage accounts for more than half of the oil pollutants in the ocean, which push methane gas into the atmosphere and create oil slicks on the water’s surface that can negatively effect marine populations. Oil drilling reduces the pressure of oil reservoirs underground, which greatly reduces the amount of hydrocarbon seepage – and the amount of methane gas in the atmosphere..." (Flournoy) Although, if they do extract this oil, it can disrupt the marine life that lives there, and if the oil were to spill, it could be devastating. This paragraph has talked about how wildlife and marine life are heavily affected by drilling. Meaning, the animals that were once safe and protected in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have their lives at risk if drilling took place. This is one of the reasons why you should use a renewable source of energy.
            In addition, advocates need to consider the consequences to the environment if we do not use a renewable source of energy. The first two quotes come from the article, “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment”. The first quote talks about how the damage of oil drilling can be irreversible. "Infrastructure built for oil and gas extraction can leave behind radical impacts on the land. The construction of roads, facilities and drilling sites known as well pads requires the use of heavy equipment and can destroy big chunks of pristine wilderness. The damage is often irreversible." If we let drilling occur in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it could permanently damage the landscape. "The study’s researchers warned that even if oil and gas companies eventually abandon these sites, it can take centuries before the land fully recovers… Development of oil and gas complexes can cause serious and long-term damage to land, including, Stripping the environment of vegetation, Increasing erosion, which can lead to landslides and flooding, Disturbing the land’s ground surface, Seriously fragmenting unspoiled wildlife habitats" This quote provides a little hope that the land would eventually go back to the way it was, but it said that it could take centuries. The quote also states some of the actions that need to take place to drill, and that those actions can have a long-term effect on the environment. What is a little bit of land for such a nice economic benefit you may ask? It is true that oil drilling is a great way to boost the economy. With drilling comes more jobs, and the price of oil is good for whichever country has it. A quote found from an article on the website Scinceing. “The process of extracting, refining and using the by-products of crude oil requires hundreds, if not thousands of people: the industry built around oil drilling and oil itself creates jobs in a wide number of industries including shipping and transportation as well as medical research – the immediate benefit of oil drilling comes in the form of job creation and economic boosts...” (Flournoy) Are more jobs being made at the cost of our planet really worth it? The jobs only last as long as the oil is there. The destruction stays long after the jobs leave. In all, the environment will get destroyed if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This destruction may be irreversible, or it will take centuries to go back to the way it was. This is just another reason to use a renewable source of energy.
Promoters of drilling, you should also use a renewable source of energy for the plants that are being killed because of drilling. The subsequent quote comes from the website Sinceing. “Oil drilling in Alaska can have disadvantages for plant life. Seismic vibrations can disrupt plants' growth patterns. In addition, the infrastructure from oil drilling can cause drainage issues for plants. Infrastructure, particularly road-building, can also lead to alkaline dust spreading across and settling on topsoil. This dust can have negative impacts on plant development and overall health.” (Devaney) Plant growth patterns get disrupted, the infrastructure required for drilling causes plants to have drainage problems, and alkaline dust gets spread across the topsoil, which has negative impacts on plant development and health. With our ever growing society we have less and less plant life. We must keep the plants we have left alive and well. For the plants, use a renewable source of energy.
Supporters of drilling, the last point you should consider for using a renewable source of energy is how your lives could be in danger, along with the whole planet. Drilling can contribute to climate change. The oil extraction process can cause greenhouse gases to be released into the air. Also, when oil is used in cars or when it is burned, it can cause these gases to be released. I found a quote to support this in the “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment” article. “... humans have been burning more and more fossil fuels, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have been trapping unwanted solar heat and causing the planet’s temperatures to rise. The consequences are all around us in the form of longer wildfire seasons, stronger hurricanes and harsher heatwave... Another gas, methane, is released during the extraction of natural gas through the method of “fracking.”” This quote explained how greenhouse gases, including gases released when oil is being extracted, are a direct cause of climate change. This is one of the many reasons to use a renewable energy source.
            To conclude, advocates of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should find and use a less harmful, more renewable source of energy. Proponents of drilling may have thought that the positives of drilling outweighed the negatives. Two of these reasons may have been that oil can boost the economy, and by taking the oil out from the oceans, it helps marine life. From one or all of my reasons, you’ve changed your mind to think there are more negative outcomes than positive ones. Here are the reasons summarized. First, wildlife and marine life are in danger if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Next, drilling can have a huge, negative, environmental impact, and drilling can have a devastating effect on plants. Lastly, drilling can cause climate change. Many actions that happen all around us have huge, negative effects on our planet and its inhabitants. Have you ever thought about the consequences of oil drilling? In the same way as other actions, it has a catastrophic effect on our planet. You can do your part: stop the drill.

