Time Restrictions on Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is among the most controversial issues facing the political and scientific communities. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cells have the potential to allow for major breakthroughs in regenerative medicine. Because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated, they have the potential to become any type of cell in the human body. This means that it may be possible to replace organs in the human body by using embryonic stem cells to derive new ones. Stem-cell research has not fully proceeded yet because many people are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific research. Currently, the embryonic stem-cell lines are created through the destruction of human embryos. The destruction of human embryos does not sit well with many people, particularly religious groups, because these embryos have the potential for human life. In Andrew W Segal’s article, “Temporal restrictions and the impasse on human embryonic stem-cell research”, he outlines the temporal controversy which is currently hindering the research process.

Back in 2001, President Bush prohibited federal funding for research done on embryonic stem-cells created before August 9, 2001. As Segal points out, this brings up a controversial debate. If the US government decides to fund embryonic stem-cell research, it would appear that the government supports the destruction of embryos. At the same time, if the government does not provide funding for newly created stem-cell lines, it would appear that the government is standing in the way of scientific progress. The federal government is basically trying to appease everyone involved; however, it seems as if the current administration is trying playing more into the hands of those who oppose stem-cell research.

Interestingly, groups on both sides of the issue oppose the temporal restrictions on stem-cells. According to Segal, some religious groups are concerned that, should current embryonic stem-cell research prove successful, the stem-cell lines currently in existence will spur private investment and lead to the destruction of more embryos. On the other hand, scientists claim that the current available stem-cell lines available for federal funding may not prove suitable. They claim that not only are the current research lines too small but they may also have been contaminated in the creation process. Therefore, human testing using the current lines may not be possible. It does not appear that either side is willing to accept any compromise. The religious groups will never be ok with what they claim is destruction of human life. In contrast, the scientists do not want any restrictions on the federal funding they receive for their research.

Segal calls for international cooperation in resolving the problem. Without funding for research on new stem-cell lines, sufficient progress will not be made. Segal claims that the government could refuse to fund researchers who derive their own stem-cell lines. Rather, they could receive funding for embryonic stem-cells that were donated. This way the government would not be supporting any “destructive acts” by which the stem cell lines were created. Segal claims that researchers need not only rely on federal funding for their research. Researchers can also obtain stem-cells through private funding and international sharing of new and old stem-cell lines.

Ultimately, these temporal restrictions on stem-cell research are not acceptable to either side. Federal funding, international cooperation, and private investment are all necessary if adequate research is to proceed. Unfortunately, there will probably never be a consensus regarding the ethical issues surrounding this research. Segal does not say outright that the research should be allowed to proceed without government intervention, but, like other scientists, he knows that it must. Segal does not, however, implicate that scientists should destroy massive amounts of human embryos just for the derivation of stem cells. Instead, he wants the research to proceed with the aid of the federal government. These undifferentiated cells could have the potential to cure some diseases and to generate tissues for those in need of an organ donation. With all of the medical advances that have occurred in our life time, is that not one we would all like to see?

Segal, Andrew W. “Temporal restrictions and the impasse on human embryonic stem-cell

research.” Lancet Volume.364: p215-218. Academic Search Premier. University

of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. January 30, 2007 <

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=8&sid=43871a3d-d895-4dca-

8e4b-aa71ba33d08c%40sessionmgr3>

Any old teen can do it...

