Born in Kent, Indiana in 1844 where he grew up and then joined the Union Army in May of 1864. He spent most of this time guarding railroads in Alabama and Tennessee. He was later discharged in September of 1864. At the time of his discharge, he decided to enroll at Hanover College in Hanover, Indiana. He received his B.S., Masters and M.D. all by 1871.
In the year 1882 he was offered the position of Chief Chemist for the United States Department of Agriculture. He accepted this position after being passed over for presidency at Purdue. During his time he had helped in the studying to certain preservatives used in plants and their effects. After concluding this study, he was awarded $5,000 to launch his own study on the effect of a diet consisting of plants with certain preservatives on human volunteers. This is where the term the "Poison Squad" comes into effect. The term "Poison Squad" was used for this because of the potentially "poisonous" effects that the preservatives had on their human subjects. These could have led to severe illnesses or even death and that is why the subjects were call the Poison Squad. Because of these studies, it had been brought to attention that there needed to be stricter laws on what was acceptable for human consumption.
During his time working for the government, he had gained the nickname "Father of the Pure Foods and Drugs Act" due to his support and research creating such a stir that over one million women wrote to the Whitehouse to pass the law in 1906. Post nickname and law passing, he authored two editions of "Foods and Their Adulterations", one in 1907 and the second in 1911. These books went into detail about the history, preparation and adulteration of "basic foodstuffs" for a broad audience. It helped to put things into perspective for the average person, instead of using technical jargon.
In the year 1912 he resigned from office and took over the laboratories of Good Housekeeping Magazine. While working here, he conducted studies and published work that affected the general public and was able to get the information out. He proceeded to work there for 18 years.
Dr. Wiley later passed away on June 30, 1930, which just so happened to be the 24th anniversary of the passing of the Pure Foods and Drugs Act. His body was then buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
Since his passing his legacy has lived on through the naming of military sea vessels, being acknowledge by the US Postal Service by being featured on a three cent stamp and even having his home that he built in 1893 listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2000.
His studies paved the way and helped to explain everything that was being used and what all was really going on through agriculture preservatives and the effects that they really had on the consumers. Without him, many people, if not everyone could still be in the dark and not know the true harm or possible effects of what they may be eating.
Sources:
http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/history/Wiley/index.htm
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/CentennialofFDA/HarveyW.Wiley/default.htm
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/hwwiley.htm
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Exxon Valdez: 20 Years Later
On March 24, 1989 there was a tanker transporting over 53 million gallons of oil from Valdez, Alaska to Los Angeles, California. This tanker had gone out of its way to avoid ice on normal shipping lanes and in doing so cause it to pass over the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. On the reef is where the ship ran aground causing it to spill vast amounts of oil into the surrounding waters and cause mass amounts of damage to the area. Within the first six hours of the ship hitting the reef, it had spilled almost eleven million gallons of its cargo into the waters. This massive loss was caused by eight of the eleven larger storage tanks being damaged on this ship and the spreading of the oil through the ocean and along coastlines would affect over 1,300 miles of coastlines along Alaska. The cleanup of the spill was started the following month of April and continued through September for the first year and was limited to summer months for the next few years due to inclement weather (being an Alaskan coastline). (info taken from L1, L3 and L5 at bottom of post)
One of the more effective ways of cleaning up the oil while still in the water was using 3M fire booms in a "U" shape with boats attached to gather surface oil in large amounts and this would allow people to set this grouping of oil on fire. On average it was stated that the vessels could gather anywhere from 15,000-30,000 gallons of oil per load and light it up. This fire would then burn for approximately 75 minutes and reduce the aftermath to about 300 gallons of residue that could easily be collected (especially because of the much smaller scale). It was concluded that the success of these sample burns were 98% efficient and could be used in efforts to control what surface oil was left in the water. (info taken from L1 and L5 at bottom of post)
