Dissection and graded assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Dissection and graded - Assignment Example A progressive disorder can be dealt with if proper genetic testing is done, but at times unpreventable diseases are found out by genetic testing. In these cases there are ethical issues which may arise. An example of an ethical issue arising due to genetic testing is the chance of someone using a person’s personal information against someone which could prove to be harmful. Hence it can be clearly stated that genetic testing is a matter of privacy and individual choice. Laws passed by HIPAA and GINA protect personal information of those being tested and eradicate the chances of discrimination (Norrgard, 2008). 1. You are an epidemiologist at a county hospital. The hospital has asked you to examine the effects of antibiotics administered to patients before surgery that involves opening of the chest cavity. The time frame for administration of antibiotics to patients before surgery is 2-hour intervals for up to 24 hours. The overall objective of the study is to reduce surgical infections and deaths associated with surgery. The hospital administration has given you 15 years to complete the study. The purpose of administering antibiotics prophylactically is important prior to any surgery. The main need for this administration is to prevent any possible post-surgery infections. The possible wound infections result in extended stays of patients at hospitals. These infections develop due to microbial virulence factors, local factors, surgical techniques and systemic factors. Over the years epidemiologists at the hospital facility worked to choose the best suitable antibiotic. The antibiotic had low toxicity and low chances of allergies. The antibiotic of choice was given 30 minutes before the surgery. The concentration of the drug given was adjusted with the duration of surgery. In surgeries which involved incising the chest cavity, the antibiotic of choice was cefazolin (Holzheimer, 2001). A comparative study was carried out between the efficacies of two

The Lion, The witch and the wardrobe Essay examples -- essays research

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe By C.S. Lewis The four childeren, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy had to stay at the home of a professor in the time of the second world war. Because there was not much to do and it rained a lot, the children decided to look around the house. They came across a room that had nothing in it, but a big wardrobe. Peter, Susan and Edmund found nothing interesting, and left the room. But Lucy opened the wardrobe, and looked inside. There were many coats in it. She left the door open, because she knew it was a foolish thing to lock oneself up in a wardrobe. She kept walking to the back, looking for the wall but she found none. Instead of feeling coats, or a wooden floor, she felt branches and snow. This confused her, as she kept walking. In the distance, she saw a light and when she reached it, it turned out to be a lamp post. She started walking around, when a starnge creature walked towards her. He was smaller than Lucy, and had the legs of a goat, a tail and held an umbrella in his hand. It was a Faun, and his name was Mr. Tumnus. Lucy introduced herself, and the Faun asked her if she was a Daughter of Eve. Lucy didn’t understand, and Mr. Tumnus asked her is she was a girl, which was true. Mr. Tumnus askedif she would like to go to is house and have some tea, and Lucy replied with a yes. They ate and drank, while Mr. Tumnus told her about all kinds of things like the White Witch, and Lucy told of her siblings. When Lucy told him she had to leave, Mr.Tumnus began to cry. Lucy tried to confort him, but he kept saying that he was a bad Faun, because he worked for the White Witch, whom made it always winter, but never Christmas. He had to take the Sons of Adam and the Daughters of Eve to her, but he couldn’t now since they became friends. He brought Lucy back to the lamp post, but they had to be quiet, for the Witch had spies everywhere, even some trees. Lucy ran through the door of the wardrobe and stumbled out and ran to her siblings, and told them she’d come ba ck. Her siblings didn’t understand what she meant, for Lucy had only been gone for a merely a second. She told them everything she’d experienced, but they did’t believe her. Edmund kept making fun of her and asked if she’d found any new worlds since then. A few days later, they decided to play hide and seek. Edmund was â€Å"it† and had to find everyone. Lucy was hiding in t... ...e healing liquid she had gotten from Father Christmas. She gave Edmund and the other creatures that needed it, a few drops of the liqiud and they all healed. Finally, when everything ended Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy were crowned the Kings and Queens of Narnia. Peter was known as King Peter the Magnificent the High King, Susan as Queen Susan the Gentle, Edmund as King Edmund the Just, and Lucy as Queen Lucy the Valiant. They ruled Narnia for many years, untill one day they were in the woods, and found the old lamp post, not remembering what had happened many years before that. They followed the path, and stumbled out of the wardrobe one again. They were in their own clothes again, and they’d turned back into children. They told the professor, and he said they could not go back to Narnia, at least not that way. They had to find another way. Once a King in Narnia, always a King. CHILDREN'S FICTION The Horse and His Boy (1954) The Last Battle: A Story for Children (1956) The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: A Story for Children (1950) The Magician's Nephew (1955) Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia (1951) The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader" (1952) The Silver Chair (1953)

Childhood Cancer Clusters in California’s Central Valley

