Design Proposal Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Design Proposal - Assignment Example John Hopkins evidenced based model provides a strong and powerful problem-solving approach when making decision in the clinical setting. Tools that are user-friendly accompany it. The tools are for guiding group and individual users. Nurses should utilize the model because it has been designed to attain  the needs of the  nurse  practising. It is a very important framework that guides the synthesis and translation of evidence into clinical practice. Mechanically ventilated patients are susceptible to pneumonia resulting in a higher rate of getting complications and mortality. There is an increased risk of acquiring nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients due to supine positioning. As a result of acquiring nosocomial pneumonia, the cost involved in treatment increases and the length of hospitalization is also increased. Patients  critically ill in  the  ICU  are at a risk of dying from their critical illness as well as a secondary process such as nosocomial pneumonia. Nosocomial pneumonia affects 28 percent of the critically ill patients with an incidence rate of 6 to 10 cases in 1000 hospital admissions. For this reason, proper patient positioning is very essential. Collaboration  and teamwork are  crucial  to the success of the project. My team will be composed of five key members. Among them will include an intensive care doctor with training on  care  of  the critically ill patients and a registered critical care nurse with special training in critical care of the critically ill patients. The two specialists will provide resourceful knowledge on care of the patients. A nurse educator will also be incorporated in the team to provide education on the importance proper positioning of the patients and an ICU respiratory therapist who are important in patient rehabilitation to recovery from respiratory conditions. The last team member will be a physiotherapist who will be focused on promoting

Ap Nsl Essay Example for Free

Ap Nsl Essay What are the difficulties in using the â€Å"wall of separation† principle? 5. List and explain the circumstances when the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech may be limited. 6. Define the â€Å"clear-and-present-danger test,† libel, preferred position, prior restraint, imminent danger, and symbolic speech. You may just want to put these straight onto your flashcards 7. Summarize the Supreme Court’s changing interpretations of how to protect both the due process rights of accused criminals and to preserve the safety of the community. Define the exclusionary rule and the â€Å"good faith exception. †. Chapter 19 Reading Outline 1. What does the book say is the pertinent question regarding civil rights? 2. What were the strategies that black leaders followed in order to obtain civil rights? Once basic rights such as voting and integration had been obtained, what issues did civil rights leaders focus on? 3. Briefly outline the steps in the NAACP’s strategy in the fight against segregated schools and indicate the success they had in the courts and in implementing desegregation. . What was the issue concerning desegregation vs. integration? How has this issue been resolved? 5. What were the four developments that made it possible to pass civil rights bills? 6. What accounts for the change in attitude in Congress towards civil rights issues from the 1960s to the present?   How has the Supreme Court changed in its attitudes towards equal rights for women from the early 20th century to today? 8. What are the two standards the Court uses today to in considering sex discrimination cases? What is the debate between those who support â€Å"equality of result† and those who support â€Å"equality of opportunity†? 9. What are the criteria that the Supreme Court has adapted in defining strict scrutiny of any law involving racial preferences? 10. Briefly summarize the highlights of the government’s response to abortion. How did activists for the disabled manage to get The Americans with Disabilities Act passed? 12. Briefly summarize what is included in the law and the objections that some have had to the law.

The Flaws Of Fracking Environmental Sciences Essay

The Flaws Of Fracking Environmental Sciences Essay Most people who drive cars or heat their houses would concur that finding a cheaper, more accessible substitute for oil would be a positive advancement. With benefits such as energy independence from foreign oil companies and economic stimulus, natural gas drilling seems the obvious solution. However, substituting oil drilling with natural gas drilling is not as positive of an alternative as it may seem. Commonly known as fracking, the process of drilling for natural gas is fairly uncomplicated, yet it poses some serious risks. The process starts with geologists who identify types of rock that are most likely to contain natural gases within them. These gases began forming millions of years ago when layers of plant and animal matter decayed, and then became trapped by sand and silt that later turned to rock. Beneath the rock, heat and pressure acted together to turn this organic matter to coal, oil, and natural gas (Natural Gas Basics). However, unlike coal and oil which remain structurally trapped under the rock, most of the tiny bubbles of natural gas mainly composed of methane with butane and propane byproducts are absorbed into the micro-porous matrix of coal. This type of gas is called coalbed methane (Environmental Protection Agency). In order to access this energy-convertible methane, drilling companies have turned to a process called hydraulic fracturing. Its name basically explains the process; hydraulic means operated by the  pressure created by forcing water, oil, or another liquid through a comparatively narrow pipe or orifice, and fracturing is defined as to break or crack (Dictionary.com). Basically, a small crack in underground rock or coal is turned into a large crack using a water-based fluid pumped into the ground at a high pressure, so that the gas contained within the rock can more easily escape. The first step in the process is to drill a production well deep into the earth until it meets the coal seam that contains the gas. The next step is to make a connection between this well and the coal seam so that once the gas is released it has a structured means of transportation to the surface. This connection is made by creating or enlarging a fracture in the seam by pumping a thick fluid into the ground at a steadily increasing speed and pressure. Eventually, the rock will not be able to capacitate the fluid at the rate at which it is enteri ng the seam, and a fracture will ensue because of the high pressure. The size of the fracture depends on the features of the surrounding