Another clean up effort that was attempted but was not as successful, so it was stopped, was the use of dispersants. These would be additives to the oceanic waters which would be chemicals that could break down the oil into finer components and either make them virtually harmless to their surroundings or make them easier for people to collect from the water in general. These tests had shown that they did not work as well with the oil and they were stopped. (info taken from L1 and L2 at bottom of post)
At the height of the cleanup process it was estimated that there were over 11,000 people, 1,400 other vessels and 85 aircrafts involved with cleanup efforts. It was also estimated that at one point there were over 100 million miles of boom used in the water to collect the surface oil. Before the BP Oil Spill, this had been the largest anyone had ever seen and potentially cause the most damage, whether it being environmental and wildlife, economic or even just socially (by giving Exxon a bad reputation). (info taken from L1 and L4 at bottom of post)
Not only were people and vessels stationed on the water, but there were also large groups or people working to cleanup the beaches and shorelines with hoses and such to spray the oil back towards the water line to make it easier for collection. The people on land didn't have to just worry about the sands and beaches either, that's where a decent amount of wildlife cleanup came into play as well. During this whole fiasco countless fish, over 250,000 seabirds and thousands of otters and seals perished because of the oil. Those were just the numbers of those who weren't able to be saved. Crews on land worked their hardest to try and maintain the ecosystem the best that they could and cleaned animals as well as the beaches to be free from oil. (info taken from L4 at bottom of post)
In years after the cleanup the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council has conducted tests to monitor wildlife and the surrounding area in their recoveries since the accident had happened back in 1989. Their most recent surveys were conducted in 2002 and the information was gather and split up into lists of Not Recovering (such as the Harbor Seal and Pacific Herring which have shown little to no regrowth in population since the incident), Recovery Unknown (meaning that there is minimal data known for species such at the Cutthroat Trout and Dolly Varden), Recovered (meaning that the species on this list have met criteria and goals set forth for recovery and they included the Bald Eagle and Pink Salmon to name a few), Recovering (meaning that the species on this list are still in the process of growing back, but are showing signs of actually making progress towards goals and the list includes Clams, Mussels and Sea Otters to name a few) and there was also a list deemed Human Uses which included things such as Commercial Fishing and Recreation/Tourism (this part of the list was included because while not being specific wildlife or anything, there was still a drastic impact on these aspects of the water and they felt needed to be monitored in recovery efforts as well). (info taken from L1 at the end of the post)
Even after all cleanup efforts and everything, Exxon was still fined around $150 million, which the court forgave $125 million due to their cleanup efforts, leaving $25 million to be dispersed between North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and the National Victims of Crime Fund. These funds are just part of their criminal settlement. Their civil settlement ended up being around $900+ million (which they had agreed to pay) but there could also be a possible extra $100 million after that at a later period of time. These funds would then be used to attempt to restore the wildlife to the area and help them to reach to set goals to restore everything to how it was. There were also Federal and State settlements totaling upwards of $1 billion and Exxon had also spent approximately $2.2 billion in cleanup efforts from 1989 until 1992. When all was said and done with court cases and cleanup efforts, Exxon went and hired their own scientists to monitor the wildlife and ecosystems around Prince William Sound, Alaska and their data had shown that the numbers on everything had improved so greatly since the clean up that everything had stabilized and returned to normal levels. (info taken from L1 from bottom of post)
Although very disastrous to the wildlife and surrounding area, a lot has been learned from this incident and preventative measures have been able to be taken for future problems (such as the BP Oil Spill) to help make them less severe. These measures can also come into effect to help prevent the spills from happening to begin with (which would be ideal). There have also been advancements in dispersants to make them more effective and also less harmful to the surrounding environment in the long run. While being very detrimental at the time, a lot was learned from this incident and with this knowledge, hopefully this can be prevented in the future (minus the BP Oil Spill of course, which was also another disaster).