Every now and then a study comes out about teenagers and if they are really contributing to American society. Of course, if they are volunteering for those in need, they have to be helping somehow. But does volunteering really make an impact on a teenager, or does is it simply something to add to the college application? One such research study done by Hayal Kacker, Jennifer A. Schmidt, and Lee Shumow (psychologists) investigated the effects of volunteering, be it babysitting or working at a homeless shelter, on teenagers and whether or not it makes the teen civically conscious in the long run. The article was called “Adolescents’ Participation in Service Activities and Its Impact on Academic, Behavioral, and Civic Outcomes.” Which is a long name for saying that volunteering does have an effect on teens. The general hypothesis was that volunteering both betters the life of the individual devoting time and the lives of those helped.
For students that go to a school that requires so many service hours, research was harder to gather. There were some students there who were predisposed to help the hungry and clothe the needy, but then there were students who would rather sit at home and play on their XBOX 360. For those who would have been at the soup kitchen every Saturday morning anyway, there was no evident gain in their sense of civic responsibility and some even were less involved as they got older. As for some of the couch potatoes, they became so civically conscious that they were much likely to vote and take part in civic issues as they matured. It appeared in a related study that older people got more out of volunteering than teens, but if they don’t start volunteering now who’s to say that they will later on in life? Some public and private schools argue that required service hours teach the students how to interact with others while giving them a sense of community responsibility, yet for the most part, the future civic leaders varied on what type of volunteer work they did as well as how long they were involved.
The type of teenager most likely to do volunteer work varies as well. Not only are the effects variant, the volunteers themselves are different. Young women are more likely to volunteer than young men and it does not hurt if the girl’s parents are educated. Some case studies that were listed showed that educated parents have a large influence on how frequent a teenager volunteers. The idea is that the more education a person has, the more socially conscious they are and the likelihood that they will pass on these traits to their children increases as the level of education increases. Although over 50% of high school students reported doing some sort of volunteer work, the sex ratio is extremely important. In a group of students that were studied, 62% of the girls did volunteer work and only 49% of the boys did any. Not only is gender and education a factor, but the age of the student is also a determinant in how often and how long a student participates in volunteer work. Over 60% of the surveyed high school seniors said they did some sort of volunteer work whereas the freshman had half doing community service and half not doing anything. The students that did the volunteer work out of their own will were typically upper class white teenagers whereas those who were forced to do it were those individuals of ethnic backgrounds. Whether the volunteer work was required or whether it was completely voluntary, the types of activities did not change. Most students find volunteer work around their community through family friends, religious affiliations, or through the school if they are required to do so. Although the range of student volunteers was large, the effects on the students themselves were larger.
A vast majority of students were not required to do community service and yet, they still engaged in it. From a policymaker standpoint, that is phenomenal. With a rapidly growing population, it is important to raise children that will productively contribute to society even after they get into college. The students who participate in volunteer work are likely to have higher grades, less behavior problems, and a greater sense of what they can accomplish in the world since they can see the differences they affect on their community when they help out. Findings from this study showed that any bit of service was better than none. So if a person only has time to walk their neighbor’s dog once a week for free or if they have every single Saturday to devote at the animal shelter without pay, the effects seem to be the same. Students that interact with their community make the community better and if they do it out of their free will, all the better.
It seems that every little bit counts, especially when it helps the people that need it most. Teenagers have a bad rap for not contributing to anything, but as this study has shown, it is just not true. Teens get many benefits from volunteering and everyone benefits from a few extra helping hands; so let’s spread the love and plant some trees and help some old ladies.
Source:
Kacker, Hayal, Jennifer A. Schmidt, and Lee Shumow. “Adolescents’ Participation in
Service Activities and Its Impact on Academic, Behavioral, and Civic Outcomes.”
Youth Adolescence 36(2007): 127-140.

Food that will break your heart

As a high school student, I had the wonderful luxury of eating off campus for three years rather than eating in our school’s cafeteria. I know I know, this is definitely a shock to some of you but to others who enjoy the same privilege, you understand where I’m coming from. The freedom of forty minutes off campus during the school day was regularly too much for me to handle as well. I was left to the wolves a number of times by my teacher who commented on my profuse sweating after throwing the football in the parking lot in the sweltering heat. But it was worth it to me at the time because I could eat real burgers, not ones of a soy bean base. However, after being in college and enjoying a meal plan at a cafeteria that actually has healthy food, I started to wonder about the effects of eating at Wendy’s, King’s Bar-B-Q, Burger King, etc. will have on me down the road. All the recent talk about trans-fats and the banning of these in New York has made me realize that I was not very good to my body for three years of my life. All those trans-fats are probably crystallizing in my arteries right now and I thought I would enlighten the audience on some information I researched recently while my arteries still have some breathing room.

Along with smoking, food causes approximately 70% of all cancers, including gastric and prostate cancers. While we may believe we are eating healthily because we are religiously following the advice of the South Beach Diet or exercising like that workout machine Tony Little (check this guy out at http://www.tonylittle.com/), we may be (and are likely) mistaken. These diets usually focus on one aspect of eating such as eliminating excess carbs, rather than focusing on eating foods that will provide us with a balance of what we need. Just because we don’t super-size that number four combo doesn’t mean we aren’t putting dangerous things into our bodies. We may be cutting carbs, but what are we overlooking in this attempt.

