Performance Enhancers on the Run?

From our T.V. screens, it never seems to amazes us of the many talents we see dominating the hundred yard dash or throwing the ultimate curve ball. The hundreds of home runs by Mark McGuire and the fleeting speed of Marion Jones, their talents to us seem unimaginable and unattainable for any normal human. But that's just it. They are not normal because they are accelerating in their performance due to certain steroids. The many uses of steroids in sports has become a problem according to the September article of the Nature magazine who towards the ban of enhancement drugs in all athletic sports leading to the controversy of whether performance drugs should be legalized. With the competitive egos of athletes to be the greatest is the temptation to do whatever it takes to be number one. And even now it has become an issue in other countries such as Britain where some of their best performers are being accused and are being deliberated as to whether they should be allowed to compete. The Nature article opposes the use of performance drugs through morals and the many health problems that the drugs may cause for athletes. However, the other author, Adrianne Blue, argues that legalizing these drugs would prevent cheating and satisfy the people's interest who enjoy watching them excel.
Why would any healthy individual use drugs that may potentially harm them and their chances of competition? The Nature article claims that the athletes who use these enhancers only want to be in the spotlight or want fame and fortune. They are more worried about being a successful athlete, than their health, and that is part of the reason why Britain is urging for the banning of steroids. On the other hand, Adrianne Blue feels as if players take drugs so that they may be able to train harder with out being sore, especially when the training intensifies. And so therein lies the question: what’s wrong with building up muscle? However, according to Sara Bellum of the National Institute on Drug Abuse “while anabolic steroids can make some people look stronger on the outside, they may create weaknesses on the inside.” While it not only serves as a cheating method, the dangers of the health of the athletes are innumerable. Along with the risks of a weak structure, Bellum’s page "mind over matter", notes that steroids lead to mood swings, and not to mention irreversible changes; some even more noticeable than others. Guys may shrink their genitals and lose hair; whereas girls grow facial hair, and may even develop deeper voices. Brain tumors often respond dramatically to steroids if not used carefully. Although these dangerous and life altering effects may not have been evident in the case of the woman in Britain it is clearly evident that any female that can run 800 metros faster than most women is a little risque, so why bother risking championships and good health?
Hot on the tracks of Nature's argument is the viewpoint from an average person who sees beyond the health conditions and more at what they would much rather see on their television. While the effects of steroids are clear, people who watch athletes would much rather watch their favorites smoke someone in the hundred yard dash and run fifty yards to the touchdown. In fact, Blue looks at the usage of drugs from a whole new perspective. Adrianne concludes that the inside scoop on steroid usage are well known among the trainers, physicians, and nutritionists. But if everyone knows about it and knows of the benefits of the anabolic enhancer, why not just legalize it altogether? The only negative effect she feels coming from the banning of the substance is a host full of “liars and cheats”.
No matter what sport: cricket, football, tennis, and in this case track, athletes will do whatever it takes to be among the greatest. Unaware of the danger it presents, if the drugs increases stature and performance ability, someone is willing to try it. Not to say that using the drug sparingly is entirely wrong, but what could be better, not to mention healthier, than sticking to normal push ups on the floor. Anyone who abuses the use of anabolic steroids is no phenomenal person. They are no hero and no superstar if the stardom they attain did not come from hard work. So I agree with Nature get your muscles the hard way, it will be well worth your while. And if not, when cancer begins to grow and your favorite athlete begins to deteriorate that's when you'll ask: IS IT WORTH IT?



Sources
Bellum, Sara. “Mind Over Matter”. National Institute On Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health. 2003. 26 Jan. 2007. <http://teens.drugabuse.gov/mom/mom_ster1.asp in a new window>.

Blue, Adrianna. “Sports: It’s The Real Dope” LexisNexis Academic Search. 2006. 26 Jan. 2007. <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?m=9d0c022209ad66ee992245a262ae97b8&_docnum=18&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkVA&_md5=590006c50e21ebfc836181965ee270c2 >

“Drugs on the track.” Nature. 371. 1994. 26 Jan 2007.