rock, the type of fracturing fluid, the pressure at which it enters the ground, and the depth of the coal seam. However, all contributing factors aside, a hydraulically created fracture will always take the path of least resistance through the coal seam and surrounding formations (Environmental Protection Agency). So in order to keep the fracture from being consumed again by the surrounding rock once the pumping of fluid is discontinued, a proppant usually sand is also pumped into the ground to prop the fracture open. Once the flow of injected substances has stopped, the open fracture filled with proppant becomes a discontinuity in the continuous pressure of the surrounding rock. When the gas contained within the rock is no longer being held under strict pressure it can escape, and the fracture functions as an avenue for deabsorbed gas to flow ba ck up the production well (Environmental Protection Agency). The risk mentioned in the opening paragraph does not manifest itself in the fracturing process itself, nor in the mere presence of fractures. The danger of this practice is based upon the consistency of the fracturing fluids. However, the recipes for these fracking cocktails are hard to come by, and thus measuring their true negative impact is difficult. Drilling companies strive to keep the chemical make-up of their fluids a secret so as not to lose their competitive edge. In a comment to ProPublica writer Abrahm Lustgarten, Diana Gabriel, a spokesperson for natural gas drilling pioneer Halliburton Energy Services Inc., stated, Halliburtons proprietary fluids are the result of years of extensive researchà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are able to protect the fruits of the companys researchà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. We could lose our competitive advantage (Abrahm Lustgarten). In an effort to keep their businesses viable and lucrative, companies have made an effo rt to publicly assure people that drilling fluids are mostly made up of non-toxic, even edible substances, and that when chemicals are used, they are just a tiny fraction of the overall mix a mix that can reach up to over a million gallons of liquid (Lustgarten). However, that small fraction as tiny as less than one percent of the total can actually end up as over 10,000 gallons of unknown chemicals being dumped into the ground. While many of these chemicals used remain unidentified, The Bureau of Land Management believes they can identify about 300 different compounds being used in fracking fluids, and of these suspect 300, 65 are considered hazardous by the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has established several of these known chemicals as lubricants and biocides that with repeated exposure can be linked to kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage. Most of the remaining 235 out of the 300 have not been studied so their negative affects cannot be predicted. Also, even if these chemicals really are only used in trace amounts as the drilling companies assert, scientists believe that even low doses of contact with them through contaminated drinking water can have damaging affects (Lustgarten). One instance of water contamination happened in July 2008 when a hydrologist took a water sample from a 300-foot water well in Sublette County, Wyoming near where drilling had been taking place. The sample contained brown, foul-smelling, oily water, and when tested it showed benzene a chemical found in gasoline and cigarettes, known to cause aplastic anemia and leukemia at 1,500 times the safe level for human ingestion. Another unsettling encounter with contaminated drinking water showed fluoride which although commonly used for medicinal purposes, can cause bone damage or even be fatal in high doses in drinking wells near drilling sites at nearly three time the maximum limit set by the EPA. Fluoride is listed on Halliburtons hydraulic fracturing patent applications, which those opposed to drilling would say leaves little room for doubt as to how the above mentioned fluoride ended up in drinking water. Spokespeople for drilling companies argue that the advent of high levels of th ese and other chemicals happened naturally or as a result of another catalyst. Thus far it has been a challenge to prove otherwise because of the secrecy surrounding the contents of the fracking fluids not even the EPA knows what is in them. Thus, it is hard for them to measure the relative safety of the use of these solutions in the ground. As a result, movements are being made by those who are concerned about the contamination of their drinking water towards requiring drilling companies to disclose the chemicals in their frac juice (Lustgarten). Natural gas drilling companies are not required to disclose the makeup of their fluids because of an exemption laid out in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, the act exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that the EPA does not need to monitor water affected by drilling for possible health-risk-carrying contaminants (Energy Policy of 2005). This loophole is commonly known as the Halliburton loophole, because of the alleged involvement in its passage by former Halliburton CEO and then Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney (Energy Policy of 2005). Validating this assertion, Benjamin Grumbles, a  former Bush-Cheney EPA  Assistant Administrator for Water, admitted his knowledge of foul play during an interview with ProPublica. In order for the exemption to be included in the bill, the EPA needed to be able to prove to lawmakers that the hydraulic fracturing p rocess was not dangerous, and therefore liable for an exemption, while also not digging themselves into a hole if their findings were later challenged. That is where Grumbles comes in: What came across clearly to the EPA was that the [Bush] administration did not want us to take a formal position of opposition to the exemption. It wasnt so much a pressure. It was just very clear, here is the situation: EPA officials or career staff are not to take a position of opposition or support for the legislationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦I know the office of the vice president [Dick Cheney] was involved (Bill Wolfe). Representatives Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey seek to repeal this unfair and unfounded exemption by introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals [FRAC] Act. Commenting on the bill, DeGette said, Our bill simply closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else (Sarah Jones). Adding to her comment, another anti-drilling Representative, Jared Polis, said, It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nations energy policy (Jones). While industry executives have strongly opposed this comment, one point that reporter