Air pollution, asthma linked to suicide

This article discusses how suicides don't just result from psychological stresses, but can also be linked to a physical stress. In this scenario, the stress is respritory problems, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and so forth, caused by air pollution. Researchers first found evidence of this in South Korea, 2004. It was then that scientists first related the poor air quality to the suicide rates of the citizens. Following that, in that same year, 4300 suicides were reported and under half of the victims were found to have some form of chronic illness, such as lung cancer and diabetes. Furthermore, the scientists also found when air pollution came into play, the suicide risk went up 9 percent within two days. And when heart diseases were added, it went up 19. However, some professors believe that these are coincidences and the two have nothing in common.

Opinion:

I find this new discovery shocking and depressing. Global warming has already taken its toll on to the world but now, even humans are being negatively affected by it. Suicides are no matter to joke about and are very serious. Enough people die everyday from natural and unnatural causes and this just adds to the list. 9 percent may not seem like much but when you put it up against several billion, the numbers total up to an enormous amount, and 19 percent is almost one out of five. I disagree with the professor. With all these statistics to prove it first hand, there definitely has to be some sort of connection between the suicide rates and air pollution. But even if there is no connection, the suicides are a sad thing to look upon.

Questions:

1.) What do you think is the difference between a psychological stress and a physical one?

2.) Is there any way to help out the victims of this horrible trend?

3.) Do you believe that there is a connection between air pollution and the suicides?

Article link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/15/pollution.asthma.suicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

In Canada, Grizzlies Invade Polar-Bear Turf

By: Cole McDowell

Summary: This article was about how grizzly bears are moving into Polar Bears territory. In Wapusk National Park Grizzly Bears are starting to appear. Seeing Grizzlies that far up north is very rare and locals say that they have not seen Grizzly Bears anywhere near Wapusk for over 100 years. Experts say there is no way to know for sure if the Grizzlies will stay or not. If they do stay then boundary's will be drawn. Although polar bears are almost three times larger than a grizzly they cannot take down large prey like adult moose and caribou. Lucky for Grizzlies they can take down a moose or caribou. The reason experts are so interested is they do not know how they will react to each other. Most people hope for the two species to get along but experts say that three things can happen. The Polar Bear moves, the Grizzly leaves or they get along but keep their distance. The choice is in the hands of nature.


Opinion: I hope that the two species can get along. I feel that it would be a interesting thing to happen up in Canada. Most people think all bears are vicious but Robert Rockwell who work around bears even says "In 41 years in the field, where I sometimes see 200 bears in a day, I've seen exactly one aggressive encounter". If that is the case i believe that their will be almost little to no problems with The Grizzlies and the Polar Bears in Wapusk National Park. If either side is driven away from their home it would be very sad.

Questions:
1.What do you think will happen to either bear in this situation?
2.Exactly how big can a Grizzly and a polar bear get?
3. Do you think that the bears will keep their distance from each other or will they fight?


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968441,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Disease Threatens New Zealand Kiwi Industry

"Disease Threatens New Zealand Kiwi Industry"

By: Johnathan Hutchison

Published: November 14, 2010

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/business/global/15iht-kiwi.html?ref=agriculture

Summary: This article explains the crisis mode problem in New Zealand. A destructive canker, known as PSA, is critically threatening to destroy the kiwi farming industry in New Zealand. The industry, worth $1.2 billion, is a local economy monument in a lot of New Zealand towns. The bacterial disease was first discovered in Japan 25 years ago and has four known strains with varying levels of virulence. Kiwi industry growers are still awaiting test results for which strain is being dealt with. The public has been urged to avoid kiwi orchards as the disease can be spread through humans and other agents. The PSA disease affects the vine of the fruit, not the fruit itself. Affects may vary due to the strain of the disease and the local climate. A recent happening of the PSA disease in Italy has an estimated cost of $2.7 million. If a cost like that were to hit New Zealand, the crown jewel of the New Zealand economy could take a serious hit. Many local people of New Zealand who rely on the kiwi orchard industry for their livelihoods are seriously concerned. Experts do believe however that some way, some how the industry could survive.