Childhood Cancer Clusters in California’s Central Valley Case report :Sakshi Arora March 22, 2012 This case study examines childhood cancers in agricultural communities of Mc Farland and Earlimart from 1978 to 1995. According to the local residents of these communities the main reason for cancer is contamination through pesticide in the agricultural farms which is the major source of employment for the residents of the community. McFarland is a small community in Kern County, with the population of about 6200, located at the southern end of California’s San Joaquin Valley.They are the main source of cotton and Almond in the area. Census Data of 1980 revealed that 40 percent of the population is less than 18 years of age. Main source of employment of the population is the farms with the annual income of merely $4300. Due to the limited source of income they were incapable of having health insurance of themselves and the kids. it has been observed that since1978 to 1990, 14 children in McFarland have childhood cancer which is four times the expected rate.The cancers were of many different types including liver, kidney, eye, adrenal glands, and bone. By 1992, five of the children had died. The families of Mcfarland were disturbed and are in pain due to increasing numbers of the victims. Earlimart is another small farming community located in southern Tulare County about 15 miles north of McFarland in the San Joaquin Valley. Child population of the area is one-third of the adult population. It is surrounded by vineyards.In 1989, the United Farm Workers union uncovered a second cluster of twelve childhood cancers in Earlimart among children of farm workers. Study of Dr. Marion Moses, a medical consultant for the union, revealed that the cancers occurred in area is 12 times higher than estimated numbers. All the victims were not of same kind. Some of them had leukemia where some died of lymphoma or kidney cancer. â€Å"In adults, when you get different types of cancer, then most of the time it is not a Cluster,† It as really shocking as Cancer is rare disease in children, the main thought of question arise about the increasing number ignoring the type of cancer. According to the residents, pesticides are the main cause of increasing number of child death rate in the area. Mcfarland and Earlimart are small communities who are not engaged in lot of activities. Victim’s parents have been examined and most of them reported it is caused by pesticides whereas some residents living have reported that no such incident has been observed in their families.Their main occupation is agriculture in the farms where pesticide is being used. They have reported contamination of water is also one of the reasons for the cancer. The case unfolds the number of cases which happened with the people throughout the period. They also reported that in spite of informing the harmful effect of the pesticides to their boss . To which no action has been taken instead their interference in such matter would a reason of them to be fired from the job.The figures of The California Department of Food and Agriculture revealed that there are more than 1,200 cases in California alone in 1986 based on worker compensation records. Nationwide, one estimate calculated as many as 313,000 pesticide-related illnesses among farm worker each year. Dr. Marion Moses, a San Francisco physician active with farm worker groups and a member of the pesticide advisory committee of the Environmental Protection Agency said the main reason for cancer deaths has direct relationship with the pesticides being used in given county.In 1984, after the discovery of the cancer cluster in McFarland, United Farm Workers, Began a boycott on five chemicals being used on the crop such as phosdrin, captan, dinoseb, methyl bromide, and parathion which were found the main reason for situation. Concerned citizen groups from McFarland asked Kern County officials to look i nto the cancer cluster in their community. Within the year the investigation took over of California department of health services. After five years of their investigation on the area they came up with the conclusion that pesticide is not the reason for the cancer deaths in the area affected. despite of all the researches they were unable to find the specific cause for the situation. on the other hand farmers were confident about the reason for the same. They felt abandoned by the government as they didn’t see and drop of hope. Numbers have been significantly increasing every year. After years of study on the area department of health services decided to stop their study as they didn’t determine the cause for the new cases of cancer every year. Proposition 65, officially known as the â€Å"Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act,†.It is based on the premise that the public and workers have a right to be informed about exposures to chemicals that are known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. According the proposition list of chemicals has been maintained with its effects to the people. According to the proposition it is the responsibility of the business to inform its employees, clearly about the effects of such materials used in the process. It should be reasonably defined.Also 20months after the pesticide is listed business must not knowingly discharge the waste material into soil or water. The State hazard communication program requires that, whenever employees are working in treated fields or handling pesticides, the employer must display Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS) leaflet A-9 (â€Å"Pesticide Safety Rules for Farmworkers â€Å"), PSIS A-8 (â€Å"Safety Rules for Pesticide Handlers on Farms), or PSIS N-8 (â€Å"Safety Rules for Pesticide Handlers in Non-Agricultural Settings â€Å") at the work site or at a central location where workers gather.The State hazard communicatio n program requires that, whenever employees are working