by: Daniel Muir
The debate about the affect that car pollution is having on the environment is a major taking point in the press and with governments now being pressured into trying to alter our driving habits would a move to LPG be beneficial to the environment? The simple answer is yes!! Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas and the low carbon content of LPG compared with petrol helps reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being produced by vehicles which could have a huge benefit in the quality of air in built up urban areas throughout the UK. LPG fuel also burns a lot cleaner than petrol thus reducing the amount of pollution entering our environment. The table below from Autogasscotland.com shows the comparisons in the levels of pollution produced by petrol and diesel cars compared with LPG. Showing that converting to LPG can have a beneficial effect on the environment. The Major of London has introduced congestion charge schemes in London and there are plans to introduce these zones across the UK in a bid to reduce pollution. By charging car owners a congestion charge to enter these zones the hope is to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road and thus reduce pollution. The major benefit of converting to LPG is that all LPG vehicles are immune from these charges which can create great savings for those who are entering these zones on a regular basis. LPG is the greener option and those people driving LPG cars will see benefits not only in fuel economy and savings but they will be helping the environment at the same time. In addition, there are a lot of discussions about road charging schemes that would incorporate car emissions.
Monday, January 28, 2008
High Technology and Human Development
by: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah
Some basic premises – often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led – exercise the collective conscience of the led in so far as they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have to prepare our society for peace, and to guarantee the peace, technology must be revised to foster the policy of war.” Technological advancement that is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises but is not in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, at least at the time at which it was deduced.
A society that advances according to the above presuppositions – and especially according to the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the power of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to work precisely because of the superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, become a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.
Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move forward an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily mean that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization.
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an advanced technology or they may not have it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we can see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a lot about the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about other people.
I do believe – and, I think, most people do believe – that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve quality of life, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment?” Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the point that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the sophistication of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the natural environment – which, of course, is an uncertain way of life – but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than a real one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind.” This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a certain technology according to the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions hint that the product or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they do not only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the purpose of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is done by environmentalists relate to the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there is no justification for producing high-tech products that harm both humans and the natural environment. This contention sounds persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the height of human accomplishment, but it may not point to moral and social responsibility. And to this point, the question may be asked: “In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?”
Too often, most modern humans tend to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a simple one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly not. The former eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the natural environment is not a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking due to population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, among others, that are in need of criticism and have to stop.
Some basic premises – often fashioned by leaders and supported by the led – exercise the collective conscience of the led in so far as they stimulate a willed development. The development is usually superior but not necessarily civilized. The premises in question are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have to prepare our society for peace, and to guarantee the peace, technology must be revised to foster the policy of war.” Technological advancement that is pushed in this direction sets a dangerous precedent for other societies that fear a threat to their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to also foster a war technology.
In the domain of civilization, this mode of development is not praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a problem. The last premise is the conclusion of two preceding premises but is not in any way logically deduced. What it shows is a passionately deduced conclusion, and being so, it fails to be reckoned as a conclusion from a rationally prepared mind, at least at the time at which it was deduced.
A society that advances according to the above presuppositions – and especially according to the illogical conclusion - has transmitted the psyche of non-negotiable superiority to its people. All along, the power of passion dictates the pace of human conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to work precisely because of the superiority syndrome that grips the leader and the led. And a different society that refuses to share in the collective sensibilities or passion of such society has, by the expected logic, become a potential or actual enemy and faces confrontation on all possible fronts.
Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is dominated by state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have the most of such technology are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advancement that lifts them to the pinnacle of power, superiority, and fame. They can also use technology to simplify and move forward an understanding of life and nature in a different direction, a direction that tends to eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that was, in many respects, mystical and unsafe. This last point does not necessarily mean that technological advancement is a mark of a superior civilization.
What we need to know is that civilization and technology are not conjugal terms. Civilized people may have an advanced technology or they may not have it. Civilization is not just a matter of science and technology or technical infrastructure, or, again, the marvel of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people as well as their level of social connectedness within their own society and beyond. It is from the general behaviour makeup of people that all forms of physical structures could be created, so too the question of science and technology. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, among others, that we can see in a society could tell, in a general way, the behavioural pattern of the people. Behavioural pattern could also tell a lot about the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural activities, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell a lot about the perceptions and understanding of the people about other people.
I do believe – and, I think, most people do believe – that upon accelerating the rate of infrastructural activities and technology, the environment has to recede in its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and its attendant structures or ideas) competes with the green environment for space, this environment that houses trees, grass, flowers, all kinds of animals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of population, the relentless human craving for quality life, the need to control life without depending on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the use of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger to the natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve quality of life, its people also have to ask: “how much technology do we need to safeguard the natural environment?” Suppose society Y blends the moderate use of technology with the natural environment in order to offset the reckless destruction of the latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the point that society Y is a lover of the principle of balance. From this principle, one can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability more than chaos, and has, therefore, the sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points to the sophistication of the human mind, and it indicates that the natural environment has been cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the natural environment – which, of course, is an uncertain way of life – but according to their own predicted pace, then the use of technology is a matter of course. It would seem that the principle of balance that society Y has chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe position than a real one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself following a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement has to accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or a gradual process is an insult to the inquiring mind.” This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the present mode of a certain technology according to the instructions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use this kind of technology for this kind of product? And is it morally right to use this kind of product? Both questions hint that the product or products in question are either harmful or not, environmentally friendly or not, or that they do not only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the environment too. And if, as I have stated, the purpose of technology is to improve the quality of life, then to use technology to produce products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the purpose of technology, and it also falsifies an assertion that humans are rational. Furthermore, it suggests that the sophisticated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or rationale of quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been deserted for the sake of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in any number of ways.