Sarah Jones makes is extremely valid: if the gas industry is not doing anything harmful to the water ergo, if they have nothing to hide then why do they need to be exempt from regulations? In Jones opinion, and in the opinions of many others, these drilling companies have come up with an effective yet dangerous method of making millions of dollars; thus, the American people are saddled with the potentially disastrous consequences of Cheneys tsunami of massive and reckless special interest deregulation, whose sole motivation still appears to be the enrichment of the former vice presidents personal financial interests (Jones). The FRAC Act is being supported in the Sen ate by Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Chuck Schumer of New York, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. As a result of repealing its exemption, the Act would require public disclosure of fracking chemicals. It would also force drilling companies to adhere to the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act by modifying it to include hydraulic fracturing in its definition of underground injection. Lautenberg commented on the act saying, People have a right to know if chemicals are being injected into the ground near their homes and potentially ending up in the water supply. This bill will ensure that the [EPA] has the tools to assess the risks of fracking and require appropriate protections so that drinking water in New Jersey and other states is safe (Matt Fair). The FRAC Act is not the only major piece of legislation in the works that is pursuing regulation of natural gas. Three congressmen in the House of Representatives, led by Rush Holt, echoed Lautenberg and Caseys motions towards cleaning up drilling processes by introducing the BREATHE Bringing Reductions to Energys Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act. The act will undo additional exemptions from the Clean Air Act for oil and gas rigs, requiring them to meet air quality standards. Although this law will not impact hydraulic fracturing specifically, it will help create a sense of accountability for drilling companies who up to today have had to answer to next to no one. The act will also help clean up the pollution that ensues from the process itself. Noting this lack of monitoring by authorities, Holt said, Our loyalties shouldnt be with oil and gas companies our loyalties should be with families affected by fracking (Fair). Moving to bypass small preventative measures, Senator Linda Greenstein and two other legislators introduced a bill last year that would outlaw fracking completely in New Jersey if it passed (Fair). Additionally in New Mexico, a survey conducted in Santa Fe discovered hundreds of cases of water contamination from unlined pits where fracking fluids and other wastes are stored. As a result, the state has passed a one year moratorium on drilling around the city, until further research can be conducted (Lustgarten). Colorado has been fighting against natural gas drilling with the most gusto of any state, completing a complete rewrite of all drilling regulations in 2007 and moving towards requiring full disclosure of the exact make up of all fracturing fluids. An early compromise between the state and drilling companies was reached in August of 2008 when gas companies agreed to disclose the makeup of fracturing liquids only to health officials and regulators. This compromise was stimulated by news of an accident involving fracking fluid that nearl y killed Colorado nurse, Cathy Behr. While treating a hunter who had run in to a fracking fluid spill, she came in contact with the fluid. The hunter was eventually discharged, but shortly afterwards Behr was admitted into the hospital herself with multiple organ failure and in critical condition. In order to treat her in hopes of saving her life, hospital doctors asked to be informed of the chemicals she had been exposed to, but the gas company declined. The Behr incident inspired public outcry against the drilling industry, which moved companies to make concessions with the state. However, their partial disclosure deal was not as much progress as it was made out to be; a clause was included in the deal that would ensure that the disclosure agreement would only apply to chemicals stored in containers that could hold 50 gallons or more. So to avoid full disclosure it has been found that drilling companies often store their fracking fluids in smaller containers. This agreement was un fortunately the best deal that could be reached, because the three main fracking companies in Colorado threatened to leave the state if disclosure was forced upon them. Their absence would deprive the state of $29 billion in future gas-related tax revenue over the next ten years, so the state settled for a mediocre deal (Lustgarten). These anti-drilling legislative actions have been brought about by the rising awareness of the risks that the effects of drilling pose. Legislators, namely in Pennsylvania, seek to update their regulations so as not to allow their communities to fall victim to the negative effects of fracking (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Such negative effects fall into three main categories that are often interrelated: environmental, human, and animal risks. The most notable environmental risk of natural gas drilling is the pollution of ground water that it has been shown to cause. Fracking fluids leak into the surrounding water tables which then provides for the possibility of the chemicals leeching into drinking wells that are for human and animal use. Fracking is a suspect in polluted drinking water in Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, where residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Although in their 2004 study on hydraulic fracturing the EPA asserted that it posed no threat to drinking water, there have been more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites in Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone. More recently, the EPA has discovered that up to one third of injected fracturing fluids may stay in the ground subsequent to drilling. They have also a sserted that these fluids, specifically benzene, are likely to be transported by groundwater (Lustgarten). In September of 2008, tests performed on wells in Sublette County, Wyoming showed contamination in 88 of the 220 wells examined in an area spanning over 28 miles. Upon returning to these same sites at a later date, scientists were unable to even open the water wells because their monitors showed they contained so much flammable gas that they were likely to explode (Lustgarten). Although the State is aware of these risks, New York legislators are looking towards allowing drilling in the Marcellus Shale region of their state, which holds an underground abundance of natural gas. This region runs underneath a portion of the New York City watershed that provides pure, unfiltered drinking water (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Drilling in this area would leave over 9 million New Yorkers at risk of being exposed to and/or ingesting contaminated water (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Another problem regarding contaminated water arises not from underground drilling, but from chemical spills on the surface that allow fluids to seep into the water table from above. Accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits [have] allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells (Lustgarten). State records in Colorado have shown that between 2003 and 2008 over 1,500 fracking chemical spills have occurred, with 206 of those spills occurring in 2008. 