Look, I realize you only live once and if you want to get that McRib that is OK with me, but do it in moderation. Even The Rock indulges in a cheese pizza every now and then. It’s not just the fact that certain foods are extremely hazardous for you, but naturally occurring agents in your food also pose a risk. I had no idea to what extent it is now generally accepted that many cancers are caused by chemical processes that result from certain environmental agents such as chemicals, ionizing radiation, infection and inflammation. In some form or another, these agents can find ways into our foods naturally as well as through improper packaging. For example, and not to get too scientific on you, the naturally occurring fungus Aspergillus flavus can survive in hot and humid environments and a consumer may find it in nuts and grains. This can occur naturally if the nuts are harvested in a humid area or if they are improperly packaged before a consumer buys them. Not an appetizing thing to hear.

The way in which food is cooked can also be problematic to our health. Foods that are cooked at over 180 degrees Fahrenheit are subject to (*deep breath) heterocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In plain English, bar-b-q’ing, frying and heat processing all fall under this category. In certain cases, more than ten of these hydrocarbons have been identified in cooked meats such as fish and pork. While the presence of these chemicals can depend on the packaging methods for these meats, the way in which these meats are cooked also influences the presence of the hydrocarbons. Try Menshealth.com for some alternate ways of cooking meats.

Not only are foods liable to cause cancer but drinks may as well. Coffee and whiskey have been reported to induce certain cancers, one being ovarian cancer. Fortunately for everyone in this class and our target audience, excluding myself and the teacher, whiskey is out of the question because no one is 21 yet, and we are all law abiding citizens. But watch out for that coffee, because drinking four or more cups a day is reported to be a likely cause of cancer. Try going to bed a little earlier if you are chronically tired.

You may be thinking “Everything these days causes cancer Will” and that is probably true to some extent, but you wouldn’t stick your face up to the gas pump and in the same way, you probably shouldn’t eat three meals a day of only processed food. But just when you thought giving up eating might be a good idea, scientists bombard you with the pluses of eating certain foods and the cancer-preventing potential of these foods.

Some foods, particularly fruits and vegetables, are known to slow the growth of tumors by acting on the cycle regulators in these tumors which are responsible for the tumor’s growth. Certain foods like tomatoes protect against lung cancer while yogurt is considered to help prevent colorectal cancer, something that none of us want by the sound of it.

The key word for healthy foods is antioxidant: a compound that plays a part in a defense system for the body along with vitamins, mineral and amino acids. Antioxidants can neutralize damaging chemicals and protect against certain chronic diseases. Antioxidants also boost the effectiveness of Vitamin C, a protective substance for the body against disease.

This may seem like a lot of science, but actually you hear this every day. You should know by now that drinking soft drinks and eating processed foods routinely is not a healthy habit. You’ve always known that eating fruits and vegetables is better for you than eating 3-5 servings of Snickers bars a day. You may not understand the specific scientific reasoning behind all of this, but you should be able to understand the basics. It’s impossible to fully escape from the bad agents in what we eat and it’s probably psychologically important to indulge in some bad food every now and then but it is more important (if you desire a healthy body) to watch what you put into your body. Not only will you look and feel better but your body will have what it needs to fight off dangerous cancers which seem to affect everybody in some form these days. Also, now that you have read this, you do not have an excuse to sue McDonald’s if you continue to eat there everyday and have a heart attack at age 27.

Primary Source

Banning, Maggie. “Nutrition Management: The Carcinogenic and Protective Effects of Food.” British Journal of Nursing (BJN). 11/10/2005, Vol. 14 Issue 20, p1070-1074, 5p.

Supplemental Information

-McDonald’s Nutrition Facts

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.nutrition.index.html

-Fruit’s Effect on the Flu

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=colds.flu&conitem=289197bd6bfd6010VgnVCM100000cfe793cd____

-Image Link

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dclogged%2Barteries%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dsfp%26x%3Dwrt&w=200&h=155&imgurl=www.nutritionsupplements.com%2Fimages%2Fother-pics%2FCloggedArtery.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nutritionsupplements.com%2Froyal_arterial_flush.html&size=5.8kB&name=CloggedArtery.jpg&p=clogged+arteries&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;type=jpeg&no=1&tt=397&oid=886299ef0e2e7606&ei=UTF-8

Having some "sheepless" nights?