Works Cited List

“7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment.” The Wilderness Society, 9 Aug. 2019, https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/7-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-environment

Devaney, Erik. “The Disadvantages of Oil Drilling in Alaska.” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, https://sciencing.com/the-disadvantages-of-oil-drilling-in-alaska-13662686.html

Flournoy, Blake. “Oil Drilling Benefits.” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, https://sciencing.com/oil-drilling-benefits-6127185.html

0 Comments

ABORTION IS NOT THE WAY by A.S.

12/4/2020

0 Comments

Photo by Liv Bruce on Unsplash

Imagine all the life experiences people can achieve a lifetime. Now imagine that none of that happened because the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy decided abortion was the best choice is to get rid of the problem. Why would that happen? Some people believe it is the woman’s body and she has the right to do what she thinks is right for her body. Luu Ireland of the University of Massachusetts Medical School stated, “Women choose abortion for multiple reasons. The most common reason cited is that pregnancy would interfere with education, work or ability to care for dependents.'' What about the life inside that woman? Does it have rights? Is abortion the only way to get rid of the “problem”? Any person, young or old, who believes abortion is a viable option to giving birth should understand that this is a life and death matter, because life begins at conception, abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies, abortion promotes a belief that life is disposable, and abortion is the same as murder.
To begin with, anyone considering an abortion, should understand that this is a life and death matter because science has proved that when a human egg is fertilized, all the material to create that human being is immediately transferred from the mother and father. The father contributes half the DNA and the mother provides the other half. From that point on, who that human being is going to be is already decided. The embryo has all the characteristics, chromosomes, and genetic material that is present in almost all living organisms. The book, Human Embryology & Teratology, states, “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...” (O’Rahilly et al12). Given that the human embryo is a living organism with a structure of DNA, it will be who it was from conception to an embryo to a fetus to an infant. People argue abortion is legal because a fetus can’t live outside the mother. They believe, “Viability has . . . become an important feature of the law . . . . In jurisdictions adopting this approach, abortion is lawful or accessed with less difficulty, before the point that a fetus is deemed viable” (Romanis). Since an embryo has all the chromosomes and DNA that it will carry for all its life, it is a living human being. Just because it gets oxygen from the blood of its mother through the umbilical cord, does not mean it isn't alive. Viability means nothing. The fact is that it is a life even though it is temporarily inside the mother, or not viable, should help anyone to understand that at conception the fertilized egg is already alive.
Moving on, another life and death matter when considering abortion is that abortions reduce the number of babies that are available for adoption. The Adoption network estimates that there are between, “one and two million couples” waiting to adopt a baby, and that “. . . there are about 1.3 million abortions” every year. Yet, “only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption”. If a woman does not want to become a Mom, then there are millions of women who want to be but can’t have their own child. The argument is that, “. . . children born should preferably be wanted children . . .”, then abortion is not the only option for an unwanted pregnancy. (Humanist International) There are ways to control whether or not a woman gets pregnant. She can take birth control or use other methods. The ratio of abortions to live births is “ . . . 186 abortions per 1,000 live births”(CDC). That’s 186 more babies that anyone who is considering abortion could realize that just because the child they are carrying is unwanted should realize that that child could be adopted by a mom and dad who are waiting for a child.
Another reason this is a life and death matter for anyone considering abortion, is that it promotes a belief that life is disposable. Life is precious, and ending a pregnancy by killing the life inside throws that life away. In 2014, Congressman, Randy Hultgren said, “When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us”. Some claim that abortion is needed when the fetus has something wrong with it, or has a disability like Downs Syndrome, because the fetus will never live a normal life, but whose life are these people trying to protect? You should never kill someone just for selfish reasons. If someone is considering abortion they should understand that there are other options to this life and death matter, and no life is disposable.
More importantly, there is a life and death issue anyone considering an abortion should realize before making that decision. The killing of an innocent human is wrong. It is actually murder. The dictionary defines murder as, “ . . . the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” (Murder, Merriam-Webster). Even the U.S. government and 38 states know how wrong it is, and even passed a law protecting unborn babies against violent acts. This is U.S. Code 1841, known as the Protection of Unborn Children law. This law makes it a crime to injure an unborn child “maliciously”, and considers them as human beings by the Federal government. The claim that women control their own body was supported by the courts in an abortion case knows as Roe v. Wade. It stated, “. . . the Constitution gives “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,” and that “This right of privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”(Romanis). Regardless of what this case says, the unborn child is a human being and the woman carrying it inside of her is like an incubator. So in the end, the consideration of abortion before a baby takes its first breath is not only a life and death issue, it is still murder.
In conclusion, any person, young or old, who believes abortion is a viable option to giving birth should definitely reconsider this life and death matter. People who supported abortion might have been preoccupied with viability, or the ability to survive outside the womb, and the right of the woman to control her own body regardless of the fetus inside her. However, as the evidence above indicates life begins at conception, abortion reduces the number of adoptable infants, abortion promotes a belief that life is disposible, and that abortion is actually murder. First, who you are when you are born is determined at conception even though the fetus continues to grow and develop because the genetics are set at conception. Second, if a woman does not want to become a Mom, then there are millions of women who want to be but can’t have their own child, so adoption is an option. Third, life isn’t something you just throw away. It is precious and you only get one shot at it. When you think about it, abortion is even worse than killing someone, because you are killing them before they can even experience life. Fourth, The killing of an innocent human is wrong. It is actually murder. Even the US government and 38 states know how wrong it is, and passed a law protecting unborn babies against violent acts. Imagine all the life experiences people can achieve in a lifetime, if when the mother is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, abortion was not the option because the woman understood abortion is a life and death matter and chose life instead of death.