48 of the 206 have been reported as linked to water contamination (Lustgarten). Beyond just water contamination, natural gas drilling threatens to pollute clean air and destroy natural landscapes. Inevitably, this damage to the environment caused by drilling will rapidly begin to disturb the inhabitants of that environment. As people must have a place to live, they are very much affected by the contamination of their surroundings. Because of the large-scale nature of drilling operations and the isolated landscapes where natural gas reservoirs often are found, rural communities end up being transformed into industrial zones. Even when done in compliance with existing regulations, natural gas production brings with it toxic waste, diesel fumes, traffic and wall-rattling noise all of which would be incredibly disruptive to people who are accustomed to pure, tranquil landscapes (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Besides just noise pollution and traffic which, while they can be annoying, are not life threatening the safety of those who live in close proximity to drilling sites can be in jeopardy. Because we are talking about natural gas, there is always the possibility of a fire or gas explosion. While safety procedures are in place to prevent this from happening, it can, and does hap pen (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). Just the mere possibility that an explosion could occur is troubling, as a REBUBLIKID writer noted that fluid storage tanks and other drilling materials have been kept in residential areas, and even near a school (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). There have been several documented cases of explosions. In one case, investigators deduced that the explosion of a house was caused by methane gas that entered the residential water supply. Fracturing provided a means for the gas to reach this water supply, as it forged underground passageways through which the gas could travel. In a similar case that occurred in December 2007, a house in Bainbridge, Ohio exploded in a fiery ball (Lustgarten). A study of the situation proved that hydraulic fracturing produced pressure that forced methane gas upward from its usual location of thousands of feet below the surface. The gas traveled through a series of cracks until it reached the groundwater aquifer, and eventually the tap water of the Bainbridge neighborhood. Investigators discovered that the neighborhoods tap water contained so much methane that the house ignited (Lustgarten). The most famous case of an explosion occurred at the home of Larry and Laura Amos in western Colorado. Just beyond the Amoses property line, the usual drilling for the day had commenced, when suddenly, less than 1,000 feet from their house, their drinking water well exploded like a Yellowstone geyser, firing its lid into the air and spewing mud and gray fizzing water high into the sky. State inspectors tested the Amos well for methane and found lots of it (Lustgarten). Following the incident, the family was assured that they were in no real danger, as long as they vented their house by keeping doors and windows open to ensure an explosion did not ensue as a result of more gas trapped inside th eir house. However, they were never warned that the water could possibly be seriously contaminated, even after it returned to its original color. Thus, the family continued to bathe in and drink the water, until three years later when Laura Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal tumor (Lustgarten). Concerned for her then three year old daughter, who had been bathed in the possibly polluted water daily as an infant, she began to challenge the state about the mysterious chemicals that might have been in her well. Laura contacted scientist Theo Colborn, whose studies on the affects of low-dose exposure to chemicals are considered the most comprehensive available (Lustgarten). In Colborns Congressional testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she expressed grave concern at her discovering that fracturing fluids contained the chemical 2-butoxy ethanol [BE-2]. She produced a long list of bizarre health effects that were possible at relatively low levels of expo sure, and explained that BE-2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and evaporates at room temperature. If this chemical were to surface as a gas or get into a drinking water supply, it could cause health problems in domestic and wild animals and humans that could baffle veterinarians or physicians (The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public Health). In what could be considered undisputable proof of the contribution of fracking fluids to Laura Amos condition, Colborn also noted that adrenal tumors, which are extremely rare, are known to be caused by exposure to this chemical (The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public Health). This is just one case, regarding one health issue, caused by one chemical; however, fracturing fluids contain hundreds of known and unknown chemicals that have been linked to dozens of other critical health problems. Colborn believes even very low doses of some of the compounds can damage kidney and immune systems and affect repr oductive development, which is very disturbing from a health standpoint, as millions of people already have been, or will be exposed to these chemicals in the future (Lustgarten). A third and final risk posed by natural gas drilling is the negative impact that the influx of drilling machinery and the contact with fracturing fluids has on animals. Drilling companies may need to clear forests and pave roads in order to have access to their drilling sites, which is disruptive to the natural habitat of wild animals. Animals may also flee when they encounter drilling machinery, as they perceive it as a new predatory. The combination of these two factors may lead to forced migration of animals to another area, which then starts off a chain reaction of wildlife related problems (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). More than 25 million acres of wildlife habitat in the West have been leased by the Bureau of Land Management, and could potentially be opened to drilling, which would be devastating to the natural ecosystems there (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Contact with fracturing fluids t hrough contaminated water has proved to be extremely detrimental to animals, both wild and domestic. In one area of Wyoming, as drilling activity increased, mule deer numbers declined by 30 percent from 2000 to 2007 (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). In Garfield County, Colorado, domestic animals that had produced offspring like clockwork each spring were no longer giving birth to healthy young (Lustgarten). In addition, a bull went sterile, and a herd of beef cows stopped going into heat, as did pigs. In the most striking case, sheep bred on an organic dairy farm had a rash of inexplicable still births (Lustgarten). All these peculiarities occurred near drilling waste pits, where wastewater that includes fracturing fluids is misted into the air for evaporation (Lustgarten). Many organizations are fighting against this devastation, as well as the other two types addressed above. The Natural Resource Defense Council especially is fighting to protect communities a cross the country from the pollution caused by natural gas production. By tightening loopholes in our bedrock environmental laws, banning drilling on sensitive lands and requiring the most stringent regulatory requirements wherever production does take place, we can help protect critical water supplies and other precious resources and keep our communities safe and healthy (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). After addressing all these negative factors and reasons not to drill, a reader could be left wondering why companies do it at all. Below are some of the pros to the fracturing process that drilling companies stand behind. First is accessibility. The technological advances in the drilling process make extracting gas from previously inaccessible sites possible (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). This new ability to tap into a previously nonexistent resource has been exciting for many, and as inspired a gold rush affect for those in the gas and oil business. The fracturing method allows gas to be collected from thousands of feet beneath the earth, a feat that, as of yet, can only be accomplished by hydraulic fracturing (Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies). Secondly, natural gas drilling provides energy independence from foreign oil companies. More domestic drilling means less dependence on oil from terror sponsoring countries Like Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and socialist dictatorships such as Hugo Chavezs Venezuela (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). Many would also agree that weaning the United States from dependence on oil would be good for everyones pocketbooks. According to T. Boone Pickens in a comment to ProPublica, natural gas is cleaner, cheaperà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦abundant, and ours. Gas is also more environmentally friendly than oil, as it emits 23 percent less carbon when burned (Lustgarten). Finally, the collection of natural gas provides economic stimulation. Drilling companies are always hiring, and they provide jobs that have an annual income of $40,000 a year. As many drilling sites are located in rural and often poor areas, that kind of salary is welcomed by struggling families. If plans for full-scale drilling in Pennsylvania and New York are carried out, thousands of such jobs could be created. Local employees and workers from out of town will end up spending much of their salary near the drilling site, stimulating the local economy and allowing local businesses to keep their doors open (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). Land leases and taxes on drilling sites will generate income for the state, and landowners will receive royalties as high as 10 percent for relinquishing their lands to be leased for drilling (REPUBLIKID: The Pros And Cons Of Natural Gas Drilling In Pennsylvania and Central New York). When all of these factors are examined and weighed against each other, it is my personal opinion that the risks of drilling far override the benefits the health and safety of human beings should always have priority over money. However, the benefits certainly have merit, and provide a solution to several problems facing the American people today. If a safer drilling process could be developed without using harmful chemicals and with increased safety precautions to prevent explosions, natural gas drilling could possibly be the catalyst towards a better, more stable US economy.

Anti Abortion - The Truth of Abortion :: social issues

Anti Abortion - The Truth of Abortion "And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto Him, which? Jesus said, THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." ~ Lord Jesus Christ Quote, Matthew 19:16-19, King James Version Bible †¢ Introduction : To know and feel truth is essential to understanding. You may say, "...not another religious person..." but I say unto you, I come about this conclusion through pure reason. Of course, this is a tender subject, but that goes to reason. For it is essential for truth and feeling to come together in the expression and beholding of understanding. †¢ Abortion and Choice : We have freewill to either magnify goodness or not. We have freewill, as has been given to us by our Creator, to do good or evil. Hence, I nor anyone else – not even God – has the right to deny another from any course of action – in this case, abortion. †¢ Abortion Stance : Truth is eternal regardless of situation. Though, as I have clarified above, do not have the right to deny another of choice, I do and will utilize my right in voicing my stance against it – that abortion is murder. I understand there are pregnancies by rape, and I know it is wrong to, not only, forbid an abortion, but it would also be cruel. Still, I remain with belief that abortion is murder. I understand there are pregnancies that endanger the mother's life, and I know it is wrong to, not only, forbid an abortion, but it would also be cruel. Still, I remain with belief that abortion is murder. I understand there are pregnancies that are unwanted, which have occurred by the voluntary engagement in the activity of reproduction. Whatever the case may be, which results in an unwanted pregnancy through voluntary engagement in the activity of reproduction, the couple has acted irresponsibly. For when a couple engages in the activity of reproduction, it comes with the possibility of responsibility in assuming parenthood.