The advocacy that is done by environmentalists relate to the question of environmental degradation and its negative consequences on humans. They insist that there is no justification for producing high-tech products that harm both humans and the natural environment. This contention sounds persuasive. High technology may demonstrate the height of human accomplishment, but it may not point to moral and social responsibility. And to this point, the question may be asked: “In what ways can humans close the chasm between unrestrained high technology and environmental degradation?”
Too often, most modern humans tend to think that a sophisticated lifestyle is preferable to a simple one. The former is supported by the weight of high technology, the latter is mostly not. The former eases the burden of depending too much on the dictates of the natural environment, the latter does not. The latter tends to seek a symbiotic relationship with the natural environment, the former does not. Whether human comfort should come largely from an advanced technology or the natural environment is not a matter that could be easily answered. If the natural environment is shrinking due to population growth and other unavoidable causes, then advanced technology is required to alleviate the pressures to human comfort that arise. It is the irresponsible proliferation of, say, war technology, high-tech products, among others, that are in need of criticism and have to stop.
The Environment: A Global Overview
by: Larry Butz
It is not difficult to become a believer in global warming. According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center 2001 was the second warmest year on record and it was the 23rd consecutive year of above normal temperatures. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating. Add to this the data just released from insurer Munich Re stating that deaths from natural disasters were more than double in 2001 versus 2000 and insured losses were up more than 50%.UNEP estimates that the extra economic costs of disasters attributable to global warming are running at more than $300 billion annually. Some 180 countries are proceeding toward an expected ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the end of this year. Of the six gases it will control CO2 is by far the largest contributing nearly 90% of the global warming impact. The primary source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore the focus on energy will continue to increase. Throughout the world different methods are being used to encourage reduced energy use. Japan has enacted the Energy Conservation Law in 1999 mandating huge efficiency improvements by 2004 for nearly all air conditioning products. The U.S. has revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for buildings to raise the minimum COP level for centrifugal chillers from the current value of 5.2 to 6.1 effective in October 2001. DOE and Green Seal have revised their recommended efficiency levels to an even higher level of 6.27. Some countries use laws. Others use codes and standards. An increasing number of countries are using environmental costing which increases the price of energy thereby increasing the financial attractiveness of high efficiency products. European countries have been using such “carbon taxes” for more than a decade. However a rapidly growing trend in developing countries is the reduction of subsidies to energy industries “so prices more accurately reflect environmental impacts” according to OECD’s Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. China has shown leadership by reducing subsidies to the coal industry from $24.5 billion in 1990 to $10 billion in 1996 resulting in 7% emissions reduction while seeing a solid economic growth of 36%! China is now moving aggressively into environmental costing with the just announced (1/13/2002) 5-year environmental plan that commits 700 billion yuan ($84 billion) to help protect the environment. The government will provide the fist 65 billion yuan to initiate the project but will apply the “polluter pays” principle for the rest. The “environmental protection authorities will collect funds from the pollution-producing companies”. The impact on the price of energy is not known at this time. However it is clear that the addition of environmental costing will increase energy prices. According to a European Research Commission Report of July 2001 “The cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double if costs such as damage to the environment and health were taken into account”. The global movement to high efficiency is accelerating just like the rate of temperature increase. But this is not all that is changing. This second environmental threat of global warming is making it clear that we need to give combined consideration to ozone depletion and global warming. But more important is the need to focus on the real issue which is the total environmental impact not address each individual environmental threat in isolation. This includes the concept of environmental risk exposure, which recognizes that there are other environmental threats that are less well understood today. However, there are “no regrets” decisions we can make today (such as minimum refrigerant charge, minimum atmospheric life refrigerants, etc.) to minimize these risks. Combined consideration would place more emphasis on reducing the use of CFCs, which are still being produced in developing countries until 2010 in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Little attention is being given the large contribution to global warming from CFCs. Actions which cause confusion and delay the phaseout of CFCs cause increased environmental damage rather than lessening the environmental impact. The other rapidly changing factor in the HVAC industry is the shift to becoming a hermetic industry, where refrigerant is contained throughout the life of a chiller and recycled for further use when the chiller is replaced. This simple understanding that “if it doesn’t get into the environment it does no harm” is a powerful argument, which will lead to the continued use of the most efficient refrigerants in such closed hermetic applications as chillers. In just 15 years annual refrigerants emissions from chillers have been reduced from 25% to well below 1% today. This defines a whole different world than that which existed when the Montreal Protocol was crafted some 15 years ago. But perhaps the most important change coming to our industry is the realization that there are no new or “perfect” refrigerants waiting to be discovered. There are eight elements that can be combined for use in a vapor compression cycle. All feasible combinations of these eight have been evaluated. The reality is “what we have now is all there is”. This recognition is why we are now seeing a shift from the search for a perfect refrigerant to a search for the right refrigerant(s) for the right application. Said another way, the highest efficiency refrigerants for the lowest emissions applications. Many in our industry call this “Responsible Use”.