Pictures
www.thecompletepitcher.com
www.nida.nih.gov

Recycling Nuclear Waste

Imagine a new technology that, if placed into the wrong hands, could make it easier for enemies of the US to obtain weapons-grade plutonium. Why would the US ever purse such a dangerous technology? Something must be done about the ever growing world demand for energy. One way to ease the energy burden in the US could be to recycle spent nuclear fuel. It is possible that new power plants could be built that use recycled nuclear fuel from older power plants. Although it is unclear as to how much of an impact, if any, this technology could help ease our demand for energy, all options should be explored.

Recently, President Bush proposed a plan that would call for the United States to reuse spent nuclear fuel. This issue has generated a controversy within the scientific and political communities. An article in the magazine Nature, “Recycling the past”, contends that nuclear fuel recycling is “part of the problem, not the solution.” The article claims that the US abandoned plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel long ago because it is extremely costly and it would allow those who utilize the process access to weapons-grade nuclear material. It is unlikely, however, that an enemy of the US would ever be able to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from this process. The author of the article seems to overlook the fact that the US decides which countries get to explore peaceful options for nuclear power. Therefore, it is not at if the US will be handing out recycled nuclear fuel like Halloween candy.

In the Washington Post article, “Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel”, President Bush claims that recycling nuclear fuel would aid the US in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and help meet the increasing global energy demand. Bush’s plan would allow the US to accept spent nuclear fuel from other countries for reprocessing. This is a highly controversial issue because the US has enough trouble finding a means to dispose of its own nuclear waste. President Bush stated that nuclear energy is “a solution that will not affect global warming.” Thus, the US ought to welcome this new technology regardless of the cost.

The Washington Post article seemed to be more convincing on this issue. The Nature article simply stated that the reprocessing of nuclear fuels was costly and dangerous; however, it did not go into any cost figures or compare this practice to any available alternatives. The other article admitted that the process will be costly and potentially dangerous. Unlike the Nature article, the article in the Washington Post actually provided cost figures and presented this practice as a possible solution to not only the energy crisis but also to the growing buildup of nuclear waste. While nuclear power will most likely not be the answer to meeting the world’s growing demand for energy, we ought to pursue it as an alternative to fossil fuels. Not only are fossil fuels responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions but they also come from one of the most politically unstable regions in the world.

Kyoto Protocol Controversy

In an article entitled “The heat is on,” the editorialist puts forth an argument advocating the importance of major world powers to be front runners in the talks concerning the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to end in its current form in the year 2012. The author’s thesis statement is that only with the prolonged and strong support of the Protocol by its most dedicated members (particularly England and to some extent Germany) as well as economic incentives for booming economic powers such as India and China, will the Protocol survive. Obviously, with the survival of the Protocol comes less greenhouse emissions due to mandatory standards.

A controversy concerning the prolonging of the Kyoto Protocol develops because many developing nations lack an incentive to slow down economic progress. Tired of living in the shadows of wealthy countries such as the United States (a non member of the Kyoto Protocol), these nations are doing what they can to achieve greater economic success and better standards of living for all citizens. Without an incentive to keep emissions down, these countries see little need to sign the Protocol and continue progress unregulated, as better living conditions trump environmental concerns. Other controversy sparks when there is a denial of the dangerous effects from greenhouse gases or an apathetic view towards the Protocol because some people see it failing as a result of conflicting government interests and bureaucratic inefficiency. One final source of controversy is the pressure the United States faces as a non-member of the Protocol. Some feel that the country, as the leading economic power in the world, should take a leading role in emissions reduction, however, as the next article will demonstrate, some people feel that the United States is already taking a leading role, while others discredit emissions claims in general.

