Blog Entry #13: Importance of various technologies, including Canadian contributions, to our understanding of internal body systems (digestive, circulatory or respiratory)

Breast Screening Tool Finds Many Missed Cancers - Science News It causes less discomfort than a mammogram and costs less than an MRI.By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Thursday, July 1st, 2010
A relatively new imaging option outperforms all comers in scouting for hidden breast tumors. Indeed, argues radiologist Rachel Brem, her team’s new data indicate that that “almost 10 percent of women with breast cancer have another [tumor] that we wouldn’t know about without this technology.”

For all of its advantages, mammography misses some tumors and points out what appear to be cancers — but aren’t. That’s why physicians follow up suspicious mammograms using some adjunct technology. Usually magnetic resonance imaging, aka MRI scans. However, in recent years, a new technology — breast-specific gamma imaging, or BSGI — has been spreading in hospitals across the United States.

Doctors inject patients with a drug (methoxyisobutylisonitrile) that’s been tagged with the radioactive tracer technetium-99m, also known as Tc-99m. It's the same combo used in cardiac stress tests and scans for parathyroid tumors. Known as Tc-99m sestamibi, this combo concentrates in breast tumors and emits gamma radiation that shows up on the equivalent of an x-ray.

It takes about 40 minutes for the BSGI scan, but women can sit in a chair and read or watch TV while it’s underway. And unlike mammograms, which can pinch breasts painfully, no one complains about discomfort from the nuclear-imaging procedure, Brem says.

BSGI has advantages over MRIs, not the least being cost and convenience for both hospitals and patients, Brem notes. It also can be used in many patients who can’t get an MRI, such as because they have heart pacemakers or other implants, are severely claustrophobic or are too big to fit inside the MRI magnet.

At George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Brem's team has been investigating whether BSGI is also as good as MRIs in giving physicians an expert second opinion on whether their patient has a tumor. In the June Academic Radiology, she and her colleagues now report that BSGI catches as many tumors as MRI — and offers fewer false positive readings (identification of apparent cancers that aren’t).

BSGI identified tumors among all 159 women who, owing to mammograms or breast self-exams, had a suspected cancer. In addition to the lumps that initially triggered this “second look,” BSGI also identified 56 additional apparent cancers. Although most of these proved benign, BSGI did pick up 23 true cancers that had been “occult” — not visible on mammography or self exams, often owing to their extremely small size.

Some bloggers have suggested BSGI could and should replace mammograms. Brem disagrees. The nuclear-imaging procedure costs more than mammograms, requires that patients be injected with a radioactive material and takes considerably longer to perform. That’s why she advocates its use only to confirm suspected tumors or scout for recurrent malignancy in women who had an earlier breast cancer.

More than most malignancies, breast cancer can be especially disfiguring — and in ways that a shirt may not hide. That’s why many women opt for taking out the cancerous lumps and leaving the rest of the breast intact. But this option is sound only when there’s a single tumor and it’s self-contained. Eagle-eye BSGI appears best suited to identifying which patients make good candidates for breast-conserving surgery, Brem says.

Currently, she notes, there are about 100 BSGI cameras in the United States and about four times that many elsewhere. Of course, there is the issue of the Tc-99m nuclear-contrast agent. For the past two years, it’s been in short supply owing to an international shortage in production of its parent isotope, the most widely used radioactive isotope used in diagnostic medicine.

Summary, Credibility, Bias

The article is about a new technology called breast-specific gamma imaging, or BSGI. Earlier before, the technology used by physicians to diagnose patients who might have breast cancer was mammography, which is a low dose x-ray, to examine the breasts. Unfortunately, mammography misses some tumors and makes errors during screening.  Mammography’s defects then led to the creation of the BSGI. The BSGI is a new imaging option that looks for hidden or really small breast tumors. The BSGI procedure  takes about 40 minutes but women can sit and relax while the procedure goes underway. Physicians also say that unlike mammography, BSGI is not as painful as mammography, which involves pinching the breasts. The BSGI also has some advantages over MRI: patients who have pacemakers or other implants may not use MRI scans but they are able to use BSGI scans. Also, according to Academic Radiology, there has been a report that BSGI catches many tumors than the MRI scan and it offers fewer false positive readings. 