L1:http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152720/
L2: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/
L3: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/oil/
L4: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887217,00.html
L5: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/exxon-valdez-oil-spill
One of the more effective ways of cleaning up the oil while still in the water was using 3M fire booms in a "U" shape with boats attached to gather surface oil in large amounts and this would allow people to set this grouping of oil on fire. On average it was stated that the vessels could gather anywhere from 15,000-30,000 gallons of oil per load and light it up. This fire would then burn for approximately 75 minutes and reduce the aftermath to about 300 gallons of residue that could easily be collected (especially because of the much smaller scale). It was concluded that the success of these sample burns were 98% efficient and could be used in efforts to control what surface oil was left in the water. (info taken from L1 and L5 at bottom of post)
Another clean up effort that was attempted but was not as successful, so it was stopped, was the use of dispersants. These would be additives to the oceanic waters which would be chemicals that could break down the oil into finer components and either make them virtually harmless to their surroundings or make them easier for people to collect from the water in general. These tests had shown that they did not work as well with the oil and they were stopped. (info taken from L1 and L2 at bottom of post)
At the height of the cleanup process it was estimated that there were over 11,000 people, 1,400 other vessels and 85 aircrafts involved with cleanup efforts. It was also estimated that at one point there were over 100 million miles of boom used in the water to collect the surface oil. Before the BP Oil Spill, this had been the largest anyone had ever seen and potentially cause the most damage, whether it being environmental and wildlife, economic or even just socially (by giving Exxon a bad reputation). (info taken from L1 and L4 at bottom of post)
Not only were people and vessels stationed on the water, but there were also large groups or people working to cleanup the beaches and shorelines with hoses and such to spray the oil back towards the water line to make it easier for collection. The people on land didn't have to just worry about the sands and beaches either, that's where a decent amount of wildlife cleanup came into play as well. During this whole fiasco countless fish, over 250,000 seabirds and thousands of otters and seals perished because of the oil. Those were just the numbers of those who weren't able to be saved. Crews on land worked their hardest to try and maintain the ecosystem the best that they could and cleaned animals as well as the beaches to be free from oil. (info taken from L4 at bottom of post)
In years after the cleanup the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council has conducted tests to monitor wildlife and the surrounding area in their recoveries since the accident had happened back in 1989. Their most recent surveys were conducted in 2002 and the information was gather and split up into lists of Not Recovering (such as the Harbor Seal and Pacific Herring which have shown little to no regrowth in population since the incident), Recovery Unknown (meaning that there is minimal data known for species such at the Cutthroat Trout and Dolly Varden), Recovered (meaning that the species on this list have met criteria and goals set forth for recovery and they included the Bald Eagle and Pink Salmon to name a few), Recovering (meaning that the species on this list are still in the process of growing back, but are showing signs of actually making progress towards goals and the list includes Clams, Mussels and Sea Otters to name a few) and there was also a list deemed Human Uses which included things such as Commercial Fishing and Recreation/Tourism (this part of the list was included because while not being specific wildlife or anything, there was still a drastic impact on these aspects of the water and they felt needed to be monitored in recovery efforts as well). (info taken from L1 at the end of the post)
Even after all cleanup efforts and everything, Exxon was still fined around $150 million, which the court forgave $125 million due to their cleanup efforts, leaving $25 million to be dispersed between North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and the National Victims of Crime Fund. These funds are just part of their criminal settlement. Their civil settlement ended up being around $900+ million (which they had agreed to pay) but there could also be a possible extra $100 million after that at a later period of time. These funds would then be used to attempt to restore the wildlife to the area and help them to reach to set goals to restore everything to how it was. There were also Federal and State settlements totaling upwards of $1 billion and Exxon had also spent approximately $2.2 billion in cleanup efforts from 1989 until 1992. When all was said and done with court cases and cleanup efforts, Exxon went and hired their own scientists to monitor the wildlife and ecosystems around Prince William Sound, Alaska and their data had shown that the numbers on everything had improved so greatly since the clean up that everything had stabilized and returned to normal levels. (info taken from L1 from bottom of post)
Although very disastrous to the wildlife and surrounding area, a lot has been learned from this incident and preventative measures have been able to be taken for future problems (such as the BP Oil Spill) to help make them less severe. These measures can also come into effect to help prevent the spills from happening to begin with (which would be ideal). There have also been advancements in dispersants to make them more effective and also less harmful to the surrounding environment in the long run. While being very detrimental at the time, a lot was learned from this incident and with this knowledge, hopefully this can be prevented in the future (minus the BP Oil Spill of course, which was also another disaster).
