Analysis Of Navada, A Controversy In The Wind

The area of greatest concern and threat is Illinois Beach State Park which boarders the contamination site to the North. This is a concern as asbestos can cause cancer if the fibers are inhaled. Asbestos is less dangerous in water supplies although the site run-off at one point was 3 times the EPA’s limit. The EPA continues to monitor and improve the site. After the main site contamination were remediated, secondary excavation and capping projects have taken place over the years to continue to clean the site for future re-development as shown in the image below.

Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking

This case study highlights that the Nevada Four were spiritually and had long term personal connections to do something good for the Wetlands. Upon being neglecting, these four bureaucrats took action and got involved with going behind their superior back to see fit to their beliefs and passion for the Wetlands. The Wetlands future was in the hands of the Department of Interior, in which the Nevada four felt wasn’t making any progression and decided to take action and attack from the outside. These four guerilla were natural scientists, who became experts in public relations. The Nevada four seen an opportunity to publicize their concern and get their agenda on the table when 7.5 million tui chub fish were found DEAD. Their mentioned that the cause of death was unknown and there could be a possibility that the Bureau of Reclamation could have something to do with this crisis. The “decisive trigger” was the angle the Nevada Four was looking to take, they understood that things had to get bad or at least seem bad, before anyone would do anything. They were denied once again for funding, so they took action and contacted owner of the inactive water to donate their water rights. This change the game, and was considered thinking outside the box, which their felt the Department of Interior would have never approved. The Nevada Four looked to give credit for success to other, because they were dedicated to a goal, and not to personal aggrandizement.

The article on “NAACP Report Reveals Disparate Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plants” talks about how coal pollution from the coal-fired power plants will negatively impact the environment surrounding it, including the population in the surroundings, and the harm it will bring upon them. It suggests that Americans that reside near a coal power plant has a lower average income than most of the Americans in the nation. Furthermore, it also pointed out that 39% of Americans that live near a coal power plant are “people of color”. This article claim that coal pollution from the coal power plant is killing population that has a low income and people of certain races. According to the article, climate change is also a negative impact brought on by coal

Gina McCarthy — who works for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — builds an argument on the importance of science at the EPA in an article entitled "Why Science Matters".

As discussed previously, this exposure has resulted in overall health issues for the people of Libby especially, and also people throughout America. The asbestos exposure has impaired all aspects of health for these people. Physically it has destroyed the integrity of their lungs, which results in many restrictions in life such as impaired physical mobility due to lack of easily being able to oxygenate the entire body. Mentally it has destroyed a lot of their happiness in life. Spiritually it may have strengthen their relationship with their higher power, or it may have broken a bond the people had with their higher power, because they may have felt their was no higher power or they would not have had this happen to them. Socially they have been impacted, because they have lost many close friends from within the community, which has hindered their overall social health. All of these factors have reduced the life span of the people of Libby. Combined all of these factors create problems with overall health, ultimately decrease the life span of these people. The physical factors harm the body, making for a shorter life among these people. The mental, social, and spiritual stress that has been placed on these people can damage their body as well. Stress can be harmful to body in many ways. Not only does the physical consequences of asbestos affect the lungs, but the stress

Ultimately, Wagemans findings prove that while scientific argumentation as a whole is inaccessible to the public, use of topical argumentations can direct the media focus and public attitudes towards environmental issues. Through applying the same analysis that Wagemans applied in this article, the utilization of topical argumentations becomes evident in the debate over the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline. Because Wagemans expounds that these topical argumentations are imperative to the public’s conception of scientific research, analyzing the monikers employed by groups conveying scientific research such as the Minnesota state government and Enbridge becomes a gauge for how each side is mediating the public’s attitudes towards the pipeline. Wagemans

In the video documentary on Libby, Montana, there was a lot of family oriented relationships seen throughout the film. This close knit community was based around the family. We learn a lot about its effects on everyone in the town and associated with the people of the town. It has a major effect on the families in Libby. The video is from November of 2002, and almost every man in Libby worked as either a logger or on the asbestos site. They manufactured the asbestos for usage for insulation, roofing, and soil. The asbestos was found everywhere. The men who worked on these sites didn’t know the effects of the asbestos on not only them, but also

Toms River—the arrogance of companies in Ocean County, New Jersey affected the environment and human health from dumping waste, discharging acid-laced wastewater, and polluting the air and water exposed toxic chemicals that made children become at higher risk for cancer. Government negligence left these chemical companies avoid prosecution and dumping waste improperly became a common practice. The main idea from this book is the environment does impact your health significantly. Therefore, it is best when regulations are being managed and controlled. Also, studies should be approached in different ways to prove an evidence and remain open to new possibilities and exposures. The main problem in Toms River were regulations were not being enforced