In a clear and stark disagreement, author S. Fred Singer argues in his editorial that the Kyoto Protocol is “a radical initiative in launching economic and social policies that threaten democratic values, economic growth, and national sovereignty” (Singer). While he does recognize global warming, he points out that there are other, more important threats to mankind including nuclear war, bio-terrorism as well as poverty and social unrest. He also notes that the current Protocol requires countries to go back to 1990 levels of emissions and does not include heavy-pollution producing countries like Brazil, India and China. While there are too many points to list here, he proceeds to list why the Protocol is obsolete. One reason being that as technology develops; more energy efficient fuels and safer fuels will be developed. Here he places much importance on technology, something the other editorialist disputed. He goes on to illustrate a number of steps the United States has taken in the pursuit of cleaner air as well as points out the bureaucratic problems that would stifle attempts to fully adhere to the Protocol.

The major difference between these two articles is that one seems to take a more realistic approach while the other is more idealistic. The first editorial relies on the hope that certain nations will step up to the plate in order to get other countries to adhere to the Protocol, while the other editorial uses facts to back up the argument. The second article is somewhat outdated but the basic tenets of the Protocol have not changed, so much of the information would seem to currently hold true. Each author clearly has a bias towards the material; however, neither is overtly harsh towards the other point of view.

Personally, I favor the second article. I like to base decisions on facts, not “what if” proposals, especially “what if” proposals directed at countries like China and the United States that consistently seem intent on pursuing whatever means necessary to keep the economies booming. I agree that keeping the air clean is very important for both the preservation of our environment as well as human security, but I would put more of an emphasis on solutions concerning more efficient fuels, although economic incentives may also be something to try. The bottom line is that this is a real problem in need of real solutions. Yes major powers would ideally promote these measures, but realistically I’m not sure China, India, Brazil, the United States and other large economic powers are particularly interested in slowing down economic progress.

Sources

Singer, S. Fred. “The Kyoto Protocol.” World & I, Dec99, Vol. 14 Issue 12, p330, 12p, 2bw; Reading Level (Lexile): 1250; (AN 2517287).

“The heat is on.” Nature, 11/24/2005, Vol. 438 Issue 7067, p396-396, 1p; DOI: 10.1038/435396a; (AN 18944372).

Warheads, schmoreheads.

Most controversies transcend audiences and when it comes to national security; both science and the government have an opinion on what type of weaponry is crucial. One such controversy arises as current weapons age and their usefulness is questioned. In a Nature magazine article, Enough warheads already, scientists argue that the chemicals already found in stockpiled weaponry are reliable and does not need an update. Yet, governmental sources, such as the National Nuclear Security Administration, points out that improving upon already existing warheads would not only be cost effective in the future but also “reduce(s) the cost and risk of maintaining existing warheads by broadening performance margins, enhancing surety and utilizing modern production techniques,” according to a government organization document. These two articles cover the subject of updating warheads, yet from two very different perspectives.

Opponents of the Reliability Replacement Warhead Program (RRW) maintain that both the military and the president do not want to foster nuclear testing because existing nuclear warheads are fully functional. Research has proven that triggers found in weapon stockpiles will not only outlive prior estimates but also could survive for up to a century or longer. With a stockpile that could last one hundred years without deteriorating past a useable age, why waste time and resources in updating weaponry that might never be used? The opponent side also sites that Congress is at a standstill on the issue and the “political will to pursue it just isn’t there” especially considering that outspoken members of Congress are against RRW. Without political support and a dwindling support within the Bush administration, the program seems fated to fail.

Supporters for RRW propose that in replacing warheads now, in the long run, it is more “cost effective and sustainable.” It will not require full nuclear testing, so it is merely maintenance of already existing weapons so there cannot be any real detriment to society and it saves money down the line. Proponents also mention 9/11 in their argument in hopes of harping on the emotional attachment of American citizens in order to garner support. The nation is in a state where having renewed nuclear weaponry would be a good precaution in case of a terrorist attack, therefore a small measure now will save American lives later on. Cost is a major factor in their argument because spending a minimal cost now will save money later on.

