Violence Among Youth

Ah, welcome back mates! Hope everything has went well since last time. Everything has been pretty good since it’s cooled off a bit and I can actually enjoy the nice weather that we’re having. There have been so many things on my mind since I last left off, that I hardly know where to begin. I wish I could share everything, but unfortunately I can’t. Now that I think about it, there is one thing that has had me wondering for a few days now. Violence, one of the negative aspects of culture in my opinion, has been present for thousands of years. However, I found it quite disturbing to learn that violence has evolved to include and affect our youth, so much so that it is rapidly becoming a problem spinning out of control.

Did you know that one in every three teenagers who attend school in the states don’t feel safe at school? Moreover, were you aware that reportedly fourteen percent of high school students carry weapons to school? If you didn’t its okay, neither did I before reading an article titled Behavioral Strategies for Constructing Nonviolent Cultures With Youth: A Review. Now I’m not one to get bogged down in statistics, but you’ve got to agree that its insane that more than three-thousand youth die every year due to violence and crime towards one another, moreover each teenager by the time they are in young adulthood would have witnessed tens of thousands of simulated murders. In the past decade or so, there has been much debate about who’s to blame for violence amongst our youth. Many say that it is the violence portrayed by the media, however I beg to differ.

Violence as I mentioned earlier, has existed in our culture for thousands of years, therefore one has to acknowledge that it is a problem that is deeply embedded within culture and not just one isolated source is the cause of all the madness.
For those of you who understand what I’m telling you, there is hope. In fact, that is what the entire article focuses on, solutions to a problem that has caused much turmoil in the past thousands of years. In order to find a solution to a problem, the problem not only must be identified, but what’s not working to solve the problem must be identified as well. With that said, the article discusses ineffective approaches that were incorporated into programs aimed at solving violence among youth. Such methods included focusing in on the problem such as the child or the child’s family, viewing individuals as the source of where the violence came from, as well as not using contextual strategies wherever possible.

So, if those methods don’t work, what does work? Well according to the article, active teaching of appropriate social behavior, clear communication of rules, consistent provision of corrective consequences, as well as ongoing monitoring of data is crucial for behavior modification programs to work. One program in particular reported by the Surgeon General suggested designing programs that focus on the following; enhancing positive student behavior, attendance, and academic achievement through rewards, establishes clear rules and directions, as well as praise and approval.

Although all of the aforementioned could easily be translated into effective programs, the article readily recognizes that there is still work to be done. The article concludes by saying that there is a need for programs with realistic outcomes that could be used in everyday settings. Another good point that the article makes is the need for social validity in ecological based programs. By making such improvements, and implementing effective programs, not only the goal of eliminating violence among youth will be achieved, but something greater as well. If these programs are successful, it will prove that even a problem that is culturally embedded can still be eradicated.

Mattaini Mark, McGuire Melissa. “Behavorial Strategies for Constructing Nonviolent Cultures with Youth: A Review.” SAGE Publications. March 2006. 19 February 2007.
http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/184

Industrial Behavior Modification

I really do love the job I have here in my restaurant on the beach. Working independently is great because I have complete freedom scheduling when and how much I will work. Even though I work under such great conditions, I still need external motivation to help me keep going. I love it when my customers compliment me or my establishment, whether it’s a direct comment, a conversation I overhear, or even something as small as a tip. This all encourages me to do more and more of what I do, and do well.

Looking at reinforcers led me to look at how they affect people with jobs similar and completely different than mine. As it turns reinforcement research in the workplace has been practiced since the 1970’s (Nelson, Raj, Rao 2).

Business owners are interested in the worker performance as its correlation connects directly with company profit. In the 1970’s the behavior case studies that dealt with workers analyzed those that did simpler work (a category I, myself, would have been put in). Specific studies observed construction workers, bank tellers, textile workers, retailers, store clerks, and mining workers. In each study the employees’ work performance was aided by reinforcement, though it manifested itself differently for each case (Nelson, Raj, Rao 2-3).

A research experiment documented in “A Study on the Effects of Some Reinforcers to Improve Performance of Employees in a Retail Industry” studies reinforcement’s effects on workers that do simple tasks and those that occupy more complex ones.

So far I have generalized all reinforcers. The most pertinent reinforcements (to this study) include monetary rewards, positive feedback, informal dress code, and flexible work hours. The article’s authors make it clear that certain kinds of reinforcement will increase performance differently for people with different jobs. Specifically, employees that work harder, more complex jobs receive more benefit from feedback (Nelson, Raj, Rao 3).

What, you might ask, qualifies a job as complex? The famous behaviorist Albert Bandura describes them as jobs that “[require] knowledge, cognitive ability, memory capacity, behavioral facility, information processing, persistence, and effort” (Nelson, Raj, Rao 3). In the social sciences operationalized definitions are given for variables, so the study defined “complex job” with Bandura’s description.

The first group the experiment focused on was the employees with more complex jobs, such as writing program code or teaching software packages to others. This group is referred to as G1. The first subgroup, G11, was given the reinforcement of either money or paid leave. The second subgroup, G12, was instead, given feedback. Feedback is positively geared work ethic evaluation, where a manager might would compliment a worker for a job well done or provide a worker with useful information concerning how to improve.

The second broad worker group, G2, consisted of employees doing simpler tasks like data entry and system maintenance. Subgroup G21 was given a more casual dress code and G22 received more flexible work hours.

As according to social scientific methodology each group’s participants were chosen randomly from the same population. G1’s working habits were observed before the first “intervention” of reinforcers then recorded again after the intervention’s administration. Final work productivity data was then collected about one month later at a time called “postinvervention.” G2’s experimentation differed slightly. There was data recorded before and at the time of the first intervention, but there was also a second intervention added for observing the diminishing ability that the reinforcers had to moderate work ethic. At each phase during this experiment observers and clients rated workers on a scale that represented the employee’s quality of work. The scale concerns a rate of how many times various productive traits were observable at each observation period (ie: 800 frequencies of behavior for a certain day) (Nelson, Raj, Rao 10-12).

It is conclusive that each group showed a tremendous productivity increase during the initial reinforcement interventions.

Subgroup G11, the group that was given financial incentive, showed an increase in mean aggregate behavior from 648.33 to 809.96. Subgroup G12, the one receiving feedback, increased its behavior from 647.5 to 832.72. An early conclusion we can make here is that feedback was slightly more effective at increasing advantageous work behaviors in employees than monetary incentive was. The postintervention period was the most interesting and revealing of all the data collected. It showed the G11 group showed an extremely sharp decrease in behaviors whereas the G12 group maintained its heightened work ethic a month later at this postintervention period. Strajkovic and Luthans were correct saying that workers exacting more mentally involved work will respond better to feedback (Nelson, Raj, Rao 11).