in treated fields or handling pesticides, the employer must display Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS) leaflet A-9 (â€Å"Pesticide Safety Rules for Farmworkers â€Å"), PSIS A-8 (â€Å"Safety Rules for Pesticide Handlers on Farms), or PSIS N-8 (â€Å"Safety Rules for Pesticide Handlers in Non-Agricultural Settings â€Å") at the work site or at a central location where workers gather.As the information gathered from the case report workers have not been informed about any of the above hazards of health. Also it is strange to observe that pesticides being used in the farms also listed in the list of chemicals under prop 65 which were hazardous are not been informed to the farmers. Also investigations done by the agency didn’t reveal the fact that the pesticides the main cause for the cancer in the area. Under prop 65 list of chemical it is clearly stated pesticide phosdrin causes cancer. I don’t hink the research on the contamination water, air and soil was done properly as none of the facts mentioned under prop 65 has been revealed. Neither list of chemicals has been listed by the farm owners to inform to the workers about the hazardous pesticides in the farm nor the researches revealed the facts. All these researches have been done but victim parents did not got any justice. Since they are poor they got no choice but to live on those farms to earn their living and lost their family members just like that.From 1978to 1990 the people suffered, 28 died . California department of health services took samples for examination, tested soil and air but result were not noticeable. They were only be able to analyses the situation today but couldn’t do anything for the innocent people died in last 12 years. Question arises from this study in the mind as to why this facts were not being examined after years of research by the state and county officials? Were they biased in making a decision?Although lot of research took place in the area but nothing proved fruitful and the mystery remained unsolved by the health department. Since 1992 no case has been examined but the above time period mentioned couldn’t reveal the facts of the history. Sources: Case report retrieved from http://www. law. stanford. edu/publications/casestudies/case_abstracts/ Pesticide and proposition 65 retrieved from http://www. cdpr. ca. gov/docs/dept/factshts/prop65. htm

Subsidies Essay Online For Free - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2250 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Economics Essay Type Essay any type Did you like this example? Introduction Following its election to power in May 2015, the British Conservative Government announced a Spending Review in which it set outs its vision for restructuring the UK economy, with the specific purpose of reducing the public deficit (Muinzer, 2015). A key announcement made in the Spending Review, and currently out for public consultation, is the proposal to make significant cuts to the solar power subsidy scheme which has been in operation for the past five years (Clark, 2015). Debate rages between detractors and supporters of the proposals of the possible economic and environmental impact of the changes. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Subsidies Essay Online For Free" essay for you Create order The purpose of this report is to discuss and evaluate the outcomes of the policy changes, should they be enacted from January 2016. The paper proceeds as follows. In order to understand the likely impact of the changes, it is necessary to appreciate the political, environmental and economic context in which the solar power subsidies were first initiated; thus, the opening section of the report provides an overview of, and background to the current policy framework, and a more detailed discussion of the proposed changes. Next, the economic impact of the changes is discussed, followed by an evaluation of the environmental changes. A brief conclusion summarises the papers key points. An overview of the current and proposed policy framework Support for solar power generation in the UK is comprised of two key subsidy packages à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme and the Feed in Tariff (FiT) scheme (Kay, 2015). The Renewable Obligations scheme is a broad package of support which places a duty on the countrys licensed electricity suppliers to source a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources including biomass, hydroelectric, wind power, tidal power and solar power (photovoltaic cells, also known as solar PV) (Wood and Dow, 2011). The obligation was initially set at 3 per cent, rising to 15.4 per cent in 2015. The current total subsidy that is available to RO generators is estimated at some  £500 million per year up to 2037 (Knowles, 2013). The Feed in Tariff scheme is in essence a small-scale version of the RO (Kay, 2015). It was launched in 2010 and was aimed at providing subsidies for installations of solar power generation of under 50 kilowatts (kW) at the household and firm level (Cherrington, Goodship, Longfield and Kirwan, 2013). Under the terms of the scheme, firms and householders are rewarded with a payment for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of renewable power that they generate for use on their own premises, and additional payment for unused power that can be exported back to the grid and redistributed for use elsewhere (Allan, Eromenko, Gilmartin, Kockar andMcGregor, 2015). Although, like the RO, the FiT can be used to support the generation of power from a myriad of renewable sources, solar power is the technology that dominates the scheme. According to Kay (2015, p. 38), Solar PV accounts for 98.8% of the installations under FiT since 2010 and 84.5% of capacity. Generally, both schemes have been highly successful, which, paradoxically, analysts highlight as the key driver for the proposed policy changes. Grubb (2014, p. 339), for