It is not difficult to become a believer in global warming. According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center 2001 was the second warmest year on record and it was the 23rd consecutive year of above normal temperatures. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating. Add to this the data just released from insurer Munich Re stating that deaths from natural disasters were more than double in 2001 versus 2000 and insured losses were up more than 50%.UNEP estimates that the extra economic costs of disasters attributable to global warming are running at more than $300 billion annually. Some 180 countries are proceeding toward an expected ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the end of this year. Of the six gases it will control CO2 is by far the largest contributing nearly 90% of the global warming impact. The primary source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore the focus on energy will continue to increase. Throughout the world different methods are being used to encourage reduced energy use. Japan has enacted the Energy Conservation Law in 1999 mandating huge efficiency improvements by 2004 for nearly all air conditioning products. The U.S. has revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for buildings to raise the minimum COP level for centrifugal chillers from the current value of 5.2 to 6.1 effective in October 2001. DOE and Green Seal have revised their recommended efficiency levels to an even higher level of 6.27. Some countries use laws. Others use codes and standards. An increasing number of countries are using environmental costing which increases the price of energy thereby increasing the financial attractiveness of high efficiency products. European countries have been using such “carbon taxes” for more than a decade. However a rapidly growing trend in developing countries is the reduction of subsidies to energy industries “so prices more accurately reflect environmental impacts” according to OECD’s Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. China has shown leadership by reducing subsidies to the coal industry from $24.5 billion in 1990 to $10 billion in 1996 resulting in 7% emissions reduction while seeing a solid economic growth of 36%! China is now moving aggressively into environmental costing with the just announced (1/13/2002) 5-year environmental plan that commits 700 billion yuan ($84 billion) to help protect the environment. The government will provide the fist 65 billion yuan to initiate the project but will apply the “polluter pays” principle for the rest. The “environmental protection authorities will collect funds from the pollution-producing companies”. The impact on the price of energy is not known at this time. However it is clear that the addition of environmental costing will increase energy prices. According to a European Research Commission Report of July 2001 “The cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double if costs such as damage to the environment and health were taken into account”. The global movement to high efficiency is accelerating just like the rate of temperature increase. But this is not all that is changing. This second environmental threat of global warming is making it clear that we need to give combined consideration to ozone depletion and global warming. But more important is the need to focus on the real issue which is the total environmental impact not address each individual environmental threat in isolation. This includes the concept of environmental risk exposure, which recognizes that there are other environmental threats that are less well understood today. However, there are “no regrets” decisions we can make today (such as minimum refrigerant charge, minimum atmospheric life refrigerants, etc.) to minimize these risks. Combined consideration would place more emphasis on reducing the use of CFCs, which are still being produced in developing countries until 2010 in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Little attention is being given the large contribution to global warming from CFCs. Actions which cause confusion and delay the phaseout of CFCs cause increased environmental damage rather than lessening the environmental impact. The other rapidly changing factor in the HVAC industry is the shift to becoming a hermetic industry, where refrigerant is contained throughout the life of a chiller and recycled for further use when the chiller is replaced. This simple understanding that “if it doesn’t get into the environment it does no harm” is a powerful argument, which will lead to the continued use of the most efficient refrigerants in such closed hermetic applications as chillers. In just 15 years annual refrigerants emissions from chillers have been reduced from 25% to well below 1% today. This defines a whole different world than that which existed when the Montreal Protocol was crafted some 15 years ago. But perhaps the most important change coming to our industry is the realization that there are no new or “perfect” refrigerants waiting to be discovered. There are eight elements that can be combined for use in a vapor compression cycle. All feasible combinations of these eight have been evaluated. The reality is “what we have now is all there is”. This recognition is why we are now seeing a shift from the search for a perfect refrigerant to a search for the right refrigerant(s) for the right application. Said another way, the highest efficiency refrigerants for the lowest emissions applications. Many in our industry call this “Responsible Use”.