Knowledge Development In Nursing

Knowledge development in nursing has been somewhat of a hot topic in the more scholastic endeavors of the profession for quite some time. As the profession grew from a focus centered on treating physical symptoms and conditions to a more well-rounded approach that considered psychological, social, and spiritual needs in addition to physical illness, the need to break down the process of knowledge development arose.By utilizing nursing theories, which support the use of evidenced based practice in most cases, it seems as though the profession of nursing gained more credibility in the scientific community as far as the value of the knowledge produced; I feel that utilizing processes akin to those already accepted as prudent by more ‘established’ scientific fields helped achieve that credibility.In order to get to nursing theories, however, the process had to begin with a philosophical component that can allow for a separation from concrete/ scientific knowledge, among othe r things, in order to promote more abstract concepts and different methods to look at how we come to that knowledge. McCurry (2009) touches on this premise as she describes how a common theme, in this case the common good of society, can be looked at from many different perspectives, as it creates an arena in which those perspectives can be arranged to determine how to go about investigating the perspectives further.Although it wasn’t the center piece of the article, one highlight was a breakdown of how more abstract thoughts can be linked to the application of intentional actions through the use of theories, which stems from philosophical questions. Philosophy lays the ground work for knowledge production to be built upon. In a way, Kim (1999) echoed these sentiments as she discusses critical reflective inquiry and its applications in relation to pain management in a South Korean hospital setting.She admits that nursing has situations in which our therapeutic actions can be supported by one theory and conflicted by another. What it seemed to re-enforce was how our drive to answer the philosophical questions created by the issues we wish to address can use various forms to achieve that common goal, however, those that are centered around the evaluation of how our therapeutic actions actually pan out versus how we think they pan out will help us gain the most useful knowledge as long as we are able to recognize the need for, and benefit of, changes that help our patients out the most.We wouldn’t be able to gain the ‘knowledge’ that specific actions and changes are therapeutically beneficial without understanding why we wanted to make changes in the first place, and generating multiple attempts at making those changes to see which ones actually accomplished the goal would seemingly allow us to have the best chance at achieving what we set out to.Evaluating the nursing interventions we utilize to affect our patients for the better is im portant, we all know that. Abbott (1988) pointed out that although nursing is capable of evaluating our interventions in practice, we do not tend to emphasize the importance of breaking down specific practical interventions in an abstract way that allows for our ability to link the interventions we utilize to the thought processes behind it while we are out practicing our craft.This I can personally relate to, when considering how the first couple years of my personal practice was spent learning how to simply accomplish the tasks I was presented with in the time frame I was to accomplish them in (assessment, documenting, intervening, documenting, evaluating, intervening, documenting, documenting, documenting†¦ugh). I knew that there was good reason behind the things I was doing; however, I was not keenly aware of the concepts and philosophies that comprised that reasoning, I was simply focused on completing my tasks in a timely, safe fashion.Reed (2006) promotes the idea that n urses tend not to have a full understanding of the ‘why’ we do the things we do, and went so far as to say that there might be a level of mysticism when it comes to the healing processes we are engaged in. That mysticism was essentially summed up by purporting that when we can’t put our finger on the ‘why’ we do what we do, we fall back on concepts like intuition and gut feelings. It’s not to say that we are incorrect in our intuitions, however, we don’t have a strong link to the rationale behind it all the time.This is where the concept of breaking down the ‘why’ we do what we do into more abstract, philosophical components can really benefit us, as we can extrapolate on the intuitions and gut feelings into philosophical questions and building blocks that theories can be generated from. When we utilize practice centered theories that arise from abstract, philosophical questions, the whole process of ‘nursing’ can be explained and evaluated with more ease, and the knowledge we generate could be seen as more credible.Just saying something is true because it is doesn’t have a whole lot of weight behind it; showing how the knowledge we reference as truth comes to be and having evidence that supports it with results that highlight it is, by and large, the best way that nursing knowledge can be produced in a fashion that holds credibility with those that aren’t of our discipline. We know how awesome we are, but it’s hard to prove it to others without a process that everyone can relate to; that all starts with philosophy.

Fdi’s in Retail Sector in India-a Special Focus on Farmers.

FDI’S IN RETAIL SECTOR IN INDIA – A SPECIAL FOCUS ON INDIAN FARMERS. PAPER PRESENTED BY M. V. KALESWARA RAO, K. CHALAPATHI RAO DASARI. NIVAS. (Research Scholars) Dept Of Economics, Kakatiya University. WARANGAL. ? FDI’S IN RETAIL SECTOR IN INDIA – A SPECIAL FOCUS ON INDIAN FARMERS. The Foreign Direct Investment means â€Å"cross border investment made by a resident in one economy in an enterprise in another economy, with the objective of establishing a lasting interest in the investee economy.FDI is also described as â€Å"investment into the business of a country by a company in another country†. Mostly the investment is into production by either buying a company in the target country or by expanding operations of an existing business in that country†. Such investments can take place for many reasons, including to take advantage of cheaper wages, special investment privileges (e. g. tax exemptions) offered by the country. Major benefits of F DI : (a) Improves forex position of the country; (b) Employment generation and increase in production ; c) Help in capital formation by bringing fresh capital; (d) Helps in transfer of new technologies, management skills, intellectual property (e) Increases competition within the local market and this brings higher efficiencies (f) Helps in increasing exports; (g) Increases tax revenues GLOBAL RETAILING SCENARIO: Retail has played a major role in improving the productivity of the whole economy at large. The positive impact of organized retailing could be seen in USA, UK, and Mexico and also in China. Retail is the second largest industry in US.It is also one of the largest employment generators. It is also important to understand that Argentina, China, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore and Thailand have allowed 100% FDI in multi brand retail. These countries benefited immensely from it. Also small retailers co-exist. The quality of the services has increased. Chi na permitted FDI in retail in 1992 and has seen huge investment flowing into the sector. It has not affected the small or domestic retail chains on the contrary small retailers have increased since 2004 from 1. 