example, argues that the FiT in particular has become a victim of its own success: the solar surprise combin ed unimagined rates of growth with rapid cost reductions. In 2014, the UK capacity for solar PV increased by some 81 per cent à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" more than double that of the previous year (Kay, 2015). However, the government has announced that it can no longer afford to subsidise solar power production. In announcing the proposals, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) stated that If cost control measures are not implemented or effective in ensuring that expenditure under the scheme is affordable and sustainable, government proposes that the only alternative would be to end generation tariffs for new applicants as soon as legislatively possible, which we expect to be January 2016, while keeping the export tariff as a route to market for the renewable electricity they generate (cited in Morales, 2015, online). It is proposed that subsidies to the solar power programme will be reduced by up to 87 per cent from January 2016 (Morales, 2015). The budget for support for ass istance on renewable installations is likely to be capped at  £75 million pounds to March 2019, and end thereafter, while subsidies under the FiT programme would fall to 1.63 pence per kWh from the current value of 12.47 pence (Newbery, 2015). The economic impact of the policy changes Discussion on the economic impact of the policy changes has been focused on the microeconomic impact (specifically pertaining to the solar power industry itself), and the wider macroeconomic impact. At the microeconomic level, it is argued that the survival of the embryonic, yet burgeoning solar power industry would be under threat if the proposals were to become reality (MacAlister, 2015). Firstly, industry analysts are anxious of a rush on the solar power market caused by the establishment of a target date for the cuts to the FiT scheme. Demand for solar installations are likely to surge among those seeking to get cheap installations before subsidies are removed (MacAlister, 2015). For instance, even though the policy proposals have not been confirmed or implemented, industry supplier Energy My Way is now calling on consumers to get solar panels on your roof before 31 December 2015 to lock in the Solar Feed in Tariff for 20 years (Eades, 2015, online). Accommodating such enormous demand in such a small amount of time can cause a drop in the quality and performance of installations, which may lead to supplier closures (Eades, 2015). There is also the possibility of closures arising as a consequence of lowered demand for solar power installations and the job losses that may ensue (Mathieson, 2015). The lowering and removal of subsidies will make solar power less competitive relative to alternative forms of power, including both renewables and fossil fuels (Reid and Wynn, 2015). This will likely spur consumers that are considering switching to renewable energy sources to make the switch to cheaper sources, and will convince others not to make the switch at all. For instance, Mathieson (2015) points out that the current, subsidised cost of solar PV works out at around  £80 per megawatt hour (mWh), which is considerably more expensive than fossil fuels (around  £50 per mWh). Lowering, and eventually removing the subsidies will increase the real, and opportunity costs of solar power relative to fossil fuels which could kill the industry altogether. For this reason, the industry trade body, the Solar Trade Association has called for governmental support for the industry until 2020, after which it believes that it will have the capacity to operate without state support (Solar Trade Association, 2015). However, some commentators have argued that the lowering, and eventual removal of subsidies will actually encourage greater competition in the wider clean energy sector. Newbery (2015), for example, argues that a mature, efficient clean energy sector must be self-reliant and self-sustaining and should operate without state intervention and support. He argues that a market based scheme, such as the auction scheme which characterizes the carbon market, would encourage suppliers to improve investments in technology, to innovate, to lower costs and to act more competitively. Over time, this would strengthen, rather than weaken th e economic performance of the industry, and its contribution to the wider economy. At the macroeconomic level, it has been suggested that the lowering and eventual removal of subsidies for the solar energy industry will free up public funds that can be better used elsewhere to help the government to achieve its goal of repairing public finances (Kay, 2015). In 2013, the subsidy programme cost the British taxpayer some  £650 million; the equivalent figure in 2014 was  £850 million (Morales, 2015). Under its Levy Control Framework, the government did set a spending cap of  £7.6 billion on subsidy expenditure by 2020-2021, but DECC analysis found that the number of solar farms that have so far been established is so great that the cap is expected to be exceeded by some  £1.5 billion (Clark, 2015). This money, it is argued can be used to help reduce public expenditure, or can be invested elsewhere to boost the economy (Newbery, 2015; Reid and Wynn, 2015). Furthermore, it is argued that the removal of subsidies will spur greater investment in solar power by the private sector, which is a source of more productive capital than public finds (Newbery, 2015). However, commentators have pointed out that these cost savings must be balanced against the possibility of the British government having to pay the European Union (EU) a fine for failing to achieved its legally mandated goal relating to the reduction in carbon emissions. If, as the government itself predicts, 1 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted per year (due to falling