L1:http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152720/
L2: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/
L3: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/oil/
L4: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887217,00.html
L5: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/exxon-valdez-oil-spill
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Transporting Oil by Train
The question posed is "How do we transport crude oil safely by rail?" and with information provided in class and such, it didn't seem as though we did. With talks of the disasters surrounding oil spills from trains derailing and all, it seemed as though there was no good way to move oil by trains.
That being said, after researching the information online about how transportation of crude oil is affected by certain laws and restrictions, it has become apparent that my fears were for the not. According to Time Magazine the US has recently tightened up rules for transporting crude oil by trains even more than previously done by voluntary rules set forth less than a week ago. The Department of Transportation has stated that rails must test the product that will be shipped before transport and handle the product accordingly. Handling the product properly would involve using the proper cars to hold the product without possible damage/corrosion/destruction, and it would also mean maintaining proper speed levels when traveling through certain areas, ie. slower through towns and closer to populated areas while being able to increase speeds while in more open areas away from population. These rules and regulations were enacted because of the recent number of crashes and spills from 2008 and on. During these past couple years there have been at least ten incidents where trains have derailed or spilled their oils which led to major destruction from explosions or larges fires.
(http://nation.time.com/2014/02/25/u-s-tightens-rules-for-transporting-crude-oil-by-train/)
According to the Association of American Railroads, the production of crude oil will see an increase of 60% from 2008 this year (so over a six year period) from a little over 5 million barrels of oil produced per day to a little over 8.5 million barrels produced per day. With that information there need to be strict rules on how it is transported in any way. Another piece of information provided from the Association of American Railroads shows that about 99.998% of all hazardous materials moved every day reach their destination without any spilling, leakage or cause for concern. This stat should provide comfort for those who are concerned with how things are being transported and the potential hazards they may face.
(https://www.aar.org/safety/Pages/crude-by-rail-facts.aspx)
That being said, after researching the information online about how transportation of crude oil is affected by certain laws and restrictions, it has become apparent that my fears were for the not. According to Time Magazine the US has recently tightened up rules for transporting crude oil by trains even more than previously done by voluntary rules set forth less than a week ago. The Department of Transportation has stated that rails must test the product that will be shipped before transport and handle the product accordingly. Handling the product properly would involve using the proper cars to hold the product without possible damage/corrosion/destruction, and it would also mean maintaining proper speed levels when traveling through certain areas, ie. slower through towns and closer to populated areas while being able to increase speeds while in more open areas away from population. These rules and regulations were enacted because of the recent number of crashes and spills from 2008 and on. During these past couple years there have been at least ten incidents where trains have derailed or spilled their oils which led to major destruction from explosions or larges fires.
(http://nation.time.com/2014/02/25/u-s-tightens-rules-for-transporting-crude-oil-by-train/)
According to the Association of American Railroads, the production of crude oil will see an increase of 60% from 2008 this year (so over a six year period) from a little over 5 million barrels of oil produced per day to a little over 8.5 million barrels produced per day. With that information there need to be strict rules on how it is transported in any way. Another piece of information provided from the Association of American Railroads shows that about 99.998% of all hazardous materials moved every day reach their destination without any spilling, leakage or cause for concern. This stat should provide comfort for those who are concerned with how things are being transported and the potential hazards they may face.
(https://www.aar.org/safety/Pages/crude-by-rail-facts.aspx)
Monday, February 17, 2014
Blogging as an Instructional Tool
When it comes to teaching there can be benefits from lecturing to a class so as people can listen to what is being taught and take their own notes on the topic, but there seem to be more when it comes to blogging when compared to other methods.