Respecting the Wildlife and the Environment on Safari
by: Gerald Crawford
There are certain rules and regulations that one should be aware of while on safari. One of the highlights of most safari's is going on game drives and bush walks, where you get the opportunity to see amazing wildlife in their natural habitat. However it is vitally important that you remember to respect the natural surroundings and wildlife. The following are some guidelines you should follow: Bush vegetation is extremely sensitive. Off-road driving causes erosion and encourages the encroachment of unwanted plant species. Observe the animals silently and with a minimum of disturbance to their natural activities. Loud talking on game drives can frighten the animals away. Night drives with excessive use of spotlights disrupt the activities of nocturnal animals causing temporary blindness and disorientation. Never tease or corner wild animals, this may cause an unpredictable response and a potentially dangerous reaction. Do not remove any natural material from wildlife reserves. This disrupts the ecology of the area and promotes the spreading of diseases amongst domestic animals and crops. Never attempt to attract an animal's attention. Don't imitate animal sounds, clap your hands, pound the vehicle or throw objects. Please respect your driver / guide's judgment about your proximity to certain wild animals. Don't insist that he take the vehicle closer so you can get a better photograph. A vehicle driven too close can hinder a hunt, or cause animals to abandon a hard-earned meal. Remember that your guide is an expert, so always follow his advice and ask him questions if you are unsure of anything. Never sleep outside. Take only photographs and memories with you. Litter tossed on the ground can choke or poison animals and birds and is unsightly. Refrain from smoking on game drives. The dry African bush ignites very easily, and a flash fire can kill many animals. Never attempt to feed or approach any wild animal on foot. This is especially important near lodges or in campsites where animals may have become accustomed to human visitors.
There are certain rules and regulations that one should be aware of while on safari. One of the highlights of most safari's is going on game drives and bush walks, where you get the opportunity to see amazing wildlife in their natural habitat. However it is vitally important that you remember to respect the natural surroundings and wildlife. The following are some guidelines you should follow: Bush vegetation is extremely sensitive. Off-road driving causes erosion and encourages the encroachment of unwanted plant species. Observe the animals silently and with a minimum of disturbance to their natural activities. Loud talking on game drives can frighten the animals away. Night drives with excessive use of spotlights disrupt the activities of nocturnal animals causing temporary blindness and disorientation. Never tease or corner wild animals, this may cause an unpredictable response and a potentially dangerous reaction. Do not remove any natural material from wildlife reserves. This disrupts the ecology of the area and promotes the spreading of diseases amongst domestic animals and crops. Never attempt to attract an animal's attention. Don't imitate animal sounds, clap your hands, pound the vehicle or throw objects. Please respect your driver / guide's judgment about your proximity to certain wild animals. Don't insist that he take the vehicle closer so you can get a better photograph. A vehicle driven too close can hinder a hunt, or cause animals to abandon a hard-earned meal. Remember that your guide is an expert, so always follow his advice and ask him questions if you are unsure of anything. Never sleep outside. Take only photographs and memories with you. Litter tossed on the ground can choke or poison animals and birds and is unsightly. Refrain from smoking on game drives. The dry African bush ignites very easily, and a flash fire can kill many animals. Never attempt to feed or approach any wild animal on foot. This is especially important near lodges or in campsites where animals may have become accustomed to human visitors.
Studying Your Study Environment
How familiar is this scene, “Sweetie, have you done your homework? Yeeeees Mom, I am finishing it right now!” You peek around the corner only to find the TV on, dim lighting,, and your student plopped on the couch, eyes glazed over, half asleep, but sincerely holding on to that vocabulary list or calculator, as if trying to channel the information into their mind. If your student isn’t quite old enough to realize the comfort that comes with studying this way, careful, it’s probably coming. If this scene is indeed familiar to you, don’t worry. It’s familiar to many families all across the country. The problem is that most students are never taught the practical and necessary study skills required to succeed in studying, test taking, and retention.
While there are many issues we could raise with this scene, we’re going to discuss what’s probably the most overlooked study skill that will help your student improve the way they study, and in turn improve the way they perform in school, setting a study environment.
The most obvious problem with our student’s study habits is that it, in no way-shape-or-form, mimics that of their test-taking environment. Your memory uses triggers to recall information, whether it is words, pictures or noises our minds naturally make mental associations between information intake and the environment in which it is taken. It’s similar to when you hear a song that makes you remember high school, or see a painting that reminds you of a vacation you once took. You never purposely made those connections; your brain did it automatically. It’s the same with studying.
Many students will put forth an effort to actually make triggers in order to remember information, like using acronyms or word associations. But there are many of other connections our minds make and we don’t even realize it.
Studies have shown that if students could study in the exact environment that they test in, performance would rise drastically. Why? It’s because our minds remember environment. Using this information, we can deduce that if in class you are sitting up straight, at a desk, with no distracting noises or voices, this is how you should study. While it is very rare to be able to study in the exact same environment you take tests in, every effort should be made to make it as close as possible. This may mean turning off the television, sitting at a table or desk instead of sitting on the couch, and even turning off the television. (Unless music is classical, which has shown to be beneficial when played softly in the background, music should be omitted too.)
Improving your study environment can almost guarantee better performance. Sometimes the smallest effort to improve any aspect of studying, whether it be environment or something else, can make al the difference on test day and even contribute to remembering it long after.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of books written on study skills, promising improved performance. Chances are each and every one has something good to say, but all the books and tips in the world can’t help a student that studies in front of the television eating cookies. So often all we need is that small incremental step in the right direction to drastically improve results in the end. It’s much more effective to attempt small or practical study goals. Improving your study environment is a seemingly common sense improvement, but is overlooked by many parents. By making this effort you will be setting your student on a track for improved study habits that will stay with them and yield results for years to come.