9 million to over 2. million. Take for example Indonesia where still 90% of the business still remains in the hand of small traders. FDI IN RETAIL PRESENT STATUS: 51% FDI in multi brand Retail and 100% in single brand is put hold till the time consensus is reached between the political parties. There is stiff opposition being seen within the UPA allies in context of FDI in retail. Also opposition party is seeing this as an opportunity to get the political mileage. REASONS FOR ALLOWING FDI’s IN RETAIL MARKETS Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) complements and supplements domestic investment.Domestic companies are benefited through FDI, by way of enhanced access to supplementary capital and state-of-the-art technologies; exposure to global managerial practices and opportuni ties of integration into global markets. Government had instituted a study, on the subject of â€Å"Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector†, through the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), which was submitted to Government in 2008. The ICRIER study indicated significant benefits for various stakeholders, such as consumers, farmers and manufacturers, arising from the growth of organized retail.Based upon the study, as well as the experience of other countries, it is the Government’s assessment that implementation of the policy permitting FDI, up to 51%, in multi-brand retail trading, is likely to facilitate greater FDI inflows into front and back-end infrastructure; technologies and efficiencies to unlock the potential of the agricultural value chain; additional and quality employment; and global best practices. This, in turn, is expected to benefit consumers and farmers in the long run, in terms of quality and pric e.The 30% mandatory sourcing condition has been incorporated to encourage local value addition and manufacturing. The increased level of activity, in the front-end, as well as in the back-end, resulting from greater FDI inflows, is expected to create additional employment opportunities for rural and urban youth. It is, further, expected to encourage existing traders and retail outlets to upgrade and become more efficient, thereby providing better services to consumers and better remuneration to the producers from whom they source their products.There is no procedure to shortlist companies. Foreign investors desirous of investing in retail trade (multi brand or single brand) in India are required to submit their applications in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, where their applications are examined to determine whether the proposed investment satisfies the notified guidelines, before being considered by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board, in the Ministry of Finance , for Government approval. As per some news items published on 17. 11. 012, Wal-Mart, USA, is stated to be inquiring into allegations of potential violations, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of USA, in certain countries where the company is operating. India has stringent anti-corruption laws. Any corrupt practices are liable to be dealt appropriately under applicable laws. This information was given by the Minister of State for Commerce & Industry Dr. S. Jagathrakshakan in written reply to a question in Rajy Sabha. IMMENSE GROWTH OPPORTUNITY FOR RETAILERS India is Asia’s third largest retail market after China and Japan. Organized retailing is very virgin space in India.It provides immense growth opportunity. Only 5% of the total sales are being done by organized retailer. Currently Indian Retail sector have sales of around $500 billion. Retail sector is expected to have sales of $900 billion by 2014. It still far behind China, whose retail sales by 2014 is expected t o cross $4500 billion mark. Purchasing power of Indian urban consumer is growing and branded merchandise in categories like Apparels, Cosmetics, Shoes, Watches, Beverages, Food and even Jewellery, are slowly becoming lifestyle products that are widely accepted by the urban Indian consumer.The Indian retail sector can be broadly classified into: Food Retailers Health and beauty Products Clothing and Footwear Home Furniture & Household goods Durable goods Leisure & Personal Goods Of these above segment Food and beverage and clothing segment is expected to grow exponentially. GROWTH DRIVERS OF INDIAN RETAIL SECTOR: Rising Income and increase in convergence of consumer taste and preferences. Dual family Income. Knowledge about different product through different medium like Internet, Television etc. Also knowledge abou t the latest trend and fashion. 7% of the India’s population is under the age of 30. This category is driving the consumption story. Emergence of new retailing for mat. Availability of Credit Facilities. HOW FARMERS TO GET BENEFITED: Farmers in India get only 10%-12% of the price the consumer pays for the agri-products. Coming of organized retailing will benefit farmers in big way. Big retailers sell their product at very competitive prices. So, they source it directly from the farmers. Middle man does not have any place in this format of retailing. This will not only benefit farmers but also help in checking the food inflation.Also India has very inadequate facilities to store the food grains and vegetables. As the investment will flow into back end infrastructure, supply chain will get strengthened. Storage is a major problem area and 20%-25% of the agri products get wasted due to improper storage. Another area which is also the cause of concern is movement of vegetable and other perishable agri item from one place to another. Lack of proper transportation forces the farmer to sell their produce in local market. This results in the lower rea lization on the produce. Impact of FDI on farmers all over the world: In 1970, hog producers received 48 cents of each dollar spent on pork. in 2000 they received only 12 cents. Prices to consumer did not decrease. †¦ In 1990 ranchers and farmers received 60 cents of the dollar spent on beef, retailers received 32. 5 and meat companies 7. 5 cents. In 2009 Farmers received 42. 5cent (down by 17. 5), retailers 49 cents, meat packers 8. 5cents. .. †¦ 4 pints of milk in UK costs 1. 45 pounds and farmer receives 40%(58 pence) of it. Causing a loss of 3 pence per 4 pints. Causing small farmers to close there shops. In Indian farmer receives 75% of consumer spend on a litre of milk. †¦ US farmers received direct commodity subsidies of over $167 Bn in 1995-2010. EU paid farmers direct subsidies of $51 Bn in 2010 alone. So why these big retailers are not helping reduce the subsidies to the farmers. †¦ †¦. In Mexico 25% of small farmers are off farming now due to big retail and imports under NAFTA. †¦. As mentioned in image above in Europe flow of goods from 3. 