I’d say that this article is credible considering Janet Raloff, the author of the article, is currently the Senior Editor of both Science News and Science News Magazine. She has a bachelors degree in journalism from Northwestern University. Janet Raloff also has a strong background in science and journalism, and her writings have won numerous awards such as the National Association of Science Writers. Janet Raloff shows little to no bias towards the article. The author talks about both the BSGI’s advantages, such as the BSGI being better than MRI and painless than mammography, and its disadvantages, such as the high cost of the machine and the length of the procedure.

Sources

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60748/title/Breast_screening_tool_finds_many_missed_cancers

Blog Entry #12: Bio-solids

Blog Entry #12: Biosolids 
In other parts of the world, biosolids (human waste) from sewage treatment plants are treated and used as sustainable agricultural fertilizer. 


What are biosolids?
Biosolids, also known as sludge, are highly treated solid waste separated from waste water. The solid in the waste water gets treated at the plants where they get thickened, and pumped into large digestors. Here, they are heated to at least 95°F, and slowly broken down by anaerobic bacteria for about 15 days. Finally, they become biosolids and are reused in a variety of ways.

Are Biosolids safe?

If the biosolids were approved by the government, have gone through laboratory analysis, and have met certain standards, no doubt that they would be safe. The highly treated biosolids have low metal concentrations and only a small amount of bacteria. And to make sure they're safe, biosolids must meet special standards for use and disposal.These standards contain limitations for metals, monitoring rules, regulations for reduction of harmful bacteria and site selection for land application as well as crop harvesting. As a result, the biosolids are non-hazardous, and non-toxic. 

On the up side of Biosolids...

Biosolids are beneficial in many ways. They're rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, as well as copper, iron, and zinc, which are micro-nutrients. These micro-nutrients compliment the biosolids, making it a good fertilizer and allows plants to grow in an enhanced soil structure. With that being said, not only do biosolids help the crops and the soil, it also helps the farmers. Farmers can use biosolids that naturally come with all those things rather than spending their money to purchase micro-nutrients and other resources needed to grow their plants. Biosolids are good for growing crops such as corn, soy beans, and canola. Biosolids also improves pasture, and gradually decreases the need for commercial fertilizers that can have harmful chemicals.  In addition, using biosolids on agricultural lands enables the municipalities to recycle a treatment process by-product in a cost effective manner. Finally, the people practically gets to collect the benefits. 

And the down side...

Aside from the many benefits of biosolids as fertilizers, there are still concerns closing in on the process: the odor of the biosolids, and concern about contaminants in biosolids. In many samples of biosolids, organic pollutants, pesticides, and heavy metals were found. Also, even though metals, such as copper and zinc, are a necessity for plant growth, a heap of metals can cause problems with both animal health and plant growth. Since biosolids contain nitrogen and phosphorous, these micro-nutrients, in excess, can move into ground or surface water and cause problems for animals. Lastly, there are also issues about the amount of pathogens in biosolids. A pathogen is a bacterium, or a virus, that can cause disease.

Finale

In my opinion, I think biosolids is a realistic alternative to current agricultural practices. It seems to me that the benefits of biosolids surpasses its disadvantages. There are some issues, concerns, and risks surrounding biosolids. But really, what doesn't come with all of those? When used as fertilizers, the land and the crops planted in the land are not the only ones benefiting from biosolids; it is also beneficial to the society. How? Well, if you think about it, it's like a simple chain: biosolids would keep the farmers in business and make a living, sell whatever product they've grown to markets, and the markets then sells it to consumers. Even though there many issues about biosolids, I think it's a safe alternative. Besides, biosolids, as aforementioned, go through a bunch of tests, and approvals from the government. I don't think the government would send these biosolids out to be used on land if it contained contaminants and pathogens. So to sum it all up, despite having it seem so unsanitary and irksome, I think biosolids should be used as fertilizers. People need to get past the first thing that comes to mind and realize the benefits.

Sources:

 "CAES Publications | UGA." The College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at the University
of Georgia. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/>

"Sewage Biosolids: A valuable Nutrient Source." Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

/ Ministère De L'Agriculture, De L'Amentation Et Des Affaires Rurales. Web. Apr. 2012.

<http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm/sewbiobroch.htm>.

"CWWA - FAQ - Biosolids." CWWA/ACEPU. Web. Apr. 2012.

<http://www.cwwa.ca/faqbiosolids_e.asp>.