demand for solar power microgeneration installations), the government should expect to pay a fine in the region of  £610 million by 2055-2056 (Bennett, 2015). The environmental impact of the policy changes The British government produced its own environmental impact assessment report which outlines the likely consequences of the proposed policy changes on take up of small, medium and commercial scale solar power (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2015). The impact assessment report highlights that the changes will likely result in a lowered capacity for small-scale renewable microgeneration. The availability of subsidies has been directly responsible for the installation of around 3.3 gigawatts of renewable power capacity over the past five years, and 83 per cent of that added capacity has come directly from solar power technology (Morales, 2015). The cutbacks to the feed in tariff payments are expected to lead to a reduction of more than 6.1 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2020-2021, with the largest drop expected to come from the solar sector (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2015). It is envisaged that around 890,000 fewer households will decide to install sola r panels over the five years after the changes come into force. The likely environmental impact of the proposals has been widely discussed by the green lobby both in the UK, and across Europe more widely. These bodies argue that the developments are likely to have adverse knock on effects for carbon emission levels and the ability of the UK to reach its carbon emissions targets (a lowering of total carbon emissions by 2050 by 80 per cent below 1990 levels) (Bennett, 2015). This is because, as discussed earlier, the reduction and removal of subsidies amounts to an increase in the cost of solar power production relative to alternative methods of energy production, which will disincentivise households and businesses from taking up solar power microgeneration activities, and could lead to a relative increase in the use of fossil fuels (Solar Trade Association, 2015). This could cause an increase in the total level of CO2 emissions coming from within the United Kingdoms borders. One m id-range estimate is that around 1 million more tonnes of carbon will be emitted every year (Bennett, 2015). Conclusion The proposed changes to the policy framework for solar power subsidies is currently out for public consultation. The consultation will end on October 23rd 2015. It is therefore not possible to state with any accuracy what the future political, economic and financial framework for solar power will look like. However, the analysis presented above suggests that the impact of a lowering and eventual removal of subsidies for solar power technology at the both the small-scale and the commercial scales is likely to be substantial. However, the economic impact could be positive or negative. The very existence of the solar industry could be under threat; alternatively, the industry could be encouraged to become more efficient and competitive. The performance of the British economy could be enhanced, but this could be mitigated by the need to compensate the EU for failing to meet carbon reduction targets. The environmental impact could also be devastating if demand for solar power installati ons and solar PV capacity are reduced. References Allan, G., Eromenko, I., Gilmartin, M., Kockar, I., McGregor, P. (2015). The economics of distributed energy generation: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 543-556. Bennett, P. (2015). Uk government proposes hugely damaging solar support cuts. Online at https://www.pv-tech.org/news/uk_government_proposes_hugely_damaging_solar_support_cuts Cherrington, R., Goodship, V., Longfield, A., Kirwan, K. (2013). The feed-in tariff in the UK: a case study focus on domestic photovoltaic systems. Renewable Energy, 50, 421-426. Clark, P. (2015). Renewable power subsidies to be cut back. Online at https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c2258b4-3045-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html Department for Energy and Climate Change (2015). Periodic Review of FITs 2015. IA No. DECC0196. London: Department for Energy and Climate Change Eades, J. (2015). Drastic cuts to Feed-in Tariff. Our Advice? Rush but Dont Trip https://www.energymyway.co.uk/news/drastic-cuts-to-feed-in-tariff-our-advice-rush-but-dont-trip/ Grubb, M. (2014). Planetary Economics. London: Routledge Kay, A. (2015). Subsidy-free solar in the UK. Renewable Energy Focus, 16(2), 38-40. Knowles, M. (2013). UK electricity market: financiers are holding the government over a barrel. Online at https://www.energypost.eu/uk-electricity-market-financiers-holding-government-barrel/ Morales, A. (2015). U.K. to End Small-Scale Renewables Aid in Blow to Solar. Online at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/u-k-proposes-to-end-feed-in-tariffs-for-renewable-energy MacAlister (2015). Slashing household solar subsidies will kill off industry, government told. Online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/27/slashing-household-solar-subsides-kill-off-industry-government-feed-in-tariff Muinzer, T. L. (2015). To PV or Not to PV: An Analysis of the High Courts Recent Treatment of Solar Energy. Environmental. Law Review, 17(2), 128 135 Newbery, D. (2015). Reforming UK energy policy to live within its means. Energy Policy Review Group Working Paper No. 1516. Cambridge University. Reid, G., Wynn, G. (2015). The Future of Solar Power in the United Kingdom. Energies, 8(8), 7818-7832. Solar Trade Association (2015). The Solar Independence Plan for Britain. London: Solar Trade Association Wood, G., Dow, S. (2011). What lessons have been learned in reforming the Renewables Obligation? An analysis of internal and external failures in UK renewable energy policy. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2228-2244.