Subgroups G21 and G22 held more similar results than the G1 group did. G2 overall had a smaller overall increase upon the first intervention. G21 went up to 334.39 behaviors observed from 311.67. However, upon the second intervention the beneficial effects of the reinforcements were only about half of what the original intervention accomplished (Nelson, Raj, Rao 13).

There aren’t concrete stereotypes for the type of people working each kind of job, this data only reflects motivation potential for a certain job. It is important to see here how much encouragement (no matter what form it takes) affects people’s motivation. My favorite result and finding is that money doesn’t win. As it turns out, people benefit more in the workplace by the kind words of superiors rather than just a bit of extra cash. Though this study observed work behavior, I believe the findings can be a useful tool for showing universally that people function better under good social environments and that encouragement (reinforcement) can drastically help people in most circumstances.

-----

Nelson, John; Raj, John; Rao, K.S.P. “A Study on the Effects of Some Reinforcers to Improve Performance of Employees in a Retail Industry.” SAGE Publications. 6 November 2006. 20 February 2007. (http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/30/6/848).

Calorie Intake for Lean, Normal, and Obese Individuals

We’re always picking on Don when he gets inebriated before anyone else. Jokes of drinking Don under the table surface at every occasion. Don is six foot four inches and weighs one hundred and sixty three pounds. When we all go out to eat, Don eats as much as anyone else. However, Don is not the only lean bloke we know that consumes so many calories and remains so awfully' thin.

Little did we know that this phenomenon was quite normal and occurs frequently in today’s society. Calorie intake does not greatly differ from a lean, normal, and obese individual, regarding the same age group. According to Dictionary.com, a calorie is a unit equal to the kilocalorie, used to express the heat output of an organism and the fuel or energy value of food.

Paul M. Cinciripini conducted a case study in Behavior Modification, where he described his observations of eating habits between different individuals of various sizes. Cinciripini is a Clinical Psychologist and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the Universtiy of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston, Texas. He has researched coronary prone behavior, smoking stress, behavioral management of chronic pain, and behavioral methods for risk factor reduction in coronary heart disease. His article is titled, “Food Choice and Eating Behavior Among Obese, Lean, and Normal Individuals.”

Paul Cincirpini chose to observe undergraduate students between eighteen and twenty-three years old. He studied 705 students’ calorie intake for a course of 8 weeks. This study was performed in a university cafeteria setting. Students were presented with a buffet consisting of: 3-4 entrees, 2 soups, salad bar, 2-3 vegetables dishes, grilled orders, fresh fruits, cold sandwiches, milk, fruit juices, soda, cookies, and 2-3 desserts.

The results showed that lean males did not differ from normal males in the proportion of calories from different foods. Lean females ate less dairy but more fruit and dessert calories than normal females. Males considered obese ate more red meats and less fruit and dessert calories than normal males. Females classified as obese showed the same patterns as lean females, consuming more desserts and fruit and less dairy calories than normal female.

According to the chart provided in the article, “no differences were found in total calories or menu items within sex and weight groups.” However, males consumed more calories and chose more items than females. There were no differences found among the groups in bite rate, sip rate, and total eating time. In addition, male and female leans engaged in more non-eating activity than the normal group. This observation could account for their slimmer body types.

“The results suggest that food choice, particularly saturated fat, may play a weaker role in the weight status of male lean and female obese subjects than in other groups, and that lean subjects are apt to find food and eating stimuli much less reinforcing than obese subjects.”

I remember eating in the cafeterias back at the unis! All the blokes and sheilas I knew would eat the same thing every time they went, so the variety of foods no longer seems to be important. Another factor that needs to be evaluated is observer pressure. As described, obese and normal weight individuals do not greatly differ in total calories when evaluated in the same environment. This could be due to the fact that obese individuals are self conscious of the amount of food they want to consume. Also, on the counterpart, lean males may eat more to prove they are not picky or light eaters. Females may also eat less than they normally do when they are evaluated.

After reading and evalulating this case study, I was not sure how valid it was until I read about all the other studies. A more extensive study of over 5,000 subjects in nine different settings was conducted. “No overall differences in total calories/meal were found between obese and non-obese subjects, with the exception that obese subjects tended to eat slightly more food in a fast food environment.” The same applies to dessert items; however, both groups prefer high calorie items. These are the same types of conclusions Paul Cinciripini observed.

Paul Cinciripini gives credit to 37 references towards the end of his article, pages 441-443. Each reference is credible and applies directly to his research topic. Therefore, his sources add to the overall validity and creditability of his case study and research.

Cinciripini, Paul. “Food Choice and Eating Behavior Among Obese, Lean, and Normal Individuals.” Behavior Modification. 1984. http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/3/425.pdf

Decreasing Cigarette Consumption among Teens

If there is one thing I hate in this world mates are cigarettes. I can’t stand those bloody things; they make me cough all the time and smell so terrible. I don’t understand how young people think it’s cool and attractive. Well, here I found an article in the Behavior Modification Journal that may surprise many of you and will definitely give you some ideas as to how it is possible to decrease the amount of teens that start smoking every day.

The article “Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” begins by talking about how smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the United States and the fact that most people start smoking during their teen years (681). The author acknowledges that even though the percentage of teens smoking cigarettes has decreased in the past few years, the number of new teens smoking every day is still way above the desired number of the US Department of Human Health and Services. They believe that an optimal percentage can be reached by creating programs that decrease the availability and access of cigarettes by teens. (681).

Reducing youth access to tobacco products seems like a good strategy as “higher rates of retail tobacco availability were associated with higher rates of smoking initiation among youth.” (682). Reducing the amount of cigarettes available to teens in stores however, doesn’t necessarily mean a substantial decrease in smoking as most of them will try to acquire cigarettes socially through a friend or relative.

Another good strategy stated in the article is that of increasing the bans in tobacco for minors and incrementing the fines they would have to pay if they are caught in possession of the substance. This would ultimately produce fear in teens and would encourage many of them to quit smoking or simply stop smoking in public areas, which then means less negative leaders and a decrease in smoking in teen social events. (683). This is supported by the study of Jason, Pokorny, and Schoeny carried out in 2003 in which “in an eight-town randomized study, white youth who lived in communities with strict enforcement of tobacco sales and possession laws had significantly less increases in tobacco use over time than those living in communities with only moderate enforcement of tobacco sales laws.”(684).

An experiment was carried out in which four towns within Chicago were selected and carefully examined. In each town, a place of gathering was selected. Two were shopping malls, the third was a fast food restaurant and the last was a Public Park. Scientists counted the number of teens smoking throughout a period of several days and recorded their observations. Consequently, they decided to start handing out smoking fines in one of the shopping mall locations and the fast food restaurant. After a few days, the number of teens smoking in these two areas had decreased tremendously as opposed to the other two places (the other mall and the public park) were nothing was done. (687).