Though both sides present valid points, neither side can be completely right. Saving money is good for the nation, whether in the long run or short term. The hope is that after a century has passed, nuclear weapons will not be needed, so why sacrifice time now to improve something that will be obsolete? Then again, being prepared to retaliate against an attack is crucial to the safety of the nation. The supporters of improving the weapons appeal to a realistic sensibility, whereas the opponents appeal to a morally idealistic crowd.

Here are the actual articles for reference:
“Enough warheads, already.”
“NNSA’s Reliability Replacement Warhead Program Will Enable Transformation of the Nuclear Weapons Complex.”

Behold, the loading of language

This Nature article begins with a hope that some new techniques in acquiring stem cells will help to quell the moral controversy surrounding stem cell research. The embryos are essentially rendered incapable of planting into the walls of the womb and therefore would not be able to survive were they even given the chance. The author of the editorial begins very optimistically and states that their article will essentially be an exploration of the different moral interpretations of various stem cell acquiring techniques. The neutrality of this article is like a breath of fresh air compared to the obvious biases and loaded language of the anti-stem cell research article from The Post Chronicle.

I particularly enjoyed the editorial from the science journal Nature, simply because it was such a neutral piece. In contrast to the loaded commentary supplied by The Post Chronicle, the article from Nature entitled “Every little helps” was very affective because, instead of diving into the moral issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research, they examine the debates themselves. My favorite thing about the Nature article is how it first explains the nuances of the scientific processes used to procure the cells used in the research, then the author explains how each individual process could be considered controversial or immoral. Though the author is obviously supportive of stem-cell research even by expressing the hope that the new processes will be considered more moral than the previous ones, I love the neutrality that is lent to the morality issues themselves. By explaining the seeds of the controversy from a point outside of the arguments it seems to lend the author much more credibility than the much more passionate Post Chronicle editorial.

In the said Post Chronicle editorial entitled “Infertile Minds: Behold the Voices of ‘Science’,” even the title suggests that nothing but controversial opinions are about to be spouted. The article is just one long and biased attack on a group of people that the author defines as “liberal” and then labels as essentially stupid, non-thinking beings. The author then attacks a Conservative senator who does not share their views by saying that his wording is “subtle” in the context of subversive and immorally cruel. Pretty much any person who claims that an embryo that has been specifically created for the purposes of research is no more immoral to experiment upon than a sperm or an egg is portrayed as a criminal who is trying to cheat the people out of their innocence. Since the language of the article does nothing but make me completely angry, I’d say the article in Nature is much better as portraying a point and conveying information.

Every little helps: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7062/full/4371065a.html

Infertile Minds: Behold the Voices of “Science”: http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=35455

Hello, world.

Team Members

Will Ferguson
What's up? I'm Will Ferguson; a senior at UNC. I will graduate during the summer of the current year. I'm majoring in Peace, War & Defense and want to work for the Intelligence Community after graduation. I have studied abroad in Russia for a summer session and hope to travel back to Russia and Eastern Europe soon. I transferred from North Carolina State University after my sophomore year and was a member of the club baseball team. I enjoy traveling, sports and being with friends and family.

Gabrielle Galloway
Hey, I'm Gabrielle Galloway. I'm a freshman attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am majoring in Pharmacy and minoring in Spanish. Currently, I'm a member of the Black Student Movement and also play for an intramural basketball team. As a freshman, I am trying to adapt to the new changes and the many different curricula of my teachers. In the future, I hope to travel abroad to Spain and to other Hispanic countries.

Jeff Wright
What's up everybody. My name is Jeff Wright and I'm a sophomore, majoring in biology, from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Last year, I attended Villanova University before transferring to UNC. As is the case with the other group members, this is my second semester taking an English class at UNC. My favorite activities are working out and supporting Carolina basketball. My favorite sports teams are the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots and I enjoy good parties as well as hanging out with friends. Upon graduation, I want to go to medical school at UNC. My goal is to become a pediatrician because I really enjoy working with children. At home I work as an after school and summer camp counselor at the YMCA. Working at the Y has been one of the best experiences of my life and I cannot imagine having any other summer job. Last semester I took English 101, an introductory English course which emphasizes writing. My class wrote three major papers last semester, reflecting three different styles of writing. The first was a newspaper article in response to a presidential speech, the second paper was based on a specific aspect of our society in the future, and the third paper was an analysis of the film Solaris.