When a student is required to blog and find information on topics on their own it helps them to develop the ability to weed out poor sources on topics and find important and relevant information on their own. Once this information is found, the students would then need to find a way to make their blog posts informative in their own way without stealing their information. This makes the student read thoroughly and gain a better understanding of what is trying to be taught because they can find the information from many different sources instead of just a lecture or video. The use of many sources also helps because it gives the student a chance at practicing the ways of properly citing their sources as not to steal copyright information or plagiarize. Once the student has found a way to organize their thoughts, they have to type everything out in their post which leaves it open for comments and criticism on the topics mentioned in their post. These comments can help them understand further what was trying to be taught (if they missed the mark on what they should have really found) and can also help them to figure out what to look for next time and/or how to write better posts in the future.
While yes, lectures can be informative, they seem to drag on for most and professors or lecturers tend to lose their audiences attention due to people becoming bored or antsy while being forced to sit and pay attention for longer periods of time. With this being said, blogging provides people an opportunity to find necessary information on their own and also does so in an interesting way and can even present the information in several different ways which will help to keep people interested in the topics as well as keep basic attention to what needs to be done.
Personally, I prefer blogging over a classroom setting, because while yes, the classroom provides the direct connection between students and professors, I find myself as one of those people that loses interest in a topic over time, but if I have to blog about something, I find it exciting that I have to find my own resources and actually read about topics through articles or journals and learn that way instead of through a presentation or lecture. It gives me more freedom and provides my own learning experience in a way that I know works for me, without providing the stress of losing attention and possibly missing something important. Going out and finding my own information and reading articles that relate to topics mentioned provide a better understanding of what was intended to be learned instead of just being fed facts and information. Reading articles and talking about how they relate or writing about them in my own terms helps to make the information stick and make it make more sense to me in the long run.
When a student is required to blog and find information on topics on their own it helps them to develop the ability to weed out poor sources on topics and find important and relevant information on their own. Once this information is found, the students would then need to find a way to make their blog posts informative in their own way without stealing their information. This makes the student read thoroughly and gain a better understanding of what is trying to be taught because they can find the information from many different sources instead of just a lecture or video. The use of many sources also helps because it gives the student a chance at practicing the ways of properly citing their sources as not to steal copyright information or plagiarize. Once the student has found a way to organize their thoughts, they have to type everything out in their post which leaves it open for comments and criticism on the topics mentioned in their post. These comments can help them understand further what was trying to be taught (if they missed the mark on what they should have really found) and can also help them to figure out what to look for next time and/or how to write better posts in the future.
While yes, lectures can be informative, they seem to drag on for most and professors or lecturers tend to lose their audiences attention due to people becoming bored or antsy while being forced to sit and pay attention for longer periods of time. With this being said, blogging provides people an opportunity to find necessary information on their own and also does so in an interesting way and can even present the information in several different ways which will help to keep people interested in the topics as well as keep basic attention to what needs to be done.
Personally, I prefer blogging over a classroom setting, because while yes, the classroom provides the direct connection between students and professors, I find myself as one of those people that loses interest in a topic over time, but if I have to blog about something, I find it exciting that I have to find my own resources and actually read about topics through articles or journals and learn that way instead of through a presentation or lecture. It gives me more freedom and provides my own learning experience in a way that I know works for me, without providing the stress of losing attention and possibly missing something important. Going out and finding my own information and reading articles that relate to topics mentioned provide a better understanding of what was intended to be learned instead of just being fed facts and information. Reading articles and talking about how they relate or writing about them in my own terms helps to make the information stick and make it make more sense to me in the long run.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Radiation Measurements
After watching the videos shared and reading the information provided about radiation measurements used (links provided at end), it would be understandable if people would get confused as to exactly how much radiation they may have or may be exposed to. There seems to be plenty of different measurements due to different amounts, due to different types of radiation or exposures and also different amounts based as to what someone would be exposed to compared to what is actually absorbed through the skin during an exposure.