The author analyzes these results by concluding that “after implementing possession law

enforcement intervention, rates of public smoking among youth decreased dramatically.” (688).
After stating the conclusions, the article goes on to say that the short term goal is not to eliminate smoking teens as it is very unrealistic, but rather decrease the amount of teens that start smoking every day. The experiment seems very simple, but carrying this out across the United States and actually enforcing the laws is very complicated, expensive and time consuming. Well mates I hope you enjoyed the article, and if any of you wish to keep your children or young siblings away from cigarettes, you know what to do. Good day lads.

“Monitoring and Decreasing Public Smoking Among Youth.” Behavior Modification Journals. Leonard A. Jason, Steven B. Pokorny, Julia R. Sanem and Monica L. Adams

Volume 30 (September 1, 2006): pages 681-692. 19 February 2007.

400 Infected with AIDS: crime or accident?

Good Day Mates. Skimming through Nature magazine, as I usually do every week, I ran across an editorial titled Lybia’s Travesty. The headline read “Six medical workers in Libya face execution. It is not too late for scientists to speak up on their behalf”. According to the article, five American nurses and a British doctor were detained in 1999 after charges of deliberately contaminating more than 400 children with the HIV virus. The group of medical workers is to be executed by firing squad later on this year. (245).

The Human Immunodefiency Virus, HIV, is an incurable virus that can be transmitted through the bloodstream by bodily liquids such as semen, tears or blood (It is practically impossible for it to be transmitted through Saliva). HIV is a common sexually transmitted disease but it can also be transmitted through the use of drugs (needles) and under extreme unhygienic circumstances where the blood of an infected person reaches the immune system of another’s.

I will not cast my opinion of whether I believe these medics are innocent or not, but I will defend the rights of the Libyan government to carry out a trial and punish them if their courts see it fit. However, I will criticize many of the points made by the author throughout this article as I see that he has no basis for what he is saying and at no point whatsoever does he provide scientific evidence of why he is so sure that these people are innocent. Furthermore, he twists this scientific issue into a political one and tries to blame the whole ordeal on the Libyan government.

In the beginning of the article the author states, “The international community and its leaders sit by, spectators of a farce of a trial, leaving a handful of dedicated volunteer humanitarian lawyers and scientists to try to secure their release.”(245). By calling this trial a “farce”, he is challenging the legitimacy of the Libyan judicial entity and its ability to bring this case into trial. He does not provides evidence to prove his point, and even if it turns out that these people are in fact innocent, that doesn’t take away the right of the Libyan government to try them and prosecute them if necessary. Bringing someone to trial for an alleged crime, however scandalous it may be is an international standard, and one that is very much used here in the United States.

Next, the author goes on to say that “Diplomacy has lamentably failed to deliver” (145), simply because the United States decided to return to regular diplomatic relations with the country of Libya this past August, without taking into account this trial. He also criticizes the European Union for welcoming the president to its summit in Brussels and says that the attitude of the EU and the US “is an affront to the basic democratic principles that the United States and the European Union espouse”. (145)

The problem with this statement, and in fact with every statement this author makes throughout the whole article, is that he does not provide evidence to support his arguments and assures the audience that these people are in fact innocent and that this whole ordeal is some sort of joke. Now I want this author to realize that diplomacy and internal judicial systems are two completely different things. If a person is caught within a country committing a crime, he is to abide by the punishable laws of that country and is to be tried in the place of the crime committed unless the crime itself takes place during a time of war or the government of the individual asks for extradition, in which case the last word rests on the government holding the trial. This government will have to decide if they wish to extradite the individual or simply judge them internally.

Well, if I were the government and 400 children in my country were suddenly infected by HIV and there were six suspects involved, I sure wouldn’t want anyone else holding trial for them but me. Could you imagine asking the United States to release their alleged terrorists so they could receive trial back home in Saudi Arabia or in some other country? Yeah right, I thought so.

Next, I will examine the next statement. “A previous assessment of the case by two prominent AIDS researchers, Luc Montagnier and Vittorio Colizzi, concluded that the charges are false, that the medics are innocent, and that the infections resulted from poor hygiene in Libya's hospitals.” (146).

As I mentioned in the earlier in this post, it is possible for HIV to be transmitted through extremely poor hygiene, but the author fails to state how these researchers obtained the conclusions regarding the sanity levels of the hospitals, as they don’t seem to have been present at the time of the incident or have traveled to the hospital following the occurrence. Nowhere does he explain how they reached that conclusion and jumps right into his own by saying that the medics are innocent because it was hygiene problem that had caused the infections. I think that if it were really a hygiene problem, it wouldn’t have taken them 400 patients to realize that something was wrong. Besides, it seems difficult for 400 children to catch a disease at the same time because of a hygiene issue, unless we are talking about little boys running around with syringes in their hand and sticking them into anyone that walks.

Going even further, lets suppose that the doctors in fact did not deliberately handed the virus to the children. They however, still have some responsibility, since they are the ones providing the health service. If you go to a doctor’s office and his chair is broken and his equipment dirty and dysfunctional, it is nobody’s fault but his own. These foreign medical workers probably had many years of schooling in the area of medicine, and know more than anyone else that one cannot treat a patient in a non-hygienic hospital where AIDS can be spread. Its true, not all the responsibility lies on them, but just the fact that they might be partially guilty definitely gives the right to the Libyan government to investigate these people and bring them to trial.

After assuming the complete innocence of these people, the author compares this case to one in which the organization “Lawyers without Borders — a volunteer organization that last year helped win the freedom of Amina Lawal, who had been sentenced to death in Nigeria for having a child outside marriage.” (146) The example has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand, and it is not comparable since we aren’t talking about some violation or religious or moral values of the Nigerian society but rather the sudden infection of 400 children with the HIV virus.

To conclude, this author is trying to assure the audience of the innocence of these people without absolutely any scientific or documented proof. He tries to shift the issue from a scientific tragedy to a political maneuver by the Libyan government. People need to stop blaming every single incidence on politics and realize that not everyone out there is going eat whatever they are fed. Good day mates.

“Lybia's Travesty.” Nature Online Magazine. Volume 443 (September 2006): pages 245-246. EBSCO Host Research Databases. UNC- Chapel Hill. 13 February 2007.

The Battle against Global Warming

Ay mates! I’m sure that all of you have had an excellent time since the last time, especially those who have paid me a visit at my bar. Locals and tourists alike have been swarming due to the extremely hot weather that we’ve been having lately. When I say hot, I mean it’s been scorching, and not even the ocean water can cool you off. Anyhow, couple of locals and I started to talk about how hot it was and we got to talking about global warming. I’m sure you’ve heard about global warming in the news but maybe didn’t quite understand what it was, but knew that it had something to do with the earth heating up. You’d probably thought so what, it’s just getting hotter I can deal with that, but global warming has many consequences, my friend. To that end, I would like to share something with you that that I found rather interesting.