"Supplemental Content." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of

Medicine. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18023841>.

"Biosolids.com | About Biosolids: Biosolids Benefits." _. Web. Apr. 2012.

<http://www.biosolids.com/benefits.html>.

Properly Treated, Human Biosolids Are Good Fertilizer

Posted on October 27, 2000 by Alex Avery

CHURCHVILLE, Va. — Chinese peasants and today’s organic farmers have long shared an important idea: We can’t afford to waste our wastes.

Today, that includes “biosolids”–residue from sewage treatment plants. Some of my neighbors are nervous about living near fields where biosolids are being applied.

Oddly enough, they seem totally secure about the idea of living next to an organic farm. Yet the use of biosolids is far safer for neighbors, workers and consumers than is organic farming.

For centuries, China has had “sustainable” agriculture, using human wastes to fertilize its rice paddies. The Chinese had no other source of nitrogen for their crops, and no better way to deal with huge amounts of human waste.

Modern sewage treatment produces millions of tons a year of what we call biosolids. Industrial plants, such as milk and other food-processing plants, produce additional millions of tons.

We can process these biological residues into safe forms, and use them as valuable soil conditioners on farmland and forests. Or we can waste them, using up lots of valuable landfill space. Incineration is even more expensive than putting waste in landfills and adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Biosolids contain essential such plant nutrients as nitrogen and phosphorous. They also contain organic matter, the single most important component of the world’s most important substance, topsoil. Virtually all the life on this planet ultimately depends on topsoil converting sunlight into plants and trees.

Our livestock and poultry farms also produce hundreds of millions of tons of manure a year. Properly handled, animal manure is just as valuable as biosolids.

Mainstream farmers use it mainly on feed crops. They use chemical fertilizer on food crops because it doesn’t carry the risk of pathogenic bacteria.

Organic farmers refuse to use chemical fertilizers, so they feel they must put manure on food crops. It’s the bacteria that make organic farming more dangerous for its workers and neighbors.

Modern societies can also afford to make their wastes much safer to land-apply than China’s night soil. Organic farmers usually compost their manure by stacking it in piles for some months and letting the natural heat of fermentation kill bacteria.

Biosolids are treated still more intensively. They’re typically put into a sealed digester and composted at much higher temperatures than most organic farmers achieve. They’re also checked before land application to make sure the pathogens are killed, which is not true for organic farms.

Recently, health authorities retested some biosolids that had allegedly caused flu-like symptoms among workers spreading them. The biosolids were found to be as safe as the garden dirt in my backyard, with none of the pathogenic bacteria that attack humans (salmonella, shigella, E. coli, etc.).

This indicates there was no residual biological activity from the sewage sludge. In fact, the high concentrations of environmental fungi and bacteria in the biosolids re-emphasized how good the biosolids are for soil microorganisms.

While no food crops can be harvested from land that has received biosolids for 12 to 38 months (limits enforced by individual states), organic farmers have only a voluntary commitment to wait three months before harvesting food from fields where they have spread raw manure.

This disparity, three months instead of 12 to 38 months, exists even though most organic farmers use cattle manure, which is the major reservoir of the most virulent new bacterial threat in our food, E. coli O157:H7.

Researchers at the Department of Agriculture say they have found O157 on every cattle farm and ranch they’ve tested, even extensive cattle ranches in western Canada. Infections from this bacterium are primarily associated with undercooked hamburger, but this strain has also been found on vegetables and fruits. It can kill even healthy people and often leaves its survivors with damage to internal organs such as the liver and the kidneys.

The Centers for Disease Control say America is getting at least 25,000 of these cases a year, and about 250 deaths. There are no known deaths from pesticide residues or biosolids.

Isn’t it time we made organic food production as safe as our use of biosolids?

Source: 
"Properly Treated, Human Biosolids Are Good Fertilizer." Center for Global Food Issues. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.cgfi.org/2000/10/properly-treated-human-biosolids-are-good-fertilizer/>.

Stuff About the Article:
Knowing that the author of the article is an expert on agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, and is also the director of research and education with the Center for Global Food Issues at Hudson Institute, I'd say that this article is indeed accurate. Alex Avery was a McKnight research fellow at Purdue University, where he worked to develop drought-resistant sorghum varieties for the Sudan of Africa. Also, Avery wrote about agricultural, food safety, and regulatory issues for major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times, New York Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Des Moines Register. The article is basically an article that informs the readers regarding biosolids. It is biased in a way that the author mostly just talked about China's situation. 