As the website for the CDC shows, there are different units of measurement for radiation as to what is being emitted and what the actual exposure to a person is. The conventional unit for radiation being emitted is the curie or "Ci" which was named after Marie Curie (for her discoveries throughout the late 1800's, for which she won a Nobel prize in 1911. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html), but it also states that there is an SI unit which is the becquerel or "Bq" (Named after Henri Becquerel for his discovery of radiation in the late 1800's http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/becquerel-facts.html). This alone would be confusing to the general public if reported by the media. Most people don't understand the units of measurement when dealing with radiation, yet alone lethal amounts. If the media were to report units such as these, it may come off more severe than intended because of lack of information provided as to what would be harmful, but it could also be less severe because the units might be small in comparison to other known units of measurement. If the units seem smaller the people may not see these exposures as a real threat and take them carelessly and listen to potential hazards.
The article from the CDC then goes on to explain the comparisons between the two units mentioned above and shows that one curie or "Ci" is the equivalent of 37 billion becquerel "Bq". Therefore if the media were to use the curie measurement, it may seem like a much smaller number (37 billion times smaller) and the general public may not see it as much of a threat, but if they were to use the Becquerel unit, it would be a much larger number and may raise some alarms.
As stated earlier, there are also different measurements for the actual exposure one may face from radiation and these are radiation absorbed dose or "rad" and the SI unit of gray or "Gy". These levels are also very different, similarly to the Ci and Bq mentioned before, granted the difference isn't quite as drastic, but it is still enough that it may add confusion to what the media is reporting and what is threatening. One Gy unit is the equivalent of 100 rad units, therefore if the media reported levels in Gy units, the number would be smaller and make the situation less severe, while if they used the rad units, the number would be larger which would draw some attention to what was really happening.
Given all of the units of measurement for radiation levels being emitted/potential exposures and also for the actual absorption through the human skin, the media needs to be careful how they present the information and provide more insight to the people so that they can understand what is really happening and the potential hazards to their full extent.
http://www.emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/measurement.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-BXmlYouWA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-K78L8oNI
As the website for the CDC shows, there are different units of measurement for radiation as to what is being emitted and what the actual exposure to a person is. The conventional unit for radiation being emitted is the curie or "Ci" which was named after Marie Curie (for her discoveries throughout the late 1800's, for which she won a Nobel prize in 1911. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html), but it also states that there is an SI unit which is the becquerel or "Bq" (Named after Henri Becquerel for his discovery of radiation in the late 1800's http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/becquerel-facts.html). This alone would be confusing to the general public if reported by the media. Most people don't understand the units of measurement when dealing with radiation, yet alone lethal amounts. If the media were to report units such as these, it may come off more severe than intended because of lack of information provided as to what would be harmful, but it could also be less severe because the units might be small in comparison to other known units of measurement. If the units seem smaller the people may not see these exposures as a real threat and take them carelessly and listen to potential hazards.
The article from the CDC then goes on to explain the comparisons between the two units mentioned above and shows that one curie or "Ci" is the equivalent of 37 billion becquerel "Bq". Therefore if the media were to use the curie measurement, it may seem like a much smaller number (37 billion times smaller) and the general public may not see it as much of a threat, but if they were to use the Becquerel unit, it would be a much larger number and may raise some alarms.
As stated earlier, there are also different measurements for the actual exposure one may face from radiation and these are radiation absorbed dose or "rad" and the SI unit of gray or "Gy". These levels are also very different, similarly to the Ci and Bq mentioned before, granted the difference isn't quite as drastic, but it is still enough that it may add confusion to what the media is reporting and what is threatening. One Gy unit is the equivalent of 100 rad units, therefore if the media reported levels in Gy units, the number would be smaller and make the situation less severe, while if they used the rad units, the number would be larger which would draw some attention to what was really happening.