Since pre-school, we’ve all looked forward to the activity of the day: NAP TIME! From Kindergarten to the fifth grade, things couldn’t be better. Sleep was a necessity and each day rounded up to a total of 8 or so hours each night. But as we left the sandboxes and made our ways toward Middle school, we left our behind pleasant dreams. Now, more classes meant more work, which meant less sleep. And for many of us, High School is where we experienced our first all-nighter. Whether it was completing a history assignment, or writing that 10 page senior exit paper, sleep became a thing of the past. The tendency for us to sleep the average amount needed to fully function during the day began to decline as we progressed throughout secondary school. While we believe running off of 5 or 6 hours of sleep is sufficient, Americans now sleep 20 percent less than a century ago. A century ago when children were able to sleep for 8 hours now results to only 6.8 hours. According to the US National Science Foundation, the lack of sleep is also linked to mood swings, depression, anxiety, and other health related issues. In this Nature article with the support of other journals, the importance of sleep is highly stressed bringing into consideration the health and mental effects of loosing too many hours of sleep.
Nature magazine first argues that the medical profession is in part responsible for people not realizing the seriousness of their neglecting to sleep. According to Nature the medical professions have not been attention to their patients who claim to have had any type of sleep problems. Sleep research has shown that sleep is very important when it comes to the body and mind. When we are sleep, the mind is very active with rapid eye movement the reoccurring dreams of us dating a celebrity or winning the billon dollar jackpot. The switch in the brain from sleeping to awakening is called the hypothalamus and when we throw the brain off by randomly sleeping throughout the day or in this case not getting enough sleep at all, neurogenesis slows down and the brain is not able to function well with practical daily activities.
Not only does the lack of sleep lead to the inability to function, but research from Ronald Dahl of Phi Delta Kappan notes that insufficient amounts of sleep also leads to adult diseases such as diabetes, and insomnia. Health effects are also noticeable in adolescents such as ADHD, and even symptoms of epilepsy. An Eastern Virginia Medical School noted that people who sleep 16 minutes less per night than the average sleeper is more at risk of becoming severely overweight. As a problem for most entering freshman, gaining 15 pounds from working and not sleeping is the last thing anyone wants to be worried about. Just think---missing what only seems to be a few measly hours of sleep can ultimately cause a 10 percent increase in body mass index.
Aside from the health proponents associated with the neglecting of sleep are four main mental and physical effects of choosing to sleep less. The first most obvious and common result of lack of sleep is feeling tired. Classes that call for a physical attribution can easily cover up the sleepiness of a person. However, if trying to write a paper at your desk or read a chapter out of a biology book, one is more than likely to fall asleep within minutes. Sometimes, Dahl mentions, even during class, one may not even notice that they are micro-sleeping in lapse intervals of. Although it seems as if our bodies can function with the minimal amount of sleep, other factors prove otherwise. That’s why on Thursday nights when at the club until three in the morning with an eight a.m. class, sure you’re hyper for a while; consequently, when it is time to wake up, you’re body tries to make up for the lost hours of sleep.
Another symptom proposed by Dahl is tiredness which makes it difficult to complete tasks that requires thinking and processing. The brain is unable to process the information that we take in because the front of the brain (prefrontal cortex) also suffers when we deprive ourselves of sleep. The third, emotional changes, comes in many different aspects. The emotional states of people who do not sleep enough vary depending on what the activity calls for. When it comes to students in school it is easy to become agitated, impatient, and intolerant when they are not completely focused. Research showed when the brain cannot fully function, quick emotional changes becomes out of ones control. It is recognizable in students who are forced to complete challenges especially with word processing. Outside of the learning environment, uncontrollable emotions may also lead “to aggression, sexual behavior, alcohol usage, and risky driving.”
Lastly, most common in adolescents is the sudden change in ones attention and performance. Even though one may try to succeed in tasks, sleep loss leads to short mental lapses while trying to pay attention. As mentioned earlier, with the quick dozes, it is probable that one will develop ADHD or easily be distracted by almost anything as the mind is unable to perform and maintain control of attention.
So as you get ready to enter into college life, prepare yourself for less hours of sleep; however, do so with consideration. With the competition to stay ahead, stress from multiple tests and papers, and the desire to maintain a social life, keep in mind that sleep is a necessity. It does no good to stay up and cram for a major chemistry test, or that five page English assignment for that 8 a.m. recitation.. It is much safer, if not most satisfying to just sit it all aside and take a nap. Rather than risk gaining 10 pounds per semester stressing over a report, get a good night sleep, and go at it some other time. Wouldn’t it be nice if sleep came as easily as when we were in Kindergarten? While that may only be a figment of the past, adding a few hours can make all the difference. After all, it would not be a good idea to fall asleep during a front row lecture. Such a bad first impression!