Blog Entry #11: In-Vitro Fertilization

"Designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes?


Genetic research have gone quite far. To designer babies and manipulation of DNA from the discovery of cloning, humanity is really going all out. I, myself, do not think that research into genetic process is getting out of hand at all. I think that as long as there are new things to learn, go ahead and discover it.


An example of genetic advancements would be IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). "In Vitro" means outside of the body. In Vitro Fertilization is a procedure that enables couples who cannot conceive normally to have a child. During the process of IVF, this is what happens....

Pros of In Vitro Fertilization

• It is a possible solution for those couples who are unable to have children naturally.
• You can have more than one egg gathered if you want to have more than one child.
• If you are interested in having twins or triplets, you have a good chance of having them.

Cons of In Vitro Fertilization

• The procedure is quite pricey.
• It does not always work. 
• Babies born through this method are twice as likely to be born with defects.
• It is considered as playing God.

Ovarian cancers caused by IVF infertility treatments

Thursday, October 27, 2011 by S.L. Baker

In vitro (which means "outside the body") fertilization, better known as IVF, is the joining of a woman's egg and a man's sperm in a laboratory dish. The fertilized egg is placed in the lining of the woman's womb, and if the fetus continues to grow, a baby is born in about 9 months. Although a huge money making part of the infertility industry, IVF has many downsides including the fact it is enormously expensive. A single IVF cycle treatment can cost over $12, 000 and it can take many IVF treatments to achieve a pregnancy.

What's more, the success rate after spending all this money is only about 13 to 42 percent, depending on the age of the would-be mother, with older moms having less chance of a successful pregnancy. On top of these drawbacks, the drugs given for ovarian stimulation have a host of side effects, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including bloating, abdominal pain, mood swings and headaches.

Now there's evidence of an even more potentially horrendous side effect to this baby making technology--ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Netherlands have discovered that women whose ovaries are stimulated into producing extra eggs for IVF double their risk of having ovarian malignancies later in life, compared to women who never undergo IVF The study was just published in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction.

The specific type of ovarian growths found that are most likely spurred by IVF are known as borderline ovarian tumors. While far less deadly than invasive ovarian malignancies, they are nothing that can be ignored. The researchers found that of the 25, 152 women with fertility problems included in their study, 77 developed ovarian cancers. Surprisingly, of the 61 women who had ovarian malignancies in the group that had been treated with IVF, 31 had borderline ovarian cancer and 30 had invasive ovarian cancer. 

Unusually high number of ovarian tumors in later years
In a statement to the media, lead researcher, Professor Flora van Leeuwen, who heads the Department of Epidemiology in The Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, noted this proportion of ovarian borderline tumors was unusually high. She wamed that although borderline ovarian tumors have a low potential to be fatal, they "would require extensive surgery and cause substantial morbidity."

Even after the research team adjusted for factors that could confound the results such as the age of the women, if they had already given birth and the cause of their fertility problems, the long-term risks for ovarian malignancies and borderline ovarian tumors were significantly higher in the IVF treatment group compared with the group of women not treated with IVF. For all ovarian malignancies and for borderline ovarian cancer, there was a two and four-fold higher risk, respectively, in the IVF treatment group. In addition, although not seen as "statistically significant" the bottom line is that invasive ovarian cancer was also increased somewhat in the IVF treatment group.

"Our date show that ovarian stimulation for IVF is associated with an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors and this risk remains elevated up to more than 15 year after the first cycle of treatment," Professor van Leeuwen in the media statement.

The scientists are currently expanding their study population to include an additional 8, 800 women who started their IVF ovarian stimulation treatment between 1995 and 2000, with an emphasis on those who have had three or more treatment cycles. They are also adding a 4, 200 women with fertility problems (dubbed "subfertile") who were not treated with IVF in the years 1980 to 2000.

