What Can We Do To Slow Climate Change?

        It is becoming increasingly clear that addressing climate change could be one of the most urgent scientific, political, economic, and ethical issues that humanity faces. However, changes in the earth's climate are neither new nor unusual. Over the past 4.5 billion years the planet's climate has been altered by volcanic emissions, changes in solar input, continents moving slowly atop shifting tectonic plates, impacts by large meteors, and other factors (Blumer). Although the average temperature of the atmosphere has remained fairly stable for the past 1000 years, it began rising dramatically during the last century when people began clearing more forests and burning more fossil fuels. In 1880, the average surface temperature was 14.0 degrees Celsius, whereas in 2006, the average surface temperature reached nearly 15.0 degrees Celsius (Harris). To slow he rate of global warming and climate change, we need to take action on the climate change issue.
        Of course, there are characteristics of climate change that make it difficult to tackle. For instance, dealing with this threat will require unprecedented and prolonged international cooperation. In addition, the harmful and beneficial impacts of climate change are not spread evenly; hence, there will be winners and losers in the event of moderate climate change. Higher latitude nations such as Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Greenland, and New Zealand could have higher crop yields, fewer deaths in winter, lower heating bills, and more tourism (Blumer). However, there is a catch: We will not know who will benefit and who will suffer until it is too late to avoid harmful effects. At some temperature threshold, essentially everyone will be harmed directly or indirectly. Also, and perhaps most importantly, many proposed actions that might reduce the threat of climate change, such as phasing out fossil fuels, are controversial because "they would disrupt economies and lifestyles" (Fabe). Nevertheless, according to a 2008 study by the OECD, waiting too long to slow climate change would also disrupt economies and lifestyles, probably to an even greater extent. 
         The good news is that there are a number of ways to slow the rate and degree of global warming and the resulting climate change caused by human activities. For example, humans can cut fossil fuel use, shift from coal to natural gas, improve energy efficiency, reduce poverty, slow population growth, reduce deforestation, and endless others. These solutions come down to three major prevention strategies: improve energy efficiency to reduce fossil fuel use; shift from nonrenewable carbon-based fossil fuels to a mix of carbon-free renewable energy resources; and stop cutting down tropical forests (Fabe). Of course, the stopping of fossil fuel production is nearly impossible in society today; therefore, another strategy is to keep burning fossil fuels but to capture and store as much carbon dioxide as possible in soil, vegetation, underground, and in the deep ocean and to hope that it will never leak out. United states scientists Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala at Princeton University have outlined a plan for holding 2057 carbon dioxide levels to those in 2007 in order to help us avoid harmful effects. They have identified strategies to cut carbon dioxide emissions, called "climate stabilization wedges"(Blumer). They estimate that getting carbon dioxide emissions to 2007 levels by 2057, and holding them there would require implementing any 8 of the 15 wedges during the next 5 decades. A 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Association showed how implementing just two of the strategies alone could lead to a 60-80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
           Obviously, humans need to take a stand and help prevent climate change around the globe. According to environmental expert Lester R. Brown, in his 2008 book Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, human action is necessary in order to keep climate change from spiraling out of control and  threatening human civilization as we know it (Harris). By slowing climate change, involving energy efficiency, and sharply reducing deforestation, we can reduce the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to slow climate change. Based on the scientific consensus, we need to implement known solutions to the problems of climate change and ozone depletion, and we must do this globally and on an emergency basis. Each of us has an important role to play in protecting the atmosphere - an irreplaceable resource that sustains all life on earth.

Works Cited
Blumer, Tom. "US News Item on How Working Less Might Slow 'Climate Change' Ignores Underlying Radical 'De-Growth' Agenda." NewsBusters. MRC, 5 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/05/us-news-item-how-working-less-might-slow-down-climate-change-ignores-rad>.