I was thumbing through yet another Nature magazine, when I came across an editorial discussing global warming entitled, Light at the End of the Tunnel. After reading it, I was bothered by what the author was implying. I thought what a load of crap. I must say that the article had been written well as far as grammatical structure is concerned, the content however was an entirely different matter.

Although the argument of the editorial seemed to be somewhat unclear, I interpreted it to be somewhere along the lines of how now that policy makers have acknowledged that global warming is a major threat to society as we know it, coming up with a solution comes with its own risks. To make his argument concrete, the author further explains that policy makers agreeing there is a problem the plan of action that they are taking in order to deal with global warming aren’t enough, and that many fail to realize that it will take significant monetary commitment to make a change. I was quick to dismiss the author’s argument. My decision to do so was primarily based on two factors, one is that the author clearly contradicts himself; the latter being that author doesn’t provide concrete evidence to back his argument, but rather his opinion. I mean how can one articulate how policy makers weren’t doing anything about global warming because they couldn’t seem to acknowledge it was a problem and then criticize them in the very next paragraph by stating that the steps that they are taking isn’t nearly enough? It is as though the author is forgetting that in his introductory paragraph he merely stated that policy makers have just came to the consensus that there is a problem, a consensus that has come after years even decades of debate.

My stance on the issue is as follows, despite the slow response of policy makers in acknowledging that global warming is indeed a major issue, now that they have done so, we need to focus on supporting them and whatever steps they take towards the problem regardless of how big or small they may be, because a little can go a long way.

Before I continue however, allow me to take a moment for those who may be confused about global warming, allow me to explain. Global warming is essentially when fossil fuels and other gases are emitted into the environment and destroy what is known as the green house effect, which is a layer of gases that acts like a shield. The destruction of the green house effect essentially allows more sunlight and heat to penetrate the earth heating up glaciers, causing them to melt. The water from the glaciers can throw the pattern of the ocean off, which can have many effects, such as causing horrendous weather.

Now that you have a better understanding of global warming, I’m sure that it has become very clear to you that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately, yet efficiently. Firstly, the editorial’s claim that policy makers aren’t doing enough to help solve global warming is absurd. One would think that the author would express some appreciation that policy makers are doing anything at all considering that the last twenty years have been wasted just talking about it. The author even mentioned ways that policy makers are indeed taking steps to help. The editorial even states that such steps are being pushed through rather quickly. To this end, something is always better than nothing. Some critics may feel as though what policy makers are doing is not enough. However, I feel as though critics feel as though policy makers aren’t taking steps quickly enough, rather than doing enough. After all, due to so much criticism by policy makers, research on how to stop or at least slow down global warming was rather limited. But now with policy makers on the same page as environmentalists, things seem to be looking up for advocates of global warming and soon rather than later, perhaps large scale plans will be put into effect.

As for the other claim that the author makes about policy makers not wanting to spend the extra money in trying to solve the problem can easily be refuted by doing a simple google search. After conducting a little research myself, I found that policy makers aren’t afraid to invest today in order to save tomorrow. It’s relatively easy for people to talk about making changes for the better, but few are able to put their money where their mouth is. The state of California is not one of those types. California is one of the first in the United States to actually pass legislature reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as well as other heat trapping gases. Due to California’s steps of action against global warming, other states are following suit as well as many other countries. (Global Warming & California, par. 6)

There you have it mates, an editorial that has been refuted by the great Desmond. With that said, I caution those of you who may write editorials. Furthermore, may I suggest that when writing an editorial one considers all facts, as well as back your argument with sound facts rather than your opinion. Being able to show your readers facts rather than your opinion not only makes your argument creditable, but also makes it more persuasive. Well, until next time, take care, and if you get thirsty, be sure to stop in and see me at my bar!
“Climate Change What is it.” Climate Change Kids Site. 23 October 2006. 15 February 15, 2007.

“Global Warming and California.” California Solutions for Global Warming. 15 February 2007.

“Light at the End of the Tunnel.” Nature. 08 February 2007. 15 February 2007.

A More Positive Outlook

Over the last couple of decades I have become increasingly interested and aware of a world-wide problem called “global warming.” Nature is such a large part of my life, being a surfer and having my restraint on the beach that I feel compelled to examine the way forces are at work in changing the global climate.

An online encyclopedia defines global warming as “the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation” (Wikipedia). The effects of this increase in global temperature have lead to undesirable and somewhat alarming phenomenon. There have been rising ocean levels, melting arctic glaciers, and even sharp inclines in polar animal mortality rates. Many ocean islands have already lost some of their surface area to the rising oceans, and there are even specific incidences of islands becoming completely engulfed by the rising oceans (The Effects of…, 2001).

A recent editorial from the online publication of “Nature” journal expands upon the most recent enlightenment of people in all circles, including business and political ones, on the unavoidable fact that global warming is happening. This article entitled “Light at the End of the Tunnel” presents viewpoint in which there is hope for the state of the global environment but the hope is somewhat marginal or distant. It also says that arguments and debates over the subject of assessing global warming have always been quite similar until just recently. Those businesses which had once turned a blind eye to their impact in global warming may now be focusing a portion of their attention on the threat and prevention methods for this global phenomenon.

The article’s positive outlook diminishes here as the authors begin to contemplate the political involvement that the United States and Australia will have in assessing global warming. The president of the United States, George W. Bush, and the prime minister of Australia, John Howard, have been previous skeptics of initiating regulations dealing with global warming making them both relatively ignorant of the multitude of effects that global warming proposes (Light at the End of the Tunnel, 2007).

The author implies that these leaders will be less active in creating political reform due to their conservative, business oriented philosophies; the political leaders are needed to set regulations of emissions. So it looks like their conclusion may be with a leader of a party that explicitly supports financial giants and reduced government powers the outlook is bleak.

This “Nature” article continues to support its less hopeful attitude towards environmental reform as it describes the new problems arising from global warming’s standard acceptance. Their point made is that since debate was solely made over the presence of global warming, that neither side thought to seek out proposals for addressing global warming once an agreement had been reached.

Finally, the article describes the economic hurdles made by the implementation of global warming prevention. Assessing global warming by taking preventative actions, such as reducing emissions, is quite expensive on both the part of the involved businesses and governments. The view of the article is that there is reasonable cause for concern due to the economically centered nature of most governments, as they wouldn’t want to lose political stability or human dignity due to losses incurred from “greener” regulations (Light at the End of the Tunnel, 2007).

While my ideals are not fundamentally opposed to the ideals of the article, I disagree with the more pessimistic nature of describing advances made in managing global warming.

Firstly it is important to know that a movement for understanding this global phenomenon has only existed for a short period of time, being initially rejected. America serves a good example of this fact. Probably the first early account of global warming being partially accepted in the United States was as late as 1988. In the summer of 1988 there was sever heat and draught that manifest seemingly randomly and unprovoked. The sinister nature of this heat wave caused a “social scare” that allowed for environmentalists’ claims to be temporarily heralded by at least the most deeply affected citizens (Ungar 1-2).