Opinion: This tragedy is very bad for not only the industry, but also for the people of New Zealand. Their economy could make a turn for the worse and possibly never be able to regain its footing. This canker disease is hurting a lot of people and depending on the strain of the disease, it could end up harming them physically and emotionally. If kiwi is the prime crop in New Zealand, then a lot of people eat it and this food shortage could add fire to an exposed flame. To my knowledge, New Zealand is a small nation and this incident could tip them over the edge. Developed nations should help out New Zealand a little bit if need be.

Questions:

1. Should nations help New Zealand? If so, how can they help them?

2. Will New Zealand overcome this with little to no damage?

3. How could importing and exporting nations of New Zealand be affected by this?

Melissa McNeil

"New Way to Help Chickens Cross to Other Side"
By: William Neuman
Published: October 21, 2010
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/business/22chicken.html?ref=factory_farming


Summary:
This article explains a new way of killing chickens in factory farming. Chickens today are free of many things. They come cage-free, antibiotic-free, organic, and air-chilled. Two premium chicken producers are on their way to making the chickens stress-free. This new system uses carbon dioxide gas that slowly renders the chickens unconscious before they're hung by their feet to get their throats slit. This system would potentially help the chickens because they won't feel the stress of someone grabbing their legs and hanging them upside down while they are alive. This system is also more humane. Marketing this subject however, is a difficult thing to do. Many people don't even like to think about how the animal was killed so it's hard to get people on their side in support of this new system. They are trying to communicate this way of killing animals by calling it 'humanely slaughtered' or 'humanely handled.' Many important people in the agricultural business are on board with this idea, except that the gas technology is expensive. It would cost about $3 million just go convert their operations to the system. Marc Cooper, a senior scientific manager in the farm animals department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in London said, "It's hard to sell humane killing as a concept."

Opinion:
As I read this article I was pretty happy that people all over are trying out a more humane way of killing. Killing chickens sounds horrible but if you think about it, our population isn't going to stop eating them any time soon. I think making a more humane way of killing chickens is a great idea. I agree with Marc Cooper in the fact that humane killing is a hard concept to sell. However, I think that with a lot of good marketing this idea will spread and start to become popular with chicken slaughtering. Personally I have always felt bad for the animals that get slaughtered for our use. This system seems like a great idea and I really hope the expense goes down some so many companies can use it.

Questions:
1) Do you think this system is a good idea?
2) What is a way to lower the expenses of the gas technology?
3) Are there any other ways that you can think of to make chicken slaughter more humane?

Arid Australia Sips Seawater, at a Cost

Kiersten Neubeck

Title: Arid Australia Sips Seawater, at a Cost - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/7/11/world/asia/11waterhtml?partner=rss&emc=rss
By: Norimitsu Onishi
Published July 10, 2010














Summary:
Australia is the driest continent with a living population of people. For centuries they have searched for a way to obtain freshwater efficiently. Finally after many years, desalination has been put into place. In 3 years when all of the plants in major cities will be completed, thirty percent of Australia's water will be coming from desalination plants. Over thirteen billion dollars are being spent in the efforts to complete the new plants. This is a much needed step because the climate change is making water shortages an even bigger issue. Many enviromentalists, however, are against the idea because desalination plants contribute to global warming. Despite this, Australia is going forward with the idea.





Opinion:
It is interesting that Australia is surrounded by water and yet cannot obtain a sufficient amount of water. Thankfully now they can obtain usuable water by using desalination plants to make the salt water around them drinkable. I believe that this is a great idea, but it is extremely expensive and is detrimental to the enviroment. This is why I believe that Australia should attempt to find other ways to obtain water. In spite of the negative effects desalination plants have, Australia can create many jobs by creating these institutions, thus boosting the economy. This article reminds me of Africa. Africa is also struggling with water availability, but in contrast they have a much weaker economy. Fortunately, Australia has the economical means to provide water to their people.





Questions:
1. How else do you think Australia can obtain freshwater?
2. Do the pros of desalination plants overweigh the cons?
3. How are the people of Australia affected by the lack of freshwater?