Citations:
*Lawson, Willow. "The sleep equation: even minor sleep loss may make you gain weight.(ASK PT)(Brief article)." Psychology Today 38.6 (Nov-Dec 2005): 20(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. 5 Feb. 2007 .
*Dahl, Ronald E. "The Consequences of Insufficient Sleep for Adolescents Links Between Sleep and Emotional Regulation." Phi Delta Kappan 80.5 (Jan 1999): 354(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. 5 Feb. 2007 .
* Nature 437, 1207 (27 October 2005) doi:10.1038/4371207a. 26 October 2005 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/full/4371207a.html#top#top
Pictures:
www.apa.org
www.getodd.com
www.thegoodsleepstore.com

Pluto's still there, you know. And now he has friends!

Now, I know pretty much everybody was upset when Pluto was unceremoniously demoted from its planet status last year. Honestly, I was pretty depressed by it too. Until, in my truly nerdy style, I watched a documentary on The Science Channel that explained the entire thing so well that I made up my mind to be excited about the infamous demotion. So I figured I’d try and explain it to the world wide web the way that television explained it to me.

Professors Iwan Williams and Jocelyn Bell, both members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), can explain the whole thing much better than I ever could, so I’ll let them do the real work and I’ll try and translate it into English for you. The article that they’ve written is a cross between a first-hand experience geared at others in the Astronomy field (since they were at the actual IAU meetings) and some gentle explanations of what really went on during the General Assembly last August.

For a little bit of context, Pluto was discovered in 1930 and became an instant cultural phenomenon. Not only was there an element and a cartoon dog named after it, the newly-classified planet captured the imagination of early-Depression era America. In 2001, a team of astronomers discovered other Pluto-like bodies in the same general area, leading to the conclusion that there was a large asteroid belt beyond the reaches of Neptune. And they were right! The Kuiper Belt (as it’s called) is the second asteroid belt in our solar system and Pluto holds the honor of being the first Kuiper Belt object ever discovered… which unfortunately demotes it from its planetary status.

Now, while the media simply hyped up on the amount of siblings our planet had—be it 12, 8, or 9—the real issue under the knife at the IAU General Assembly was the concrete definition of a planet… because there wasn’t one. Ever since the word “planet” was created by ancient Greek astronomers there has never been a concrete definition of what types of celestial bodies the term really encompassed. Until now.

There were three definitions coming into play during the meeting: the first was based entirely on size, the second suggested that there be a very loose and informal definition of a planet (according to what people felt like calling an object), and the final definition based planetary status more on how an object affected the other objects around it. The definition that won was, as we all know, the first which claims that anything smaller than Mercury (or somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000km) cannot be a planet. But since Pluto has enough gravity to form in a spherical shape, it is classified as a “dwarf planet” along with numerous other recently discovered Kuiper Belt objects.

Now honestly, even looking at the orbit of Pluto, it’s obvious that there’s something screwy with the “planet.” Defining it as a dwarf planet and Kuiper Belt object just seems to make more sense. And really, it’s just a big abnormal hunk of rock surrounded by ice. Despite the cultural attraction we have to this eccentric oddball, it’s not like we’ve really lost lone Pluto way out there in the reaches of space. We’ve just given him a few friends. And we may have lost a planet but we gained a completely new classification of astronomical bodies. How cool is that?

Williams, Iwan, Jocelyn Bell. “What it takes to make a planet.” Astronomy & geophysics : the journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 47.5 (2006): 5.

(images from here, here, and here. The last one is a very large image of the Kuiper Belt orbits and such (the last image in my post) and if you're really interested I'd highly advise looking at it.)

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.