While this event was only nineteen years ago, its lasting effects were mainly either segmented or temporary on having global warming grab the attention of Americans. This short lived environmental push is described by Sheldon Ungar as “[piggybacking] on dramatic real-world events” leading to the fact that most Americans dismissed the accusations of global warming with passing interest (Ungar 1, 14).

If the first public appearance of global warming (in the US) was only in 1988, and it was met with relatively wavering concern, then it can’t be expected for the United State’s population to be moved towards action. Greater movement towards environmental policy and reform has solely come in the past decade and so the current state of the public’s attitude is adequate given its novel nature. In order to get global support for changing policy, Americans must serve as a spear-head because of the USA’s role in the research and practice of the natural sciences (Ungar 2-4).

I firmly believe that the most recent global warming awareness movement since the new millennium, such as those led by prominent American figures such as the politician Al Gore, have changed the American population’s mind and directed concern to the issue of global warming.

The “Light at the End of the Tunnel” Nature article also talks about the unresponsive nature of the United State’s current administration to global warming as a foreboding sign. I believe that this unresponsiveness is not representative of the government’s agenda in the near future. In an article on “Addressing Global Warming” the authors explain that the government’s policy on global warming has only been a product of the democratic process. However, now that the people that make up the government’s various constituencies are personally invested in global warming, because of its potential harmful effects on the voters, politicians are going to have to make changes that reflect a more modern view of global climate change and that satisfy the desires of the voters (Kross, Vlad 2003).

There is significant evidence, however, to support the Nature articles observance that developing nations are going to be less willing to comply with agreements such as the Koyoto Protocol which is a standard for reducing green house gas emissions . “Global Warming Economics” briefly analyzes the negative economic impacts made by adhering to standards such as the Koyoto Protocol. The article concludes that observing the protocol will make little major global impact in proportion to the great cost it will place on its user (Nordhaus 2001). It is almost impossible to think that a relatively volatile nation would place its stability in jeopardy in order to adhere to a policy that is abstract and without much obvious feedback as to whether the policy is working.

While I do not agree with the less hopeful attitude towards progress with global warming, I do agree that developing nations may pose to be an important obstacle to global unity and movement towards change.

While government is the key force in exacting environmentally friendly policy, business compliance is also extremely important. The editorial presented in the “Nature” journal briefly mentions business as a retarding force as they have to directly implement the various protocols that will cost them economically (Light at the End of the Tunnel, 2007). While the author mentions that there are some businesses that have already begun to comply, I believe more companies have grasped the situation and understand that making and presenting themselves as an environmentally conscious organization is actually conducive to business rather than just a great cost to the company’s profits. A great example of this marketing strategy is presented by the British energy corporation BP. They advertise their movements towards cleaner gasoline and alternative energy (BP and Climate Change 2005). Obviously the information here is biased, but my point is that companies will use “green” advertisement as a ploy in the future, which will require them in some way to comply with environmental protocol.

While the forecast for the future of the planet with global warming is bleak I believe there is a great forecast for global climate management’s future understanding the very recent nature of the global warming movement.

“Global Warming.” Wikipedia. 2004. 10 February 2007. .

Kross, Burton; Vlad, Mariana. “Addressing Global Warming.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 111, Number 3, March 2003. 14 February 2007. .

“Light at the End of the Tunnel.” Nature Publishing Group. 8 February 2007. 10 February 2007. <>.

Nordhaus, William. “Global Warming Economics.” American Association for the Advancement of Science. 9 November 2001. 14 February 2007. .

“The Effects of Global Warming.” Time Incorporated. 2001. 10 February 2007. .

Ungar, Sheldon. “The Rise and (Relative) Decline of Global Warming as a Social Problem.” The Sociological Quarterly. December 1992. 10 February 2007. .

Moon BOOM or Moon DOOM

Many of my customers read Nature in the restroom, making drunken conversations interesting yet far from scholarly. The other day, one conversation caught my attention. As Jeffi Humphrey staggered in from the restroom, he announced, “If NASA would give me all the money they wasted on space, I would never have to return to that awful oiling company. Better yet, I could even give a little money to help end global warming like that author of Brave Blue World thinks we should do.” Usually I just let the alcohol talk but I became curious. “What do you mean wasted money?”

He proceeded to inform me of all the reasons he thinks we should not explore space. At the end of his speech he started to chant, “Moon equals doom, Moon equals doom, Moon equals doom..!” He did not even get the phrase out a fourth time before passing out on the sofa. I decided to go into the restroom and get this article, which was published in print on February 1, 2007 in Nature 445, 459.

After reading the article, I found that Jeffi’s argument paralleled the author’s, both arguments lacked support, logic and optimism. “Human spaceflight is no excuse for ignoring the home planet, which needs constant monitoring from space” (Brave Blue World). This opening statement clearly demonstrates the author’s pessimism pertaining to space exploitation. He/she feels that by exploring space we have been ignoring the problems at hand here on Earth.

The author places emphasis on our “alarming budget deficit” and on “a project with so little prospect of palpable returns.” “Certainly, science does not come close to offering a justification.” (Brave Blue World) However, in contrast to what he/she says, science does offer a justification.

According this graph, courtesy of another Nature article [Nature 445, 474-478 (1 February 2007)], the budget for total space exploration in the future remains relatively balanced. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that as exploration missions increase, all the other departments decrease. Therefore, money is taken from other space programs and given to exploration missions.

NASA along with other space agencies developed the following lunar exploration themes: (Why The Moon?)

“1. Human Civilization
2. Extend human presence to the Moon to enable eventual settlement.
3. Scientific Knowledge
4. Pursue scientific activities that address fundamental questions about the history of Earth, the solar system and the universe - and about our place in them
5. Exploration Preparation
6. Test technologies, systems, flight operations and exploration techniques to reduce the risks and increase the productivity of future missions to Mars and beyond
7. Provide a challenging, shared and peaceful activity that unites nations in pursuit of common objectives
8. Economic Expansion
9. Expand Earth's economic sphere, and conduct lunar activities with benefits to life on the home planet
10. Use a vibrant space exploration program to engage the public, encourage students and help develop the high-tech workforce that will be required to address the challenges of tomorrow” (Why The Moon?)

“NASA engaged the global space community to develop the objectives by asking the question, ‘What do we hope to accomplish through lunar exploration?’ NASA took the many answers to this question and compiled them into a comprehensive database of almost 200 different things we could do on the moon!” (Why The Moon?)

The author sarcastically explains the parallels Michael Griffin, the NASA administrator, describes between Antarctic exploration and future American spaceflight. But who is to say that another country will not make a miraculous discovery? Like NASA pointed out, space exploration is a global cooperative mission that unites nations peacefully. The author neglected to mention this important viewpoint.