While there are many issues we could raise with this scene, we’re going to discuss what’s probably the most overlooked study skill that will help your student improve the way they study, and in turn improve the way they perform in school, setting a study environment.
The most obvious problem with our student’s study habits is that it, in no way-shape-or-form, mimics that of their test-taking environment. Your memory uses triggers to recall information, whether it is words, pictures or noises our minds naturally make mental associations between information intake and the environment in which it is taken. It’s similar to when you hear a song that makes you remember high school, or see a painting that reminds you of a vacation you once took. You never purposely made those connections; your brain did it automatically. It’s the same with studying.
Many students will put forth an effort to actually make triggers in order to remember information, like using acronyms or word associations. But there are many of other connections our minds make and we don’t even realize it.
Studies have shown that if students could study in the exact environment that they test in, performance would rise drastically. Why? It’s because our minds remember environment. Using this information, we can deduce that if in class you are sitting up straight, at a desk, with no distracting noises or voices, this is how you should study. While it is very rare to be able to study in the exact same environment you take tests in, every effort should be made to make it as close as possible. This may mean turning off the television, sitting at a table or desk instead of sitting on the couch, and even turning off the television. (Unless music is classical, which has shown to be beneficial when played softly in the background, music should be omitted too.)
Improving your study environment can almost guarantee better performance. Sometimes the smallest effort to improve any aspect of studying, whether it be environment or something else, can make al the difference on test day and even contribute to remembering it long after.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of books written on study skills, promising improved performance. Chances are each and every one has something good to say, but all the books and tips in the world can’t help a student that studies in front of the television eating cookies. So often all we need is that small incremental step in the right direction to drastically improve results in the end. It’s much more effective to attempt small or practical study goals. Improving your study environment is a seemingly common sense improvement, but is overlooked by many parents. By making this effort you will be setting your student on a track for improved study habits that will stay with them and yield results for years to come.
Sexual Harassment And Sex Discrimination Answers
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions:
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcome sexual advances or conduct." Sexual harassment includes quid pro quo harassment or a hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is any kind of sexual conduct that is unwelcome and/or inappropriate for the work place. Sexual harassment can take many forms: verbal harassment, e.g. sexual or dirty jokes, visual harassment, e.g. drawings, emails, etc., physical harassment, and sexual favors, e.g. sexual advances, confrontation with sexual demands (quid pr quo sexual harassment). In the work place, sexual harassment can come from the owner, supervisors, managers, and co-workers. Sexual harassment does not only occur in the work place; it can occur off-site at office functions and parties.
Who can be held responsible if I am the victim of sexual harassment at work?
Both the employer and employees are liable for sexual harassment.
What is quid pro quo sexual harassment?
Quid pro quo sexual harassment takes place when a supervisor or someone with authority over your job demands sexual favors from you in exchange for a promotion, raise or some other benefit, including keeping your job. The demand for sexual favors can be explicit, e.g. "If you have sex with me, I will promote you," or it can be implied from unwelcome physical contact such as touching or fondling.
What must I prove to prevail in a cause of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment?
You must show that a supervisor, or someone with authority over your job, explicitly or implicitly conditioned a job, retention of your job, a job benefit (raise, business trip, or some other benefit), on your acceptance of sexual conduct. You must demonstrate that the harasser is someone with authority who can affect conditions of your employment. You also have to prove that the sexual conduct was unwelcome.
How can I prove that the sexual conduct was unwelcome?
The sexual conduct must be unwelcome. You may show that the conduct was unwelcome by showing that you: explicitly rejected his/her sexual advances; you suffered emotional distress; your job performance deteriorated; you avoided the harasser; you told friends and/or family of the harassment; and you told a company representative of the harassment. Each case is different and your case may or may not include some of these examples.
What are my remedies in a quid pro quo sexual harassment case?
The law provides that you may recover damages from your employer once you have proven that you were deprived of a job benefit, or suffered an adverse employment action, e.g. failure to promote, termination of employment, because you refused to accept your supervisor's sexual demands.
What To Do If I Think I am the Victim of Sexual Harassment?
Keep a record of the events surrounding the sexual harassment, include the date, time, place, and who was present. Your notes may become very important in litigating the case, but bear in mind that these notes may be required to be turned over to the employer during the discovery phase of litigation. Check the company’s employee handbook, if one exists, to determine if the company has a procedure for handling sexual harassment complaints. If the company has a procedure for filing a sexual harassment complaint you must comply with it. If you do not complain to the employer, the employer can successfully defend itself from liability by arguing that it was not aware of the problem, and therefore was unable to remedy the problem. However, if the problem is not remedied, you may wish to speak to an attorney for advice on how to file a formal complaint with the appropriate federal or state or city agency. You may still want to speak with an attorney before you file the compl!
aint with the company to ensure that it is communicated appropriately.
Once I inform my employer about the sexual harassment, what must my employer do?
Once the employer knows or should know about the harassment, it has a duty to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment. The employer's response must be reasonably calculated to end the harassment and if earlier discipline did not end the harassment, more severe discipline is required.