Fabe, Bong D. "Want to Slow Climate Change? Reduce Working Hours, Says Think Tank." InterAksyon.com. Inter Aksyon, 6 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://www.interaksyon.com/article/54450/want-to-slow-climate-change-reduce-working-hours-says-think-tank>.

Harris, Leon. "Will Reduced Work Hours Really Slow Climate Change?" Weblog post.Eco Office Goals. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. <http://eco-officegals.com/will-reduced-work-hours-really-slow-climate-change/>

Is Food Irradiation Safe?

                In the United States, there are at least 10 million cases of food poisoning reported annually due to deadly bacteria such as Salmonella. About 9000 of those cases are fatal. Medical treatment and loss of worker production cost the nation billions of dollars each year. During the past several decades, the food processing industry and the federal food and drug administration have supported the use of food irradiation to reduce the danger of food poisoning. Food is irradiated to destroy harmful bacteria or insects in or on the food and to stop the natural process of ripening. During irradiation, gamma rays passing through the food break chemical bonds among atoms and destroy the genetic material in microbes or insects, preventing them from reproducing. Gamma rays also break the bonds of some food molecules. However, irradiation is not radioactive, just as you are not radioactive after undergoing dental X rays! Still, the debate rages about the safety of irradiated food.

                Of course, food irradiation is not necessary to kill harmful organisms in food. Proper and thorough cooking kills harmful organisms in or on food including both Salmonella and Trichinella, which can infect pork and cause trichinosis in humans. Opponents further point out that irradiation may actually result in accidental food poisoning. In some cases, irradiation may kill organisms that signal spoiled food, without killing other truly dangerous organisms. Therefore, a food may look and smell fresh because the odor-causing organisms have been killed by irradiation, however, disease-causing organisms may still infect the food. 

                 Evidence from Iowa State University Food Safety Research Project has shown that irradiation lessens the nutritional value of food by causing a loss of vitamins (Food). Some people think that this loss of nutrients in irradiated food may have serious consequences. Scientists from the project noted that food exposed to gamma rays loses vitamin A, C, and E, and certain B vitamins. Another study found that animals fed irradiated food lost weight, wand that pregnant animals often miscarried - probably because of the food's reduced vitamin E content (Food). 

               Although food irradiation can have negative effects, those in favor of food radiation point out the great value and efficiency of irradiation in wiping out harmful insects and microorganisms that infect food. Irradiated, sterilized food is particularly beneficial for people whose immune system is impaired. In answer to the charge that irradiation destroys nutrients, the proponents reveal that cooking food also destroys some nutrients. Also, the nutrient loss caused by iradiation is generally slight. Most scientists from the Food and Drug Administration agree that food irradiated with 10,000 rads or less of gamma rays shows little or no nutrient loss, even of easily destroyed vitamin C (The Facts). At greater than 10,000 rads, irradiated food exhibits nutrient loss that is, according to the FDA, generally no more than the loss that occurs in canned or frozen foods.

                 FDA scientists do admit that some of the radiolytic products (RP's or free radicals) that are of concern to opponents are in fact known cancer-causing agents (Brennand). However, the RP's occur in very minute amounts in irradiated food. In a 1980 study from the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California-Davis, there were no more than 30 parts per million of RP's found in the irradiated food tested (Food). Most of these RP's turned out to be identical to naturally occurring food substances, and so were considered safe. 

                 In the end, the benefits of food irradiation far out way the negative effects. The Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation of meat and poultry and allows its use for a variety of other foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, and spices. The agency determined that the process is safe and effective in decreasing or eliminating harmful bacteria. Irradiation also reduces spoilage bacteria, insects and parasites, and in certain fruits and vegetables it inhibits sprouting and delays ripening. The controversy over food irradiation may, perhaps, best be summed up by an irradiation proponent, Charlotte p. Brennand, PhD and Extension Food Safety Specialist who said "Food irradiation is so good for food because it is so dangerous for everything that lives."

Works Cited

            Brennand, Charlotte P. "Food Irradiation." Food Irradiation. Radiation Information Networks, Mar. 1995. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm>.