"If we find out that women who receive several IVF cycles or large doses of ovarian stimulation drugs are at a greater risk of ovarian cancer, then these women would need to be informed about these risks when continuing IVF treatment and possibly advised to discontinue treatment after three to six cycles (depending on which number of cycles would be associated with the high risk of ovarian malignancies)," Professor van Leeuwen concluded

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007279.htm

http://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE/English/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2011-Press-Releases/Ovarian-stimulation/page.aspx/1507

So...
S.L. Baker may just be a writer but I think his or her article is accurate enough to be believed. S.L. Baker's sources were from other articles related to his or her topic. The sources of S.L. Baker's article was researched by medical registries, was provided with a follow-up cancer data by the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and was published by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The article talks mainly about the down sides of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization): "bloating, abdominal pain, mood swings and headaches" and "an even more potentially horrendous side effect to this baby making technology -- ovarian cancer." The author's bias is against IVF procedures. S.L. Baker's article is an attempt to discourage and dissuade people who plan on going through this type of procedure. Yes, in vitro fertilization gives hope to those couples who cannot have children, yes, you can customize your child/children and make them as elite as possible, but for higher costs: for $12,000 and you being at risk of ovarian cancer.

Blog Entry #10 (I think...): Biodiversity

"They believe the greatest lie ever told: that humans are not part of the web of life. That they can survive apart from it. But they cannot." ~ Lee (the panda)


Well first of all, how did the Science Department ever find this? http://www.countdown2010.net/daversity
Second, yeah so the title is a quote from the video. If you've never seen it before or you're not even bothering to click on the link, it's actually a pretty funny presentation with talking animals with french accents teaching each other about the importance of The Web of Life. 

OKAY. SO. Like what these talking animals said in the video, when humans take away natural habitats, it causes animals or plant species to become endangered or extinct because our actions alter The Web of Life. We could simply affect, for example, sharks, just by capturing and maybe, possibly...by killing them. Well SOME people in Asia don't kill them right away; they cut off their fins and leave them to die.


http://www.cleanfish.com/blog/saving-sharks-preserving-culture

Shark Finning Endangers Marine Ecosystems

Sharks Face Extinction due to Criminal Fin Trade

• Apr 24, 2009
Jennifer Copley



Shark - Rosevita, Morguefile

Desperately endangered, sharks may become extinct in the near future if current fishing practices persist, and their loss would be devastating to marine ecosystems.
Despite their reputation as man eaters, the reality is that approximately 10 people worldwide die from shark attacks on average each year according to Barry Tobin of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. In fact, more people die in vending-machine-related mishaps than are killed by sharks.



Shark Products

Shark finning is a multi-billion dollar industry, with a single pound of dried fin retailing for more than $300. The fins are used to make shark fin soup and traditional medicines. In some cases sharks are also killed to make shark’s tooth jewellery, belts, wallets, and cosmetic products. In addition, shark cartilage has been sold as an ineffective cure for cancer. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shark products provide any medicinal benefits to humans.
Shark fin soup can cost up to $400 per bowl. The shark fin doesn’t even add any flavour to the soup; it is actually flavoured with other types of meat. Although shark fin soup is sold widely in Asia where it is considered a prestige product, the name translates to “fish wing soup” and so many consumers don’t know that it contains shark, or that the industry supports cruel and ecologically dangerous practices.

Shark Finning

Each year 100-200 million sharks of all species and ages are killed for their fins. After their fins have been sliced off, live sharks are tossed back into the ocean where, unable to swim, they sink to the bottom. A finned shark can take days to die and will either bleed to death or be eaten alive by other animals.
Sharks are not the only victims of the finning industry. Some shark finners cut up dolphins to use as shark bait, and dolphins, whales, albatrosses, and turtles are caught in the longline nets used for shark fishing.
Because of finning, experts have estimated that the majority of shark species, which have been around for more than 400 million years, will become extinct within a decade. Removal of a top predator could destabilize marine ecosystems, as well as removing a needed food staple for those in developing countries.

The Effects of Removing Sharks With finning, nearly all of the shark is thrown back into the ocean, while people who rely on shark meat for sustenance are deprived of needed protein. In addition, the finning industry is controlled by criminal interests and threatens sustainable, traditional fishing operations.
Sharks are vitally important to marine ecosystems because they remove diseased animals and maintain the ocean’s balance of predators and prey. Marine ecosystems are critical to human life, and it is not yet known what the full impact of the loss of sharks might be for humans, but there are some early indications of impending widespread disaster.
Some shark species have had their populations reduced by up to 95%, and in certain places this imbalance is already threatening sustainable industry. For example, the loss of sharks has led to an explosion in the octopus population, and because octopuses prey on lobsters, Tasmania’s lobster fishery has collapsed. Other such trickle-down effects are being felt in a variety of locations, endangering the livelihoods of those in many sustainable fishing communities.




