Thursday, January 9, 2014
Questioning Narratives and Truths
It is not unusual for different opinions to coexist within the social sciences. This is particularly true of environmental issues. If two or more competing schools of thought offer different explanations for a problem, how can we decide which is correct? How do we know who is right or wrong? As you explore your narrative, what do you notice? How are the four ways of knowing used to drive public opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Are vaccines harmful rather than beneficial?
Vaccination is an extremely controversial topic these days. There are different ideas about vaccines. Most of the people think vaccination is beneficial and it saves a lot of lives. However, a lot of scientists made researches and they concluded that vaccines are harmful. I think that we should not trust Pharmaceutical Companies. In past past 10 years a drug or drug regimen has been deemed unsafe and downright dangerous and yet the pharmaceutical companies covered it up for years in order to continue raking in the profits for as long as possible. They know everything about harms of vaccines but they hide it to increase their profits.
Also all vaccines are loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons. There are some ingredients of vaccines: MSG, antifreeze, phenol (used as a disinfectant), formaldehyde (cancer causing and used to embalm), aluminum (associated with Alzheimer’s disease and seizures), glycerin (toxic to the kidney, liver, can cause lung damage, gastrointestinal damage and death), lead, cadmium, etc. All people know that all of these ingredients are harmful. I think that injection of these chemicals right into the blood is the most damaging and lethal approach imaginable. A lot of centuries ago the mankind lived without vaccines and all of them were healthy; I am sure that vaccines cause a lot of illnesses and companies produce them to increase their profits.
Different ideas about global warming are present. Some think that global warming is a natural occurrence that has been planned to happen before the world was created. Some other think that global warming was not planned when the world was created, the selfishness of the human kind made it real and the human kind is still building on that and making the scene worse every day.
Both arguments are available since the values of harm that has been given by the human kind that those records are almost negligible . For example, the CO2 given to the environment by humans is 1% and most of the global temperature has increased before man-made CO2 was produced which then indicates that men’s effect on environment is almost negligible.
So the article that the blogger found basically restates that the acts of our does not affect the nature as much as other factors do, which is a misunderstanding of causes. And the blog itself also mentions the effects of men on nature.
Even tough there are significant facts about men’s effect on nature, unfortunately it is not possible to record the effects of world on nature.
For years, we have been told that the world we live in is threatened by technological developments, and we are becoming more and more dependent to technology everyday. We have never reached the level of intellectuality to question this narrative, and instead we stood against technological advancements, which could ease our lives in an incredible way.
Humanity or Mankind has evolved from the essence that separates humans from beasts: the ability to use the mind for reason. It is reason that enables human beings to strive to invent; it is through invention that mankind has developed society and created a better world. We could say that technology is the sum total of useful information. Technological developments have provided human history with a kind of directionality. It has now led us to question our self-control, because we are losing control. We are becoming more and more dependent on technology everyday, but should we really question this? Will what is happening now really lead to harmful consequences?
Without the needed technology a lot of people would struggle with their health. Yes, but doesn’t this prove that technology is a necessity? Should we really stand against what’s keeping us alive?
Secondly, advanced technology is improving industries by making them more effective and, what is vital today, safer for environment. Therefore, the speed of improvement is huge and unpredictable. How can we ever stand against something that is improving and growing this fast, when it is not even harmful.
Society has become more and more dependent on technology. So much so that we sometimes lack the willingness to think before we act. We become impatient if it takes more than a few seconds to download a copy of the morning news paper. We expect immediate responses to our email, and we expect someone to answer their cell phone whenever and wherever we call. Yes, yes we are dependent on technology, but who can ever say this dependency is harmful and base this on a valid argument? We’re dependent to technology like we are dependent to the air we breathe, this dependency is leading us to a brighter feature, not to harmful consequences.
From the creation of the technology, homo sapiens managed to ease their nervous by comforting their head with the beauty of the technology which had no further history than the invention of the light bulb. A narrative called: mobile phones emits radio waves which is radiation and causes censer, is addressed to whole society from the introduction of the first Nokia. It is accepted as a fact due to the believe able brain of the people. But as more people cross-examined this so-called fact it is found that there is no direct nor indirect relation between the cell phones and cancer. Recent Dutch and Norwich scientific work presented that the radio waves have minuscule effect on humans therefore it is not possible for the cell phones to increase the reaction of making tumors ,where these researches investigated the topic on 790,000 women 420,000 people, and As time passes and humans start to question what has been told, it will destroy the narratives and free the human mind which will be accomplished by the base: free human will and curiosity.