            "Food Irradiation." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 July 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/food_irrad.html>.

            "The Facts about Food Irradiation." The Facts about Food Irradiation. UW Food Irradiation Education Group, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu/Facts.html>.

Should P.E. Class Be Mandatory?

        Throughout schools nation-wide, physical education is at the core of a comprehensive approach to promoting physical activity. Physical education helps students develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and confidence needed to be physically active for life, while providing an opportunity for students to be active during the school day. Leading professionals in the field of physical education have developed a new kind of physical education that is fundamentally different from the stereotypical “roll out the balls and play” classes of decades past that featured little meaningful instruction and lots of humiliation for students who were not athletically coordinated. Professional associations, academic experts, and many teachers across the country are promoting and implementing quality physical education programs that emphasize participation in lifelong physical activity among all students.
          Of course, some students are physically unable to participate in physical education. I agree that if a student has a medical condition and a note from their doctor that it is fine for them not to participate. However, all students capable of participating should do so. Not only will students stay active for the majority of the class time, but physical activity teaches self-management skills, such as goal-setting and self-monitoring. Perhaps most importantly, gym class focuses, at the high school level, on helping adolescents make the transition to a physically active adult lifestyle. Also, many students do not wish to participate in physical education classes because they worry about developing injuries. They believe children participating in physical activity are at a higher risk of injury than those who are in academic classes. By not being physically active, a student is at greater risk for sustaining an injury. However, injuries can certainly be prevented, and people are more likely to develop unhealthy habits by not exercising than by exercising. It is important to stretch and warm up before starting any work out. Students learn these safety techniques from their participation in physical education class.  Particularly in the spine, shoulder, and hip areas, stretching helps develop flexibility.
         All children, from prekindergarten through grade twelve, should participate in quality physical education classes every school day. It is a known fact that physical activity improves overall health.  Not only does it improve circulation, increase blood flow to the brain, and raise endorphin levels, which all help to reduce stress, improve mood and attitude, and calm children, physically active students may also achieve more academically.  Physically fit students are less likely to miss school, partake in risky behaviors, get pregnant, or attempt suicide, which are all associated with better outcomes in school. 
          The importance of making physical education fun was illustrated by a national survey of students in grades 4–12, which found that enjoyment of physical education class was one of the most powerful factors associated with participation in physical activity outside of school. To provide opportunities for health-enhancing physical activity, physical education should be offered every day to all students from prekindergarten through grade 12. Unfortunately, most US students do not participate in daily exercise, and the proportion of students with daily physical education has been declining over the years. In 1994, only 17 percent of junior high schools and 2 percent of high schools required physical education five days per week each year. Additionally, the majority of high school students take physical education for only a single year.
         In conclusion, all schools should make it mandatory for students to have physical education classes every year. Society becomes more unhealthy each year due to students' lack of exercise. Therefore, these students need to be educated in physical fitness. To achieve this, students can participate in physical education classes, learning how to warm up, stretch, and exercise. Through exercising daily, the rate of obesity will decrease, and people will become healthier individuals, thus resulting in happier human beings. If we continue with the lack of physical education in schools, we will continue to contribute to the poor health of students.




Works Cited

Garcia, Rob. "Should P.E. Be Mandatory?" Chicago Tribune. N.p., 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-15/news/0901160054_1_gym-class-education-segment-physical-education>.

Toporak, Bryan. "Should Schools Make Physical Education Mandatory?" Edweek. Education Week, 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/schooled_in_sports/2011/01/should_schools_make_physical_education_mandatory.html>.

Woo, Yen Yen. "Should Physical Education Be Mandatory in Schools? By Shayna, Michael & Nichele." NY Teachers. N.p., 18 Oct. 2007. Web. 07 Mar. 2013. <http://nyteachers.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/should-physical-education-be-mandatory-in-schools-by-shayna-michael-nichele/>.