No nasa space launches now- partisan fighting and controversies prevent all funding Handberg 7-25
Download 398.94 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ***Solvency***
Impact- DiseaseIncreased UV rays destroys human immune systems Grid- Arendal 11(UNEP United Nations Environment Programme“4 Consequences and Effects 1: UV Radiation and Human Health” 2011 http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/ozone/page/1386.aspx The most widely recognised damage occurs to the skin. The direct effects are sun burn, chronic skin damage (photoaging) and an increased risk of developing various types of skin cancer. Models predict that a 10 per cent decrease in the ozone in the stratosphere could cause an additional 300,000 non-melanoma and 4,500 (more dangerous) melanoma skin cancers worldwide annually. At an indirect level UV-B radiation damages certain cells that act as a shield protecting us from intruding carriers of disease. In other words it weakens our immune system. For people whose immune system has already been weakened, in particular by HIV-Aids, the effect is aggravated, with more acute infections and a higher risk of dormant viruses (such as cold sores) eruptDing again. UV radiation penetrates furthest into our bodies through our eyes, which are particularly vulnerable. Conditions such as snow blindness and cataracts, which blur the lens and lead to blindness, may cause long-term damage to our eyesight. Every year some 16 million people in the world suffer from blindness due to a loss of transparency in the lens. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that up to 20 per cent of cataracts may be caused by overexposure to UV radiation and could therefore be avoided. The risk of UV radiation-related damage to the eye and immune system is independent of skin type. Without the immune system humans would be defenseless against disease Dictionary of Biological Psychology 01 (Routledge, Dictionary of Biological Psychology http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/immune-system-tf/ The immune system is an essential component of the body’s defence against attack. The bodies of MAMMALS have a series of mechanisms to deal with attacks upon them: (1) the body is enclosed in SKIN, a protective (and sensate) layer, and is able to generate secretions (mucous and skin secretions) that protect the body against environmental elements; (2) phagocytes (principally white blood cells; more properly known as LEUKOCYTES), antimicrobial proteins and inflammation, all of which act internally and rather non-specifically to protect the body; (3) the immune system, a specific mechanism for dealing with alien cells, based on lymphosites and the production of ANTIBODIES. The first of these, skin, is discussed in an entry of its own: the other two are discussed further below. (Note: this discussion is far from complete: the immune system is a highly complex biological process. Readers who wish to understand more about this than can be presented here are referred to Campbell et al., 1999) Phagocytes (from Greek, phagein: to eat, kytos: a vessel) are cells that engage in a process called phagocytosis: they are cells that eat other cells. Leukocytes are the principal phagocytes of the body and are present in a variety of types: NEUTROPHILS, MONOCYTES and EOSINOPHILS. (Collectively these are known as GRANULOCYTES—mature leukocytes have a granular appearance.) Most leukocytes (some 65%) are neutrophils, cells which have a short life span and which react to chemical messages emitted by cells invading the body. There are far fewer monocytes, some 5% of the total number of leukocytes. Monocytes leave the blood stream and reside in tissue, where they act as MACROPHAGES. Eosinophils make up less that 2% of the number of leukocytes and are the main defence against parasites, attaching themselves to the cell MEMBRANE of the parasite and using ENZYME action to destroy them. This process, known as lysing (see LYSIS), is not strictly phagocytosis, but is nevertheless a form of destruction. A similar process is adopted by NATURAL KILLER CELLS: these are not leukocytes, but form an important defence against virally infected cells. Diseases without an immune system lead to extinction Castro and Bolker 03(3/12/04, Francisco and Benjamen, Post-Doc, Institut fuer Biochemie und Biologie, Professor, Math & stats and Biology, McMaster University “Mechanisms of disease-induced extinction. Ecology Letters” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00693.x/full It is clear that generalist parasites can overcome host density thresholds and drive a focal host species to extinction. The detailed community dynamics of multiple parasites sharing multiple hosts can be quite complex (Holt & Pickering 1985; Bowers & Turner 1997; Gatto & De Leo 1998; Bowers & Hodgkinson 2001; Holt et al. 2003). However, multi-host parasites can clearly lead to apparent competition, where a host species drives a competitor to extinction by being more tolerant or encouraging reproduction of a parasite that harms its competitor (Schmitz & Nudds 1994; Holt et al. 2003). Few theoretical explorations of parasite-mediated competition have appeared, probably because the mechanism is so simple, but analysing the details of particular empirical cases can be complicated (e.g. Schmitz & Nudds 1994). In the same general category as these biotic reservoirs are abiotic reservoirs, where a parasite can also survive and amplify itself in the environment as a saprophyte (Thrall et al. 1997). Rosáet al. (2003) show that the presence of an external reservoir may easily drive the host to extinction if the level of external infection is high. ***Solvency***US Key- SpilloverUS is largest contributor to space junk Hsu 10 (Masters in Scientific Journalism from NYU, Writer for Popular Science, Writer for Scientific American Mind, Writer for Space.com) Jeremy Hsu, Pop Science February 1, 2010 “New Information Visualizes the Space Debris Cloud Surrounding Earth” http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/see-space-debris-cloud-surrounding-earth-rendered-neat-circles Space debris remains one of the biggest challenges for a space-faring humanity in the 21st century, as even the smallest pieces can pose a serious threat to satellites, manned spacecraft and the International Space Station. Now