“Although lunar research may illuminate some far deeper recesses of Earth's history, the Moon is no Antarctica: the only input that lunar activity will provide for the study of Earth is the iconic and inspiring sight of a blue planet in a black sky over a grey desert” (Brave Blue World). In contrast, there are numerous things to come from space exploration, as listed above.

According to The Washington Post, by 2020 a human settlement of residence astronauts at the south pole of the moon will exist. The settlement will provide a place for space travelers as they head to other parts of the solar system. Also, the moon will provide hydrogen and oxygen to make water and rocket fuel—which falls under number 9 on the list, economic expansion. Since we are running out of resources and room, the moon will provide an alterative. While studying the moon we may even learn how to transform nonrenewable resources into renewable resources. Numerous times when scientists are attempting to make new discoveries they discover something they were not expecting.

A well regarded space program, such as NASA, engages the public. Students become fascinated and are inspired to explore related topics. Inspirations could range from an astronaut to an inventor of alternative resources. In the future we may find a way to decrease the affects of global warming by using the moon as a sink for emissions, if it is not inhabited.

The author ends his editorial by giving his final opinion. He/she attributes the urgency of the world to “mapping the march of global change and exploring possible futures,” not the “eternal verities and ancient deserts” (Brave Blue World). By exploring space we explore possible futures! Space exploration allows us to scientifically research, globally unite, economically expand, and individually inspire.

Jeffi and the author of “Brave Blue World” may say, “Moon Doom,” but my vote is for “Moon Boom.”

“Brave Blue World.” Nature. 01 February 2007. 14 February 2007.
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/apollo/apollo15_endeavor.gif (Picture 3)
http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d4/moon.jpg (Picture 1)
“NASA plans moon settlement by 2020.” The Australian. 06 December 2006. 14 February 2007.
“Why The Moon?” Space Daily, Distributed by United Press International. 05 December 2006. 14 February 2007.

HIV/AIDS and the Private Sector

Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, once said, “… I know of no enemy in war more insidious or vicious than AIDS. Will history record a fateful moment in our time, on our watch, when action came too late?” Many people echo Powell’s concern. The AIDS pandemic reaches overseas as easily as it reaches our own front doors.

In an October, 2006 Nature editorial, one contributor discusses his or her opinion that publicity gives the illusion that the private sector is on the forefront of the fight against AIDS, though it is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. I found this argument close-minded and poorly referenced. Though it is an editorial piece, any amount of background research would have immediately challenged the idea. By presenting an opposing argument to the two statements within the editorial, I seek your consideration of my opinion: publicity is a tool used by the private sector to draw attention to the fight against AIDS, and that publicity is in fact a notable contribution.

The editorial says that though publicity around the fund and awareness raiser, (PRODUCT)red, “may convey the impression that large global corporations are at the forefront of the fight against AIDS. But a closer look at the situation reveals that this is rarely the case” (Nature). At the risk of sounding presumptuous, publicity does not imply that businesses are on the forefront of the fight or research. Publicity implies that campaign managers are doing their job in selling a product. However, companies associated with (PRODUCT)red are using their platform and access to the public to raise awareness and money simultaneously. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, adults (ages 18 and older) watched the equivalent of 70 days of television programming in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau). The total average time a household watched television during the 2005-2006 television year was 8 hours and 14 minutes per day, a 3-minute increase from the 2004-2005 season and a record high (Nielsen). The average amount of television watched by an individual viewer increased 3 minutes per day to 4 hours and 35 minutes—another record (Nielsen).

So why would I label the focusing public attention on the issue as a notable contribution by the private sector? By alerting and prompting the public, individuals and organizations alike will be motivated to do what they can to help fight the pandemic. Citizens can lobby to but pressure on government to fund more extensive research. By getting in touch with a younger audience, some may even be influenced to pursue a career path focused on relieving on of humanity’s greatest afflictions. Granted, campaign managers and CEO’s in the private sector are not actively participating in research. However, minus the white lab coat, these professionals are employing their power in the media. They can reach a nation controlled by the media. In this sense, the private sector is making a significant contribution.

The second statement I have chosen to refute from the editorial reads as follows: “Yet there is a nagging concern among AIDS officials that global attention may be drifting away from the pandemic, at a time when the need to confront it aggressively has never been greater” (Nature). In my opinion, this is the exact concern the private sector is addressing by drawing attention to the pandemic. With an estimated 39.5 million people living with AIDS worldwide in 2006, anything that calls people’s attention to the pandemic is helpful (Worldwide AIDS and HIV Statistics Including Deaths). By using the media to focus public attention on the pandemic, it becomes more of a priority to the public. Let’s look over some basic statistical information.

Two popular items from the (PRODUCT)red campaign are GAP Clothing’s t-shirts and Apple’s red iPod Nanos. With the purchase of one GAP t-shirt, you can provide single-does of nevirapine. This treatment is administered to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child (RED). Part of the money spent on a Red iPod Nano goes to purchase anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment for one month to a person living with HIV (RED). “Antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection consists of drugs which work against HIV infection itself by slowing down the replication of HIV in the body” (Intro to HIV and AIDS Treatment).

So how much is this particular product campaign contributing to the fight against HIV and AIDS? With the help of consumers, in May of 2006, $1.25 million of the first (RED) money received by the Global Fund flowed to Rwanda. During the week of September 11, 2006, $4 million flowed to Swaziland. On September 19, a further $5 million was disbursed to Rwanda (RED).

What has all of this money done in the fight against and research of the disease? According to joinred.com:
544,000 people have been provided with treatment for HIV and AIDS.
5.7 million people received voluntary HIV testing.
1.43 million people were treated for tuberculosis.
7.3 million people were treated for malaria.
11.3 million families were provided with insecticide treated mosquito nets.

Do these figures reflect an unaddressed “nagging concern” of drifting attention? (Nature) Clearly, the answer is no.

In conclusion, I ask you to review the facts set before you and once again consider the editorial’s opinion that publicity, particularly in the case of (PRODUCT)red, gives the illusion that the private sector is not doing enough in the fight the disease and progression of research. Though the private sector may not have representatives in the lab, I believe it is inarguably clear that it is making a considerable contribution in the research, treatment, and prevention of HIV and AIDS worldwide.

“AIDS and the private sector.” Nature 443.7113 (19 October 2006): 723. E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 6 February 2007.
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/pdf/443723a.pdf>

Global AIDS Alliance. 2007. Global AIDS Alliance. 6 February 2007.
<http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/quotes.cfm>

Holmes, Gary. “Nielsen Media Research Reports Television's Popularity Is Still Growing.” Nielsen Media Research. 2007. 7 February 2008.
<http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=4156527aacccd010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD>

Introduction to HIV and AIDS Treatment. 22 January 2007. AVERT. 8 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/introtrt.htm>

RED. 2006. Product RED. 6 February 2007. < http://www.joinred.com/>

United States. Census Bureau. “50th Anniversary of ‘Wonderful World of Color’ TV. U.S. Census Bureau. 11 March 2004. 7 February 2007.
<http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm>

What’s in your food?