Back in the day, humans would only live to be about 50 years old and usually even younger than that. Now, it is usually somewhere between 7-80 years old. In Libby, however, they are slowly moving down the scale, with people of all ages dying from asbestos problems that still have not been fixed. People are dying at very young ages, some even very young like under the age of eighteen. Just about everyone in Libby has lost at least one member of their family due to this issue, and hundreds are buried every year from only asbestos related deaths. This is a huge problem. On a large scale, it may not seem so bad because it is only in one town for the most part. However, in a hundred years? It can be nationwide if not fixed and the human life in America will be in true danger. As of now, the problem can be solved very easily, but if the government keeps waiting to take any action on it, the problem will spread and spread until it is so large that nothing can be done and the whole entire nation is in danger of dying at a young

Judging from UCAR/NCAR website, Laura Snider, the author of this article, is an experienced writer. She got her “bachelor’s degree in environmental science from Virginia Tech and a master’s in journalism from CU-Boulder” (Snider, n.d). She spent a couple of years working for CU-Boulder as a science writer before she began working for NCAR. Also, she worked for the few school as an outdoor and environmental educator. Now she is not only working for NCAR but also writing articles for AtomsNews as well as some other press releases and publications. Moreover, NCAR itself is authoritative because it is federally funded. In words, it proves that its writers are trustworthy at some level. Thus, it’s fair to say that Snider is a qualified author.

In the article “Fracking pollutes the Air with Hazardous Chemicals, authors Jim Polson and Jim Efstathiou provide some insight and staggering evidence of the danger of chemical pollutants due to such drilling. “Researchers, have found potentially toxic chemicals – including cancer-causing benzene- in air near fracking sites.” The authors go on to assert that researchers, “estimate a higher risk of health problems for individuals who live near those wells” (Polson). What Polson and Efsathiou are reporting further supports the need for stricter regulations that limit how close the sites can be to the public as well raising additional concerns about the types of chemicals are being used in this process, and how dangerous they can be for the public. This, of course, has to be very disconcerting information for many, how such a process can yield such dangerous chemicals. Though it isn’t as astonishing to people that have been exposed to it. Many of which have compiled their painfully personal stories and struggles in the book “Shalefield Stories.” Stories like that of Judy Armstrong Stiles who lost her husband Carl to suicide which Judy attributes to the effects of intestinal cancer. Carl developed the cancer while living in a home surrounded by fracking sites. The various independent reports the family ordered to test their environment reflect the family’s suspicions, including various alarming levels of lead, methane and arsenic (Shalefield Stories: Personal Collected Testimonies).The tragic story of the Armstrong family only provides a personal look into the dangerous of fracking, for even, after all, the incriminating evidence the natural gas companies were not held to any fault. According to current regulations, these companies are not required to disclose the chemical they use in their work (Neuhauser). This whole issue gives the cause infinite more reason to protect real lives. What this

Mosaic, the world’s largest producer of phosphate fertilizer, is facing controversy as a giant sinkhole at one of their plants leaks polluted water into Florida’s primary drinking water aquifer. Mosaic became aware of the problem in August, but the public wasn’t notified until September 15. Their situation has become an issue in need of SIM and has been listed in standard indexes such as npr, and Bloomberg markets. The issue is a quantifiable threat to Mosaic’s operations and opposition to the company and it’s handling of the situation is being championed by environmental interest groups like the Sierra club who have gained growing social and political influence. Coverage of the story by the public and media has been largely negative in regards to Mosaic. The Orlando Sentinel’s headline, for instance, read, “Giant, radioactive

In the aughts, as a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he worked to kill a cap-and-trade bill proposed by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman; in 2012, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute held a meeting about the economics of a possible carbon tax, he asked donors to defund it. It’s possible, of course, to oppose cap-and-trade or carbon taxes in good faith—and yet, in recent years, Ebell’s work has come to center on lies about science and scientists. Today, as the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group, Ebell denies the veracity and methodology of science itself. He dismisses complex computer models that have been developed by hundreds of researchers by saying that they “don’t even pass the laugh test.” If Ebell’s methods seem similar to those used by the tobacco industry to deny the adverse health effects of smoking in the nineteen-nineties, that’s because he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco

There’s an issue where the underlying science remains a political football, and scientists are regularly challenged and called out personally. Where energy needs and short-term economic growth are set against our children’s health and future. Where the consequences of bad, short-sighted decisions may be borne primarily by a small subset of under-served and undeserving persons. And where the very descriptive terms in the debate are radioactive, words spun as epithets.