our friends at Fast Company have stumbled on a nifty infographic by Austrian designer Michael Paukner that lays out the space clutter situation more clearly. Each nation's contribution shows up as a series of circles. A white circle designates active satellites, a gray circle indicates dysfunctional satellites and a black circle represents pieces of orbital debris greater than 10 centimeters in diameter. The biggest contributor to space junk is none other than the U.S., followed closely by a two-way tie between Russia and China. Interestingly, China managed to contribute all that debris despite just having half the number of active satellites compared to Russia, or one tenth the number of satellites in the U.S. fleet. US Adoption of Space policy is copied internationally US Congress 90 US Congress, October 1990 “Orbitting Debris A Space Environmental Problem” http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9033.pdf Outer space is by nature and treaty a global commons. Solving orbital debris problems will require the cooperation of countries capa- ble of reaching orbit. The United States and the Soviet Union are the two largest contribu- tors to the orbital debris population. As other nations increase their space activities, their contribution to the debris population will in- crease dramatically, unless they also take pre- ventive measures. The United States has assumed the lead in analyzing the orbital debris distribution and in developing mitigating technologies and methods. The 1989 report of the Interagency Group (Space)29 has assisted in making the hazards posed by orbital debris more widely appreciated and understood. Informal discussions among technical rep- resentatives of most of the launching nations, convened by the United States, have already proven highly beneficial in developing orbital debris control policies and practices. For ex- ample, the Japanese National Aeronautics and Space Development Agency (NASDA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) have both incorporated procedures in their launch se- quences to dispense unused propellant after upper stages are used. Discussions between these agencies and NASA have also resulted in the prospect of sharing information on debris tracking, modeling, and hypervelocity testing. In November 1988, ESA released its report on space debris,30 which reached conclusions similar to those of the later U.S. orbital debris report. Initial discussions with Soviet officials in December 1989 have proven fruitful to repre- sentatives from NASA, who have hitherto had little insight into Soviet efforts to study the problem or to curb its contributions to the or- bital debris population.31 The United States has not yet formally discussed the problems of orbital debris with the People’s Republic of China, which has a growing space program. Finding 8: Existing international treaties and agreements are inadequate for mini- mizing the generation of orbital debris or controlling its effects. An interna- tional treaty or agreement specifically devoted to orbital debris maybe neces- sary. One major objective of the international treaties and agreements on space activities is to ensure that space activities can be con- ducted safely, economically, and efficiently. Yet, existing international treaties and agree- ments do not explicitly refer to orbital debris. As a result, they leave uncertain the legal re- sponsibilities of nations for minimizing the growth of orbital debris. The economic value of maintaining a safe operational environment for all nations pro- vides strong motivation for nations to take in- dependent action. Yet nations that conduct relatively few launches might consider their contribution to orbital debris to be small. However, as the November 1986 breakup of an Ariane third stage demonstrated,32 even one breakup can cause a large amount of de- bris. An international agreement on orbital debris could set the framework for tackling the hazards of orbital debris. To be effective, an international legal regime for debris should address the generation of debris, its re- moval from orbit, and the possible remedies for damage sustained from debris. However, experience with the development of other treaties suggests that negotiating such an agreement could be arduous and time- consuming. The United States, and some other govern- ments, are currently reluctant to enter into negotiations over an international agreement on orbital debris, because the uncertainties about debris distribution and potential miti- gation methods are still high. In addition, when addressed in a broad multilateral con- text in which states having no current capabil- ity to launch objects into space would partici- pate, the subject has a high potential for becoming the subject of acrimonious debate in which the technical issues and solutions could be lost. However, eventually a formal agreement will probably be necessary in order to encourage all space-faring nations to mini- mize the production of orbital debris. It maybe appropriate for the United States to convene a working group limited to space- faring nations that would discuss mitigation strategies and seek to reach agreement on them. The United States is now urging these nations, both informally and formally, to adopt as policy a statement similar to the U.S. policy on orbital debris: “all space sectors33 will seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris. Design and operations of space tests, experiments, and systems will strive to mini- mize or reduce accumulation of space debris consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness.” This follows U.S. policy, adopted in 1989, that “the United States Gov- ernment will encourage other space-faring na- tions to adopt policies and practices aimed at debris minimization.”34 In the long run, enlightened self-interest is likely to draw most nations with an interest in outer space into such negotiations. Many of the partners in such international organiza- tions as Intelsat, Inmarsat, and Intersputnik, or regional entities such as ESA, Arabsat, and Eutelsat, have an economic interest in main- taining the ability to exploit space, even if they lack the ability to launch spacecraft them- selves. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 398.94 Kb. Share with your friends:
|