Works Cited List

“18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111. (Went into law June 25, 1948)

“18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of Unborn Children.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841.

“Abortion.” Abortion - MU School of Medicine, medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/abortion.

“Abortion.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion.

“CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Nov. 2019, www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm.

Goldsmith, Barton. “People Are Not Disposable.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 6 July 2015, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-fitness/201507/people-are-not-disposable

Hamilton, Brady, et al. “Vital Statistics Rapid Release PDF.” CDC, CDC.gov, May 2020.

Ireland, Luu. “Who Are the 1 in 4 American Women Who Choose Abortion?” University of Massachusetts Medical School, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 27 June 2019, www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/.

Marianne Bitler Madeline Zavodny, et al. “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number Of Unwanted Children? Evidence from Adoptions.” Guttmacher Institute, Guttmacher Institute, 6 Dec. 2016, www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/did-abortion-legalization-reduce-number-unwanted-children-evidence-adoptions.

“Murder.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder.

O'Rahilly, Ronan, and Müller Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd ed., Wiley-Liss, 1996.

“Population Control, Family Planning and Abortion.” Humanists International, 28 Jan. 2019, humanists.international/policy/population-control-family-planning-and-abortion/.

“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Abortion, 4 June 2020, abortion.procon.org/.

“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Abortion, Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 June 2020, abortion.procon.org/.

“Pros and Cons of Abortion: 16 Things Every Woman Should Know.” Unplanned Pregnancy,
Indikon Media, 2020, unplannedpregnancy.com/abortion/making-your-abortion-decision/pros-and-cons-of-abortion/.

Rettner, Rachael. “Is a 'Fetal Heartbeat' Really a Heartbeat at 6 Weeks?” LiveScience, Purch, 17 May 2019, www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html?_ga=2.248162887.1981102804.1604866831-1435737810.1604866829.

Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. “Is 'Viability' Viable? Abortion, Conceptual Confusion and the Law in England and Wales and the United States.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 9 Oct. 2020, academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa059/5918485.

“US Adoption Statistics.” Adoption Network, Adoption Network Law Center, 2020, adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics.

0 Comments

How Wolves Saved Yellowstone by A.S.

The Purposeful Rhetoric of “Life After People” by AS

Benefits of Being Vegan by KJY

Why We Should Go Nuclear by A.C.

Ban the Bags! by A.M.

Stop the Drill! by K.M.

ABORTION IS NOT THE WAY by A.S.

Guest Essays

Archives

Categories