2 million farmers is controlled by 110 buying desks of big retailers catering to 160 million consumers. Today India has more than 600 million (78% 0f total farmer population) small and marginal farmers and a huge consumer base of more than a billion.Now imagine what havoc it may create when our small and marginal farmers will have to compete with bigger farmers of developed nation who fetch huge subsidies from their governments. 32 Lakh European farmers received total subsidy of Rs 26,970 Crores i. e. average Rs 8,41,68 per head approx. Now 21 Crore Indian farmers received total subsidy of nearly Rs. 1,54,00 Crores i. e. average Rs 19,494 per head approx. Now if tomorrow these retail giants start importing (using free trade agreement) from foreign farmers since the prices would much lesser with the help of their governments where would Indian farmer go?Why FDI is Opposed by Local Peo ple or Disadvantages of FDI : (a) Domestic companies fear that they may lose their ownership to overseas company (b) Small enterprises fear that they may not be able to compete with world class large companies and may ultimately be edged out of business; (c) Large giants of the world try to monopolise and take over the highly profitable sectors; (d) Such foreign companies invest more in machinery and intellectual property than in wages of the local people; (e) Government has less control over the functioning of such companies as they usually work as wholly owned subsidiary of an overseas company; SIDE EFFECTS OF THE FDI AND SOLUTION: Nevertheless much said about good things that FDI in retail will bring but argument will not be justified if we do not take into account the grey areas. Some of the grey areas are: -Predatory pricing could strangulate the domestic retailers. -It has been seen MNCs retailers uses there big size to kill competitors. -In order to bring goods at lowest poss ible price for customers they squeeze the margins of their suppliers. So as claimed by thousand that suppliers will benefit, it still doubted. In order to correct these anomalies, India need to have strong regulator for the sector.And at the same time strengthen the Competition Commission of India before these Big Retailers prowls into the Indian Territory. How can Indian farmer compete with rival farmers, – when basic infrastructure is not in place? – when rival farmers receive subsidies almost triple the yearly turnover of Indian farmers? – when crop insurance is not in place? I’m afraid that such uneven and misplaced competition would lead our farmers off their land into labours jobs since they do not have enough capital and supporting government. On other hand that farmer’s income will be improved argument fails sharply since even after having established big retailers network the USA and EU is consistently increasing the subsidies to the farme rs and still their farmers are into losses.What is the guarantee that FDI in multi-brand retail won’t displace Indian farmers? and put pressure on government to increase the subsidies too? Lastly, lets not blindly copy paste western models. We can definitely learn from them but by looking evenly at all sides and not just one which is shiny. Brief Latest Developments on FDI (all sectors including retail):- 2012 – October: In the second round of economic reforms, the government cleared amendments to raise the FDI cap (a) in the insurance sector from 26% to 49%; (b) in the pension sector it approved a 26 percent FDI; Now, Indian Parliament will have to give its approval for the final shape,† 2012 – September : The government approved the a) Allowed 51% foreign investment in multi-brand retail, (b) Relaxed FDI norms for civil aviation and broadcasting sectors. – FDI cap in Broadcasting was raised to 74% from 49%; (c) Allowed foreign investment in power exchanges 2011 – December : (i) The Indian government removed the 51 percent cap on FDI into single-brand retail outlets and thus opened the market fully to foreign investors by permitting 100 percent foreign investment in this area. While the government claims that foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail chains will create jobs, not a single global behemoth has come forward to set up shop in the country.A senior official of the commerce and industry ministry confirmed to Mail Today that â€Å"we have not received any application so far for FDI in retail†. According to industry sources, big foreign retail chains such as Walmart , Tesco and Carrefour that were expected to respond to the government's decision have gone into wait-and-watch mode due to uncertainty over the issue. Although Parliament had cleared the Bill to allow 51 per cent FDI in retail last December, the Opposition still had the right to a 30-day time limit to make amendments to the modific ations in the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) that the government had made to implement the decision.Since the notification on the changes in FEMA was tabled In Parliamenton November 30 and the 30-day period did not end even on December 20, which was the last day of the Winter Session, this right can only be exercised in the Budget Session. Commerce minister Anand Sharma has been trying his level best to get Walmart, Tesco and Carrefour on board and held several meetings with them. However, there is little point for a foreign retailer to invest money until this uncertainty on FEMA is cleared,a ministry official said. Left parties, in fact, have now moved a motion against the changes made in FEMA to implement the FDI decision and this has been admitted by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha during the current Budget Session. This will require a fresh round of voting for clearance.The Supreme Court has also added to the uncertainty as during the course of hearing a plea against FDI in multi-brand retail, it said that interests of small traders should not be affected. The apex court has said that there is apprehension in the minds of small traders that their business would be affected with the coming of multinational companies in the retail sector which needs to be addressed by putting some regulatory mechanism in place. The court Bench had also stated that big companies can bring down prices through unfair trade practices forcing small traders to shut their shops. Subsequently, these companies will increase the price and monopolise the market.According to senior officials, with general elections fast approaching, the political opposition to the move is expected to become even more vociferous. A senior official said that although the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party had bailed out the government during the voting for the Bill, they have made it clear that they are in principle opposed to the move as it will cost jobs in the country. CONCLUSION: We w ish row over FDI in retail gets over soon and India should embrace new era of retailing. And Govt makes right kind of body to vigil these giants. Indian consumers are waiting to splurge. Indian consumers’ balance sheet is still clean, which provide much of room to consumption related debt.