Melissa Cochran
Hello, hello. My name is Melissa Cochran and I am in my first year at Carolina. For the most part, I have enjoyed the first semester. I like shopping, going out, and meeting new people. I am from Winston-Salem, NC, but originally from Macon, GA. I have an older brother that graduated from UNC last spring and he is the primary reason that I became interested in the university. I believe that the best things about college are meeting new people as well as the new opportunities that UNC offers both socially and educationally.


Dana Brand
Hello everybody! My name is Dana Brand and I am a freshman at Carolina and can’t wait until baseball season starts. I am undecided on my major simply because I want to do too much with my life. I like to read, write, and watch old movies and have two goals in my life: to win an Oscar and a Pulitzer Prize. Elementary writing classes kill my soul, but I will do my best to produce posts that are at least entertaining. I enjoy, above all else, baseball, history, literature, film, and theater. If you ask me, I would label myself as a nerd. If I were more into hard science I would build a time machine so that I could meet Cary Grant. Obviously, I'm not a very practical person.

Credibility as bloggers

All students attend UNC, giving them at least an initial credibility as blog authors. Because we have yet to finish an assignment, our credibility with our audience will come as our blog and the semester progress. Most of the authors are freshmen so strict writing styles have not yet been formulated. One of the group members is a journalism major so a blog will allow her to use her talents. Everyone else is upbeat about creating a blog because it lacks the dullness of continually writing papers in one particular style. Here we are allowed to be as creative as we want to be and fashion the blog to our liking.

In terms of potential styles, having a sophomore and a senior in the group makes it more versatile because these two members have had experience writing in certain techniques, especially the senior. Our rhetorical style will basically remain the same but there will probably be an obvious difference among the writers, although all styles will be directed at the high school level.


Purpose and Direction of Our Blog

Our blog is directed at upperclassmen high school students who are considering UNC or any other major university. Therefore, our blog will need to accomplish a number of goals and be presented in a way that is both appealing to these students as well as maintain an organized characteristic that will give legitimacy to the blog. The blog will maintain a relaxed theme in that the vocabulary used will reflect that of a high school senior rather than a level that would be appropriate for an upper level, university research paper. At times the blog may seem to be more advanced that what an average high-schooler may be ready for, but we feel that this blog is directed at above average, competitive students. In any case, this will not be an excuse to dumb down the blog, but will just be another writing style, which in itself, will reflect the goals of English 102.

There are a number of goals that we want to achieve with this blog. One is to simply introduce high school upperclassmen to freshman English. Entering college is a difficult experience for some, so helping seniors make the transition in any way possible is a service to them. Also, the blog can be a place where our audience can express their feelings towards the material we post. This will help them formulate opinions on an array of material, something they will have to do throughout college. The goals of our blog will surely expand as we progress through the semester, as is the natural tendency of a blog.

As a blog is a more personal means of presenting information, our blog will obviously carry some occasional biases, however our objective is not to infuse the blog with too much bias, but with neutrality given the wide range of feelings about certain issues that come from a broad audience such as high school students.

To conclude with the introductory post, we will try link our blog entries to the overall subject/theme that writing is a dynamic art and that each individual may approach subject matter with different perspectives and ideas. The assignments for this class are based around the assumption that assumptions do not necessarily hold true in different fields of writing. For example, the first unit deals with testing the assumption that scientific writing is set in stone. Through the different perspectives of our blog’s authors, we will challenge this assumption and will do the same for the following units. While we are working as a unit, individual styles will certainly fill our blog because it is, in fact, a work compiled from individual efforts. We want to show our audience, who may be nervous about the assumption that college students must write a particular way, that different approaches may be used in writing about the same material. As we all know, and as we want to illustrate to those students striving for a spot at top universities, the best way to approach a writing assignment is with an open mind and a lot of creativity.