Is my employer still responsible if the harasser is a co-worker?
If the demand for sexual favors is made by a co-worker with no power to affect your employment opportunities, you cannot claim quid pro quo harassment. However, you may claim that the co-workers actions created a hostile work environment, and an employer may be held liable for the conduct of the employee if the employer knew or should have known of the employee's conduct and failed to take prompt remedial action to stop the harassment.
What is "hostile work environment" sexual harassment?
As an employee, you have a right to work in an environment that is free of discrimination, intimidation, insult and ridicule. You have a potential claim for hostile work environment if the sexual harassment unreasonably interferes with your work performance or creates an offensive or intimidating work environment. In order to have a claim for hostile work environment, you must be able to prove that there was more than a single incident of harassment. You also have to show, as in quid pro quo sexual harassment, that the sexual conduct was unwelcome.
What are examples of a hostile or offensive work environment?
Sexually-charged jokes or pranks, being grabbed or whistled at, sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature can create a hostile work environment and can qualify as sexual harassment. Conduct that makes the workplace sexually charged does not need to be directly aimed at you. For example, being subject to offensive company-wide emails may create a hostile or offensive work environment.
What must I show in order to recover damages for a hostile work environment?
You must show that the unwelcome sexual conduct was so severe and pervasive that it "altered your conditions of employment by creating a psychologically abusive work environment." The employer may be held liable if he/she knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial steps to stop the harassment.
How can I prove that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the working conditions and create an abusive environment?
You must be able to meet both an objective and a subjective standard. The objective standard is met if a Court determines that a “reasonable person in your position” would have considered the conduct severe or pervasive. Under the subjective standard, you must have actually found the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with your work environment. In other words, a Court looks at what your reaction to the conduct was, and whether your reaction was reasonable, according how a “reasonable person in your position” would have reacted.
What types of damages can I recover if I am successful in demonstrating sexual harassment?
A Court may order the company to: stop the harassment; pay lost wages and other job-related losses (e.g. promotions, or favorable work status you lost because of the sexual harassment); pay compensation for physical, mental and emotional injuries; pay punitive damages; pay your attorneys' fees and expenses associated with litigating your case.
Not all employment disputes require a lawsuit, and sometimes negotiation is the best course of action. I have considerable experience negotiating with employers who have as few as 4 employees to employers who have as many as 100,000 employees.
If you work in the State of New York, call toll-free 866-424-2644 now for a no-cost consultation to allow me to begin evaluating your case.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions:
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcome sexual advances or conduct." Sexual harassment includes quid pro quo harassment or a hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is any kind of sexual conduct that is unwelcome and/or inappropriate for the work place. Sexual harassment can take many forms: verbal harassment, e.g. sexual or dirty jokes, visual harassment, e.g. drawings, emails, etc., physical harassment, and sexual favors, e.g. sexual advances, confrontation with sexual demands (quid pr quo sexual harassment). In the work place, sexual harassment can come from the owner, supervisors, managers, and co-workers. Sexual harassment does not only occur in the work place; it can occur off-site at office functions and parties.
Who can be held responsible if I am the victim of sexual harassment at work?
Both the employer and employees are liable for sexual harassment.
What is quid pro quo sexual harassment?
Quid pro quo sexual harassment takes place when a supervisor or someone with authority over your job demands sexual favors from you in exchange for a promotion, raise or some other benefit, including keeping your job. The demand for sexual favors can be explicit, e.g. "If you have sex with me, I will promote you," or it can be implied from unwelcome physical contact such as touching or fondling.
What must I prove to prevail in a cause of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment?
You must show that a supervisor, or someone with authority over your job, explicitly or implicitly conditioned a job, retention of your job, a job benefit (raise, business trip, or some other benefit), on your acceptance of sexual conduct. You must demonstrate that the harasser is someone with authority who can affect conditions of your employment. You also have to prove that the sexual conduct was unwelcome.
How can I prove that the sexual conduct was unwelcome?
The sexual conduct must be unwelcome. You may show that the conduct was unwelcome by showing that you: explicitly rejected his/her sexual advances; you suffered emotional distress; your job performance deteriorated; you avoided the harasser; you told friends and/or family of the harassment; and you told a company representative of the harassment. Each case is different and your case may or may not include some of these examples.
What are my remedies in a quid pro quo sexual harassment case?
The law provides that you may recover damages from your employer once you have proven that you were deprived of a job benefit, or suffered an adverse employment action, e.g. failure to promote, termination of employment, because you refused to accept your supervisor's sexual demands.
What To Do If I Think I am the Victim of Sexual Harassment?
Keep a record of the events surrounding the sexual harassment, include the date, time, place, and who was present. Your notes may become very important in litigating the case, but bear in mind that these notes may be required to be turned over to the employer during the discovery phase of litigation. Check the company’s employee handbook, if one exists, to determine if the company has a procedure for handling sexual harassment complaints. If the company has a procedure for filing a sexual harassment complaint you must comply with it. If you do not complain to the employer, the employer can successfully defend itself from liability by arguing that it was not aware of the problem, and therefore was unable to remedy the problem. However, if the problem is not remedied, you may wish to speak to an attorney for advice on how to file a formal complaint with the appropriate federal or state or city agency. You may still want to speak with an attorney before you file the compl!
aint with the company to ensure that it is communicated appropriately.