Ay, mates! Hope everything is well since the last time. So, I was at the store the other day shopping around for some ingredients to put in pavlova which is highly appreciated by my loyal customers. For those of you who don’t know what pavlova is, look it up! No, I’m just kidding, pavlova is a meringue and cream dessert, really good on the stomach when you’ve had a little too much to drink if you know what I mean. As I was saying, I was in the store in the fruit section and I came across “organic apples.” Not knowing what such type of apples were, I asked the store clerk and she explained that organic apples or any organic food for that matter is food growth without the use of pesticides and other harmful agents. Then I asked her what was the other type of food called and she replied, “inorganic”. What exactly is inorganic you ask? According to the clerk, inorganic food is food that is grown with the use of pesticides and other traditional methods. The clerk also told me that she tried her best to eat organic food whenever possible because it was not only healthier, but she had several food allergies and didn’t want to risk an allergenic reaction by eating inorganic food. After our conversation, I grabbed one of those “organic apples” and checked out.

Having a few food allergies myself, I promptly started researching food allergies as soon as I got home. After about a half hour, and quite a few clicks of the mouse, I came across an article titled, “Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality.” The article immediately caught my attention. Not that I’m slow or anything, in all honesty it did take me quite a few reads to understand the gist of the article. With that said, I have taken the liberty of summarizing the article for you. I’ve also included my two cents here and there as well just to make things a little more interesting. As always please don’t hesitate to let me know your thoughts. I enjoy reading the opinions of others, so if you have an opinion, express it by posting a comment. Until next time, enjoy!

Firstly, let me just say that science is like a great white shark, a beast! And with cutting edge technology developing each day, the possibilities are limitless! Here’s a quick fact I betcha didn’t know, based on current population growth rates the whole world is projected to be starving by the year 2025. Scary isn’t? I don’t know about you, but I plan to be around, and by no means do I want to be a cannibal. But no need to worry yourself, a solution has already been found, and in fact in full blown effect. However, as with all things, it did not come about without much debate, especially from those with food allergies such as myself.

For the past decade or so there has been much debate about genetically modified foods and the unknown adverse effects. Fact of the matter is, that genetically modified foods is what is saving us from that projected starvation period. Genetically modified foods are very unique in the sense that they yield more at a better quality than those that are grown naturally, without any help. Furthermore, it is more environmentally effective to grow genetically modified food as well as beneficial because it could potentially eliminate deficiency diseases. (Lehrer and Bannon, 560)

So what does all of this have to do with people who have food allergies? Good question. Genetically modified foods are produced by using one of two methods. The method that seems to be the most efficient and safest way in my opinion is breeding and selection. Breeding selection is done by moving a large portion of genomic DNA between different plant varieties in order to obtain the desired trait. (Lehrer and Bannon, 560) This method seems more natural than genetic engineering, in which one specific gene is transferred from one species to the other.

Only a mere 2-8% of the world’s population actually even have food allergies. How unlucky am I. Of such allergies, peanuts, shrimp, soy and tree nuts seem to be the most popular. I am actually allergic to all types of nuts; you really don’t want to see what I look like when I accidentally eat one. What’s more is that one particular food may contain several thousands of proteins and perhaps only 10-20 may be allergenic. Furthermore, in order for someone to have a food allergy, they would have to have been exposed at least two or more times and it has a lot to do with their immune system. With that said, it can be concluded that the chances of incurring an allergenic reaction is not only relatively low but that many people who claim to have food allergies, may not have any at all because they choose not to eat certain foods out of fear of having an allergic reaction.

Consumer’s risk of an allergenic reaction is divided into three groups. The groups are ranked highest, intermediated, and low. The highest risk in genetically modified food is purposely injecting a known allergen protein into another food. An example would be injecting a peanut protein into apples. If the aforementioned was done, people with food allergies wouldn’t know what they would be getting, an apple or peanapple, get it? The second of the group is intermediate in which proteins are injected into foods without the intention of causing a reaction but has the potential to do so. The third category is low in which proteins are injected into foods that have minimal risk of causing an allergenic reaction. An experiment was actually conducted in order to back up what was stated. According to the results, it was concluded that genetically modified foods have absolutely minimal risks in causing an allergenic reaction unless known allergens are injected into foods.

So, there you have it mates! After thorough research, I have concluded that there is no harm in eating genetically modified foods. That’s coming from someone with food allergies themselves. After all, mates I’d much rather eat genetically modified food than feast on my neighbor, wouldn’t you?

S.B. Lehrer, G.A. Bannon. “Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality.” Allergy Vol.60. Issue 5 (May 2005): p. 559-564. EBSCO Host Research Databases. UNC- Chapel Hill. 30 January 2007.

Population Management

Humans are destroying the earth. We are fed this idea by various scientists and environmental advocates who are very much right in their attribution of much of today’s ecological problems to the advent of urban human society. These opponents of humanity’s role in the environment around them have almost always focused solely on the roles of Homo sapiens in disrupting ecosystems, a view that is probably somewhat narrow minded and very limited in scope.

This limited scope can be rather deceptive. Many other populations besides that of the human population have a detrimental influence on the habitat in which they live and even on other species and populations within that same environment (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Examples of negative population effects include that of the Koala in Australia. The Koala, now considered a pest, had caused damage to the well-being of the native Rough-barked Manna-gum on Kangaroo Island, Australia. A second, more abstract example is the impact that weeds have on their environment. Not only do they compete with other plants for habitat and resources, but they can cause damage to animals such as humans by damaging a source of their nourishment. An estimate of AU$ 3.5 billion (~US$ 2.7 billion) was made to approximate the financial costs incurred by the agricultural community in Australia due to the effects of weeds (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Understanding the (possibly negative) roles of other organisms on the environment is crucial in allowing us to create a better living standard for humans and also keeping a balance or harmony within the environment we have immediate influence over. As humans we understand the negative impact we are having on the environment and so we are consequentially able to change our actions and change the actions of other humans in order to better coincide with our habitat. However, due to the biological nature of all other populations we are unable to communicate and therefore unable to reach agreements in dealing with other species and their environments.

Because we cannot change the lifestyles and patterns of other, nonhuman populations, we must turn to regulating the size of the populations themselves. Ross and Pollett’s “On Costs and Decisions in Population Management” proposes that the two applicable methods of population regulation are reduction and suppression.

