Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File
New plants don’t create waste – it’s recycled
Download 2.71 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: Obesity
2. New plants don’t create waste – it’s recycledFreeman 07 (Marsha, Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy, Feb. 2, 2007, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html) A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten the public, and its elected representatives. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal. In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted. 3. Impact is inevitable – nuclear waste produced by current reactors and other countries won’t just go away AT: Obesity1. Obesity science is not neutral, rather biased and highly problematic. Julie GUTHMAN Community Studies @ Santa Cruz ‘7 “Fat Ontologies? Toward a Political Ecology of Obesity” Presented to Berkeley Environmental Politics Colloquium //AR In terms of obesity’s etiology, the proximate causes seem to go without saying: that it is “simply”5 a surplus of calories taken in relative to calories expended on the part of individual people. Gard and Wright’s exhaustive review of obesity research shows that this mechanical notion of energy metabolism has not borne out in the research; at best, caloric metabolism appears to explain less than half of individual variation in body size, with much of the residual remaining “black boxed” by it attribution to “genetic factors.” Nor are claims that obesity is a primary cause of disease (not to mention a disease itself) uncontested. Many have pointed to the logical flaws of such a claim, chief among them that obesity may be symptomatic of diseases of concern, such as Type II diabetes (Campos et al., 2006; Gaesser, 2002; Gard and Wright, 2005). For all of these reasons, Gard and Wright argue that obesity research itself has become so entangled with moral discourses and aesthetic values that the “science of obesity” can no longer speak for itself. While others might insist that this sort of reasoning smacks of the tobacco industry’s defense of cigarettes, it pays to consider that food is not tobacco, nor is fatness lung cancer, nor does sitting next to someone eating a McDonald’s hamburger put one at risk for secondary fat. Clearly, the imposition of a particular aesthetic in the name of “our common future” has resonance with environmental narratives.
Clare HERRICK Geography @ University College (London) ‘7 “Risky Bodies: Public health, social marketing, and the governance of obesity” Geoforum 38 (1) //AR To examine these ideas this paper first outlines the theoretical principles of social marketing before addressing some of the conceptual problems associated with the idea of ‘selling health’. It then explores the way obesity has been constructed as a public health ‘problem’ despite ongoing uncertainty and debate concerning its aetiology. Including obesity within the remit of public health is justified by the assumption of an inverse correlation between body weight and health, with prevention measures then acting on the factors that govern the risk of an elevated BMI. However, I suggest that the successful application of social marketing to obesity prevention is limited by recent discrepancies over one of the central statistical foundations of public health – mortality rates – and in the process, eroded the justificatory basis of treating obesity as a ‘disease’ or ‘epidemic’.
Emma RICH School of Sport and Exercise Sciences @ Londonborough AND John EVANS School of Sport and Exercise Sciences @ Londonborough ‘5 “’Fat Ethics’ – The Obesity Discourse and Body Politics” Social Theory & Health 3 //AR A key feature of the obesity discourse is the emphasis on ‘thinness’ and ‘weight loss’ as a universal good. This is because, as Campos (2004) suggests, much of the obesity discourse rests on the assertion that there is a correlation between being overweight and ill-health and that losing weight will cure associated ‘disease’. Campos goes on to suggest, however, that while various studies show a relation between weight and ill-health, that relationship is far more complicated than is suggested. A recent edition of the journal of the American Medical Association (Mark, 2005), for example, reported that ‘for many reasons it is much more difficult to estimate the burden of disease due to obesity’ than was previously thought and reported, and that ‘although weight is an easily measured characteristic, at a conceptual level attributing deaths to obesity requires many assumptions that are often not fully spelled out in most media’ (Mark, 2005). Indeed, weight and size may not be the problem at all when we consider now that many people who may be considered ‘overweight’ but are moderately active are actually healthier than their peers who are sedentary but thin. Losing weight may not provide the types of health benefits we are led to believe when we consider that ‘the data linking overweight and death, as well as the data showing the beneficial effects of weight loss, are limited, fragmentary and often ambiguous’ (Kassirer and Angell, 1998, cited in Aphramor, 2005). One of the key problems here then is the way in which obesity as a ‘weight’ issue leads to a discourse which encourages all of us to achieve an ‘ideal weight’. Consider, for example, the ways in which BMI charts and concepts such as ‘ideal weight’ are often used in mapping the prevalence and incidence of obesity. BMI is an individual’s weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared, and defines 30 kg/m2 or higher as above stated ideals (World Health Organization, 1998). It focuses only on weight, rather than measuring fat, and may tell us very little about someone’s actual health. For example, BMI overestimates fatness in people who are muscular or athletic and may be ‘healthy’, and it is not considered a good index for children and adolescents. Despite this, BMI has become the standard for determining population levels of obesity. These charts, however, are now typically presented to the public as a way for them to assess their health in relation to their weight (this is in spite of the contradictory scientific evidence around whether weight can even act as a determinant of someone’s health). These are now littered in the public texts, available for all to assess their health and weight. The prevalence of BMI and ideal weight is clear to see. The health industry (health education experts, government agencies and academics) has wholeheartedly embraced the questionable concept of ideal weight – ‘the idea that weight associated with optimum health and longevity could be determined by height’ (Seid, 1994, p. 7).Yet, scientists are unclear as to the precise point at which weight threatens health. Brownell (1995, p. 386), for example, notes that the precise point at which scientists and health officials believe increasing weight threatens health ranges from 5 to 30% above ideal weight, a considerable spread’. Directory: files -> documents documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library documents -> In the Red and Brown Water documents -> - documents -> I. Disaster Summary Sheet II. Tropical Cyclones documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015 documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems documents -> Cartographic Concepts for Realizing a Location Based umts service documents -> 1/ Background Statistics Human development index rank Download 2.71 Mb. Share with your friends:
|