Once I inform my employer about the sexual harassment, what must my employer do?
Once the employer knows or should know about the harassment, it has a duty to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment. The employer's response must be reasonably calculated to end the harassment and if earlier discipline did not end the harassment, more severe discipline is required.
Is my employer still responsible if the harasser is a co-worker?
If the demand for sexual favors is made by a co-worker with no power to affect your employment opportunities, you cannot claim quid pro quo harassment. However, you may claim that the co-workers actions created a hostile work environment, and an employer may be held liable for the conduct of the employee if the employer knew or should have known of the employee's conduct and failed to take prompt remedial action to stop the harassment.
What is "hostile work environment" sexual harassment?
As an employee, you have a right to work in an environment that is free of discrimination, intimidation, insult and ridicule. You have a potential claim for hostile work environment if the sexual harassment unreasonably interferes with your work performance or creates an offensive or intimidating work environment. In order to have a claim for hostile work environment, you must be able to prove that there was more than a single incident of harassment. You also have to show, as in quid pro quo sexual harassment, that the sexual conduct was unwelcome.
What are examples of a hostile or offensive work environment?
Sexually-charged jokes or pranks, being grabbed or whistled at, sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature can create a hostile work environment and can qualify as sexual harassment. Conduct that makes the workplace sexually charged does not need to be directly aimed at you. For example, being subject to offensive company-wide emails may create a hostile or offensive work environment.
What must I show in order to recover damages for a hostile work environment?
You must show that the unwelcome sexual conduct was so severe and pervasive that it "altered your conditions of employment by creating a psychologically abusive work environment." The employer may be held liable if he/she knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial steps to stop the harassment.
How can I prove that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the working conditions and create an abusive environment?
You must be able to meet both an objective and a subjective standard. The objective standard is met if a Court determines that a “reasonable person in your position” would have considered the conduct severe or pervasive. Under the subjective standard, you must have actually found the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with your work environment. In other words, a Court looks at what your reaction to the conduct was, and whether your reaction was reasonable, according how a “reasonable person in your position” would have reacted.
What types of damages can I recover if I am successful in demonstrating sexual harassment?
A Court may order the company to: stop the harassment; pay lost wages and other job-related losses (e.g. promotions, or favorable work status you lost because of the sexual harassment); pay compensation for physical, mental and emotional injuries; pay punitive damages; pay your attorneys' fees and expenses associated with litigating your case.
Not all employment disputes require a lawsuit, and sometimes negotiation is the best course of action. I have considerable experience negotiating with employers who have as few as 4 employees to employers who have as many as 100,000 employees.
If you work in the State of New York, call toll-free 866-424-2644 now for a no-cost consultation to allow me to begin evaluating your case.
Natural Skin Care Products – Remove Toxins From Your Body And Environment
Why choose natural skin care products? Today, more men and women are trying to live a healthy lifestyle. They go to the gym or take yoga even if their schedule almost doesn't permit it. They buy organic food even if it's a bit more expensive. But a lot of people still don't realize that all the makeup, moisturizers and skin care products that they use could be containing extremely contaminating ingredients. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, almost 900 ingredients used in skin care cosmetics have been known to be toxic. Moreover, there have been hundreds of documented cases where skin care cosmetics caused a variety of ailments on users. Common makeup and skin care products are also a leading cause of accidental poisoning in small children. Skin care should not be taken lightly. Human skin is lightly porous. By applying typical skincare products on yourself, you are allowing your skin to absorb all the toxins that such cosmetic products contain. Gels, creams and makeup can easily pass through the skin's pores. The answer is to go natural. Natural skincare products use ingredients found in nature and contain no artificially fabricated components. Consumers had better be careful, though, as many of these products claiming to be natural may not be. Products claiming to be organic or all-natural, in fact, can have toxic chemicals. Simply adding a natural ingredient shouldn't make a product "all-natural" - unfortunately, there is no strict regulating body that monitors this. Strangely, the FDA does not regulate skin care producers. Cosmetic companies will often use the word "natural" as a marketing ploy, without truly meaning it. The best way is to study the ingredients yourself. If you have difficulty choosing which brand is the best, you should consider asking for some professional help from a skin expert. Consulting a dermatologist, of course, would be the best recourse. Read the labels of natural beauty products and be alert for chemical ingredients. Normally, natural skin care should not contain any harsh fragrances or artificial colors. When purchasing organic shampoo, lotion, gels or creams, make sure to open the bottle and see how it smells and appears. Organic stores can be a good place to look for organic cosmetic products. While sometimes priced higher than their ordinary counterparts, most organic cosmetic products can be less expensive than high-end brands that are known to contain serious toxins. If you are not buying makeup and all you want is skin conditioners and lotions, you can be a lot safer by making your own skin care items using all-natural home ingredients. The traditional oatmeal mask is a cliché, but it does work. Ground and rub it on your face to work as an exfoliant; or lightly cook with a small amount of water to use as a conditioning face mask. A sugar and oil rub does wonders to dry skin. Place olive oil on your face and rub table sugar on it. Your skin will be exfoliated and feel incredibly smooth. There are many homemade recipes out there on the internet available for free. Be sure to check them out. Ordinary skin care products can actually cause skin deterioration. While most of these products tend to provide immediate noticeable results, it's because of the exfoliating or moisturizing properties of the chemical ingredients. However, such results are short-term. At worse, the harsh chemicals can even enter your body and cause health problems. Yes, natural cosmetics can be a bit more expensive, but is your health not worth it? So the next time you groom yourself, think about the many natural alternatives out there and ask yourself if a few dollars is worth the risk. Ask your dermatologist, and you will discover that all-natural skincare products can complete your healthy lifestyle.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Nature rules regionally
SIMON PEARSON
Uneven warming of the North Atlantic Ocean during the last half-century may be caused by changes in the natural climate system, concludes a new analysis.