For years, people have been convinced all bacteria and germs come from nature. Why not question the narrative? From 1940 to 1970, America was a giant germ laboratory. The U.S. Army wanted to assess how vulnerable America was to a biological attack, so it spread clouds of microbes and chemicals over populated areas everywhere. In 1949, the Army Special Operations released bacteria into the Pentagon’s air conditioning system to observe how the microbes spread (the bacteria were reportedly harmless). In 1950, a U.S. Navy ship sprayed Serratia Marcescens which is a common bacteria capable of minor infection—from San Francisco Bay. The bacteria floated over 30 miles, spread through the city, and may have caused one death. People were traumatized to ‘measure their vulnerabilities’. One another example for this is the operation DEW, where the U.S. Army released 250 pounds of cadmium sulfide off the Carolina coast, which spread over 60,000 square miles. The military didn’t know that cadmium sulfide was carcinogenic, nor did it know that it could cause kidney, lung, and liver damage. Also in the 1960s, during Project 112 and Project SHAD, military personnel were exposed to nerve agents like VX and sarin and bacteria like E. coli without their knowledge. The government may have also used germ-bombing to sell their medicine. We can also give the fact that there were at least 134 similar experiments performed. Our own protectors should consider protecting us from themselves too, inasmuch as they are the reason for many more...
Ever since the establishment of the first antibiotic penicillin, without doubt antibiotics have become a necessity for mankind when it comes to curing diseases. The wide usage of antibiotics, however, has aroused a conventional wisdom amongst the society inquiring whether if antibiotics are harming the preexisting immune system of the body by causing it to become reliant on antibiotics in every situation in which the body faces a sickness. My research was to attest if such narrative was genuine, or a mere claim made by a large majority who didn’t actually look into the case.
The outcome of my exploration was surprisingly in favor of antibiotics, and the narrative was only partially valid. It is well known that antibiotics are only effective in infections and diseases caused by harmful bacteria, and they work by simply exterminating the bacteria in the body. Although by that definition antibiotics seem perfectly okay to use, its crucial to note that if by any means an antibiotic is harmful for the body, it is due to the misuse of the patient. If antibiotics are not used as they are prescribed, it may lead to elimination of good bacteria, leaving the body in a weaker state; yet not to be confused with an actual deterioration of the body’s immune system.
It can be concluded that antibiotics are safe to use as long as they are used correctly and the user does not let their body become too dependent on medicine- though it is human nature to rely on the simplest solution to all issues, one must make sure to do their research prior to making false claims about a good that’s aim is to essentially make our lives better.
My Narrative: Nuclear energy has no major impact on the environment.
Nuclear energy started to become a really popular source of energy for many countries nowadays. While fossil fuels are running out humans need to turn to another source and this is one of them. In fact it is good source but it has devastating impacts on the environment we live in. There are many impacts but in this text few of them will be mentioned.
First impact is the radioactive wastes that are thrown away from the nuclear plant. The wastes are mostly radioactive isotopes that emit radiation to the surroundings in the state of gas and liquid. Usually these nuclear plants release radioactive water which is Tritium. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which is present in the water. This leak of water could reach water sources until it get consumed.
Secondly there is a major impact because of uranium mining. Uranium is radioactive element that nuclear centrals use to heat up substances. This kind of mining is extremely dangerous nature where it proceeds. Also extracting it wastes gallons of water which essential for the neighbour organisms. After these mines are used they still possess their radioactive leak which does not lift off for almost 250,000 years after desertion even the station is cleaned.
These nuclear plants release toxic gases to the air like carbon-14, iodine-131, krypton and xenon including large amount of radioactive waste among them. This radioactive decay increase the chance of various disease and cause cancer in organisms.
Finally there is the issue of waste heat in the water wastes. Nuclear plants cycle with a body of hot water or by evaporating water creating waste heat. These water most of the time released to water resources next to the centrals and these parts where they are out is approximately 30 F higher than the rest of the water. This totally exterminates the natural balance of the area.
For last years ideas about the global warming is changinf for the people.Humans are inquiring about the reason of global warming.These questions left 2 possible reasons of global warming,one of them is doubtless humans,and the other one is nature itself.But now there are predictable resources that shows the reasons.
These recources lead humans to be culpable for the global warming.For example our modern car culture and appetite for globally sourced goods is responsible for about 33% of emissions in the U.S. With our population growing at an alarming rate, the demand for more cars and consumer goods means that we are increasing the use of fossil fuels for transportation and manufacturing.However,there are some causes of global warming by the nature itself,like the severity of storms such as hurricanes and cyclones is increasing adn we can not to anything about that.Unfortunateşy this is not a sign that humans are not responsible.
So now the questions on minds are becoming more halycon for the people and we hope that we are going to save this wolrd from global warming.
Post a Comment