Given all of the units of measurement for radiation levels being emitted/potential exposures and also for the actual absorption through the human skin, the media needs to be careful how they present the information and provide more insight to the people so that they can understand what is really happening and the potential hazards to their full extent.
http://www.emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/measurement.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-BXmlYouWA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-K78L8oNI
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
EH4710 Blog 1, My Risks
During the course of Environmental Risk and Society Benefit, it has been brought to my attention that there are many risks that I take on a daily basis, most of which are voluntary as well. Some people may argue that attending classes would pose an involuntary risk, but because I had chosen to attend school and go to the classes that has made it more so voluntary and exposes me to the outside elements such as inclement weather and even the germs and possible other hazards that can be spread from person to person while being in the enclosed classroom. Despite the risks associated with coming to class, there are many benefits such as the gaining of an education to possibly gain a job in the field of study. Granted this isn't guaranteed, there is still that potential, so the risk is worth it for most (including myself).
While yes, the following website is based off of a daycare/school setting, it is still a decent example of the potential risks that one would be exposed to while in a confined room with other students and even provides a table of communicable diseases as well.
(http://health.utah.gov/epi/cdepi/daycareschool.htm)
Another prime example of a voluntary risk that I have taken would be that of smoking. Granted I don't smoke anymore, but for a couple years I did. I wasn't forced to, I chose to. I took a risk that didn't actually provide much benefit to me besides a potential stress relief for a few minutes and maybe the potential to meet a few people while smoking. Other than those two potential benefits, there was nothing really good about smoking, so it was an involuntary risk that I never truly thought through as to how beneficial it would be to me and my well being in the long run. In the link that follows, they point out some potential health benefits for smoking such as reduction in chances of osteoporosis, but there isn't much information to back it up. The main points prove that there is more harm than good.
(http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html)
A great example of an involuntary risk would be working and the potential hazards faced in the workplace, no matter where that may be. Some people may try and classify this as a voluntary risk because you can essentially choose where to work, but no matter where you may work there will be risks associated with your position and you will experience them indefinitely. Whether it is for a fast food company, there is potential to get injured on the grill, slip on the wet floor, contract food poisoning etc. Or if you're in an office setting, there is for sure potential for risks which could even include mental stressors, physical hazards due to travel and even potential problems with equipment or items in the office. There are always potential hazards, but generally there are benefits as well. The benefits from working without a doubt include an income to provide you money which you can use for food and shelter (to live of course) and it can also promote well being and give people a feeling and sense of accomplishment.
No matter where you go or even what you do, there is always a potential for risks, but there is also a potential for many benefits. It's all up to you and how you are willing to judge the risks compared to the possible positive outcomes that could affect your future and well being.
While yes, the following website is based off of a daycare/school setting, it is still a decent example of the potential risks that one would be exposed to while in a confined room with other students and even provides a table of communicable diseases as well.
(http://health.utah.gov/epi/cdepi/daycareschool.htm)
Another prime example of a voluntary risk that I have taken would be that of smoking. Granted I don't smoke anymore, but for a couple years I did. I wasn't forced to, I chose to. I took a risk that didn't actually provide much benefit to me besides a potential stress relief for a few minutes and maybe the potential to meet a few people while smoking. Other than those two potential benefits, there was nothing really good about smoking, so it was an involuntary risk that I never truly thought through as to how beneficial it would be to me and my well being in the long run. In the link that follows, they point out some potential health benefits for smoking such as reduction in chances of osteoporosis, but there isn't much information to back it up. The main points prove that there is more harm than good.
(http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html)
A great example of an involuntary risk would be working and the potential hazards faced in the workplace, no matter where that may be. Some people may try and classify this as a voluntary risk because you can essentially choose where to work, but no matter where you may work there will be risks associated with your position and you will experience them indefinitely. Whether it is for a fast food company, there is potential to get injured on the grill, slip on the wet floor, contract food poisoning etc. Or if you're in an office setting, there is for sure potential for risks which could even include mental stressors, physical hazards due to travel and even potential problems with equipment or items in the office. There are always potential hazards, but generally there are benefits as well. The benefits from working without a doubt include an income to provide you money which you can use for food and shelter (to live of course) and it can also promote well being and give people a feeling and sense of accomplishment.
No matter where you go or even what you do, there is always a potential for risks, but there is also a potential for many benefits. It's all up to you and how you are willing to judge the risks compared to the possible positive outcomes that could affect your future and well being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)