Susan Lozier of Duke University in North Carolina and colleagues compared heat-content measurements in the North Atlantic region from 1950 to 1970 and from 1980 to 2000. Over the 50-year period, the North Atlantic as a whole heated up moderately, but finer-scale changes were more complex, they found. Tropical and subtropical areas gained up to ten times more heat than the North Atlantic average, but in contrast, the subpolar zone cooled almost as markedly.
Using a modelling approach, the researchers showed that the observed heating and cooling pattern may have been caused primarily by changes in a large-scale climate system known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Since the observed variations in regional heat gain and loss are great enough to mask an underlying greenhouse warming trend, the authors warn it is too early to know whether the changes in heat content are partly due to anthropogenic climate change. They say that long-term monitoring is needed to tell whether humans have heated the North Atlantic, perhaps even by affecting the NAO itself.
Uneven warming of the North Atlantic Ocean during the last half-century may be caused by changes in the natural climate system, concludes a new analysis.
Susan Lozier of Duke University in North Carolina and colleagues compared heat-content measurements in the North Atlantic region from 1950 to 1970 and from 1980 to 2000. Over the 50-year period, the North Atlantic as a whole heated up moderately, but finer-scale changes were more complex, they found. Tropical and subtropical areas gained up to ten times more heat than the North Atlantic average, but in contrast, the subpolar zone cooled almost as markedly.
Using a modelling approach, the researchers showed that the observed heating and cooling pattern may have been caused primarily by changes in a large-scale climate system known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Since the observed variations in regional heat gain and loss are great enough to mask an underlying greenhouse warming trend, the authors warn it is too early to know whether the changes in heat content are partly due to anthropogenic climate change. They say that long-term monitoring is needed to tell whether humans have heated the North Atlantic, perhaps even by affecting the NAO itself.
Arctic meltdown
Harvey Leifert
Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L01703 (2008)
US NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER
Arctic sea ice is retreating at an accelerating pace, with scientists describing the decline from July to September 2007 as "precipitous". At the end of the 2007 summer melt, the area of ice cover was 38 percent less than the average since 1978. The decline had averaged 3 percent per decade from 1978 to 1996, but more than tripled to 11 percent from 1996 to 2007.
NASA scientists Josefino Comiso and Claire Parkinson analysed the latest data and found that 14 September 2007 marked the record minimum of Arctic ice since satellite observations began. The decline from 2005 to 2007 represented a summertime ice loss roughly the size of Egypt. The researchers attribute the exceptional loss in 2007 in part to higher sea surface temperatures and warm southerly winds reaching the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, but they say that other factors play a role. In particular, open water absorbs more sunlight than ice, further warming the Arctic Ocean; this has created a feedback mechanism over the past decade, leading to further ice loss.
The Arctic could be ice-free in summer within a few decades, the researchers say, with major consequences for ecosystems. Given further predicted warming, they do not anticipate a reversal of the trend anytime soon.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L01703 (2008)
US NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER
Arctic sea ice is retreating at an accelerating pace, with scientists describing the decline from July to September 2007 as "precipitous". At the end of the 2007 summer melt, the area of ice cover was 38 percent less than the average since 1978. The decline had averaged 3 percent per decade from 1978 to 1996, but more than tripled to 11 percent from 1996 to 2007.
NASA scientists Josefino Comiso and Claire Parkinson analysed the latest data and found that 14 September 2007 marked the record minimum of Arctic ice since satellite observations began. The decline from 2005 to 2007 represented a summertime ice loss roughly the size of Egypt. The researchers attribute the exceptional loss in 2007 in part to higher sea surface temperatures and warm southerly winds reaching the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, but they say that other factors play a role. In particular, open water absorbs more sunlight than ice, further warming the Arctic Ocean; this has created a feedback mechanism over the past decade, leading to further ice loss.
The Arctic could be ice-free in summer within a few decades, the researchers say, with major consequences for ecosystems. Given further predicted warming, they do not anticipate a reversal of the trend anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)