The suppression regime is the process by which a certain population is closely monitored to make sure a certain threshold for the population size is not surpassed. Suppression is exacted through continuous control, where culling of populations is done relatively often until the certain group falls below a pre-determined benchmark. This continuous control is in contrast to culling a population in intervals; relatively fewer and more spread out in nature (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Before I continue, I think I need to explain what the culling of populations is. “Culling is the process of selection of surplus animals from an animal population” (Wikipedia). While some might argue against culling, the purpose of this article requires it as a necessary practice. There are a multitude of factors that go into deciding on the final population sizes that will be created by culling, the most important of which is finding the minimum number of the population that need to be present in order for the population to be able to persist in spite of their reduction; this comprehensively referred to as “population persistence” (Ross, Pollett, 2006). Throughout their article, Ross and Pollett develop formulas that dictate the scope of culling that needs to take place in observance of the population’s current birth and death rates.

The second regulation method of reduction is fundamentally different from suppression in that instead of stopping a population from growing beyond a certain point, that population is reduced to a pre-determined size and then maintained at this newly created level. However, reduction is also usually more educationally based and better at addressing various genetic issues that arise from a reduced population size. In order to control a population ethically and efficiently special emphasis needs to be made on genetic diversity. Genetic diversity will not only reduce the problems proposed by inbreeding, but will also allow for the species to continue evolutionarily, not being stunted by a lack of variance in the genetic makeup. Also, reduction’s culling intervals are usually more researched and causally more infrequent (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Even though population regulation is performed in order to benefit the overall environment, there are some costs to its practice. The first cost is incurred by the species that is being controlled. The cost is extinction. While extinction “is contrary to the management objective” (Ross, Pollett, 2006) it is effectively inevitable in many, if not most situations. This may seem somewhat inhumane at first, but we can look at examples such as the koala population on Kangaroo Island to see that it is not. Like I referred to before, the koalas of Kangaroo Island are reproducing at an unprecedented rate. This rate will almost definitely lead to the extinction of the population sooner than an extinction incurred by management because of overpopulation, competition, and resource exhaustion. Resource exhaustion from a certain habitat almost definitely can lead to the extinction or impairment of other species, so even if population management eventually leads to extinction, there is no reason to think that reduction or suppression are inherently malignant for the given population.

A second, less objectionable cost is that controlling populations is going to cost a large amount of money. This is pretty obvious, as the resources required to intensively regulate a certain population are quite expensive. The only major difference in cost between the two regulation methods are that reduction costs large amounts occasionally (during its culling periods), and suppression costs small amounts at a relatively constant pace.

As the human population continues to increase its sphere of influence we will definitely be coming more closely into contact with local species such as kangaroo. The fact that animal species can be maladaptive in their environments is crucial to ascertain. I feel it is very important that we are able to coexist (and sometimes intercede) peacefully and effectively with nature, and understanding population regulation is an integral part of that.

Sources:

J.V. Ross, P.K. Pollett; “On costs and decisions in population management.” University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld , Australia. 7 September 2006. 1 February 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBS-4KV3Y45-2&_user=130907&_coverDate=02%2F10%2F2007&amp;_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&amp;view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=a32e7c905ca9d9c77f95a734abc4b8c2#sec18

100 miles/hour : The Science behind this pitch

As you all out there may already know, I am a big surfing fan and jump in the sea at least twice a day to enjoy the beautiful ocean and its waves. However, you probably don’t know that my favorite sport isn’t actually surfing, but rather BASEBALL. Yes you are reading correctly, that is Baseball. Me mates have always made fun of me because baseball is an American sport that is not played very much here in Australia (even though we did participate in the World Baseball Classic last year).

I played baseball as a kid and enjoyed sneaking into the bars on Friday nights to watch the New York Yankees play. I guess I don’t have to do that now since I have my own bar with American satellite channels. Anyways one of the things that has always fascinated me about baseball is not how hard or powerful the players can hit the ball, but rather the speed and accuracy at which a pitcher can throw the ball. After watching last night’s Caribbean World Series between Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, I was impressed to see that the Venezuelan player who was about 170 pounds, was throwing the ball at 99 miles/hour while the Dominican pitcher who weighed about 230 pounds was only throwing it at 87 miles/hour. This completely startled as to how a person 60 pounds lighter could have more strength to throw the ball and led me to think that maybe there is more science involved in throwing a pitch than just pure strength. Well I was right. There seems to be more science, physics, and natural anatomical factors involved than just pure arm force.

The Magazine Current Science contains an interesting article called “Fireball Physics”, that explains how biomechanics and anatomy is the key to a 100 miles/hour pitch, known as a “Fireball” or a “Flamethrower” (Jozefowics 10). According to the article, a ball traveling at this speed will reach the glove of the catcher in less than one second, putting the pitchers through one of the fastest mechanical motions a person’s body is capable of carrying out, and forces his arm to nearly a breaking point. (10).

Even though there is no official record of this statistic, the fastest pitch ever recorded was clocked at an amazing 103 miles/hour in 1995 by Braves pitcher Mark Wohlers (Yes mates, I was watching that game alright). (10). Much more than an arm was involved in this pitch however; muscles, tendons, ligaments, and joints, all the way from the TOES to the tip of our fingers all play a part in carrying out this movement. I understand you are probably confused, so I’ll explain a bit better. The biomechanics begins in our toes, and just like a wave, it starts to gain strength as the force moves from our feet to our leg muscles, than passes on to our pelvis and abdominal areas, and then in a matter of an instant that force is fired from our shoulders to the tip of our index and thumb. (11)

Now listen to this mates. “The fastest pitchers reach a peak arm speed of about 7,500 degrees per second, or fast enough to rotate the arm completely(360 degrees) 21 times in ONE second!”(11). More amazingly, their tendons and ligaments reach a point where they almost completely tear apart, meaning that a minimal amount of extra force could shatter their elbows or shoulders. This clearly explains why we barely see any pitchers throwing a “Fireball”. “That 100 mile ceiling isn’t an illusion; it’s a basic property of human physiology”, states Jozefowics (11).

Researchers however think otherwise. After performing several experiments on cadavers, they found that a well developed arm with strong ligaments and tendons would have enough ability to throw a ball well over 120 miles/ hour. They do agree however, that if some “genetic wonders”(11) are able to throw the ball this fast, they wouldn’t be able to do so accurately and would probably injure themselves after a few pitches. (11).

It is no wonder then why teams spend so much money on their pitchers and take so much care of them, regularly checking up on their ligaments, tendons, and all sort muscles not just in their arm but throughout their body. One example is pitcher Kurt Schilling of the Boston Red Sox. In 2004, he was diagnosed with tendonitis in his left ankle due to excessive pitching pressure on his foot. He underwent several surgeries and later went on to win the World Series with Boston while pitching with a bloody sock.

The article also explains that, “Team owners prefer a fast pitcher they can keep around for a long time rather than a super-fast pitcher that is always injured” (11). So next time you are flipping through the channels and see a pitcher throwing a nice fast pitch into strike zone, remember all the physics and science that is involved in that split second movement. Good day mates!

Jozefowics, Chris. “Fireball Physics.” Current Science. Volume 91.Issue 2 (September 2005): pages 10-11. EBSCO Host Research Databases. UNC- Chapel Hill. 30 January 2007.