References:
• AdoptaShark.com. (2009). “FAQ.” Iemanya Oceanica.
• BBCNews.co.uk. (22 May 2008). “Sharks Swim Closer to Extinction.”
• Benchley, Peter. (1995). “Misunderstood Monsters.” Smithsonian Institute, SharkFriends.com.
• Burgess, George H., International Shark Attack File, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. (n.d.). “Reducing the Risk of a Shark Encounter: Advice to Aquatic Recreationists” and “How, When, & Where Sharks Attack.” FLMNH.UFL.edu.
• Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Shark Attack File. (1991). “Shark Attacks in Perspective.” [Reprinted, with emendations, from: Burgess, G.H. 1991. Shark attack and the International Shark Attack File, pp. 101-105. In: Gruber, S.H. (ed.). 1990. Discovering Sharks, American Littoral Society, Highlands, New Jersey]. FLMNH.UFL.edu.
• IRIN, Humanitarian News and Analysis, a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (4 December 2008). “Madagascar: Too Few Sharks is a Bad Thing.” IRINNews.org.
• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. (2009). “Defending Sharks.” SeaShepherd.org.
• Sharkwater.com. (2009). “Shark Education.”
• Tobin, Barry, Australian Institute of Marine Science (2008). “Dangerous Marine Mammals of Northern Australia: Sharks.” AIMS.gov.au.

Source: http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/shark-finning-endangers-marine-ecosystems-a112178 

In my opinion, I think that this article is pretty accurate considering Jennifer Copley, the writer, is  part of the Infodemons Information Consultancy, a Vancouver-based information consultancy that specializes in providing the highest quality research, writing, and editing services to Fortune 500 companies, IT industry leaders, local corporate clients, national and international magazines, Web publishers, and many individual Webmasters, authors, and students.

•  Alright. So the writer, Jennifer Copley, a freelance writer, researcher, and editor with 20 years of experience, did show a lot of bias within the article. She mainly just talked about the negative impacts of shark finning. The article evokes an emotion of being against shark finning from beginning to end. This article was written by the writer to provide awareness to the readers that sharks will be extinct in the near future if current fishing practices persist. The writer was also trying to say that fin trades are really not necessary. Sharks, despite being known as "man eaters," only an average of 10 people die from shark attacks annually. The fact that the writer requests the immediate attention of the public demonstrates her concerns for the issue.
  
  

Mmm....SHARKS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaZjmT8mHbU&feature=related

In China, shark fin soup, or Emperor's soup, is a special delicacy thought to be a source of good health... How terribly wrong they are. Eating shark fin soup can actually cause health problems. If people would just watch the Discovery Channel once in a while, or read or something, maybe they'd know that some fish have poisonous mercury in them. They swim in polluted bodies of water and the mercury is absorbed in their bodies. As fish eat other fish, the mercury accumulates and concentrates further up the food chain. So since sharks are at the top of the food chain, no doubt they have more mercury in their bodies than any other fish. They also keep the populations of other fish healthy and in proper proportion for their ecosystem. Populations of sharks are already down by 95% or more in just the last 20 years in large parts of the oceans. What's making this problem worse is that sharks reproduce very slowly. They take years to reach sexual maturity and reproduce just a few young. The population of any species should increase and decrease over years as nature would balance itself every time. But since our bad actions interferes with all this balancing thing, it is becoming more and more difficult for nature to do this on its own. 

Sources:
http://sharkangels.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=165
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/shark-finning-endangers-marine-ecosystems-a112178
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-10/world/pip.shark.finning_1_shark-fin-shark-populations-top-predator?_s=PM:WORLD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_fin_soup

http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/

"We Are Who We Are"

Now, if it isn't so obvious enough, humans are, well... Selfish. We only centre our attention to what nature can do for us and we don't ever bother thinking how we can reciprocate the situation for the sake of the environment and all other living things in the world. We don't THINK before we DO so the rest have to suffer from the consequences. I know everyone at this point would be thinking about trying to prevent these consequences from happening: recycling so we don't create more landfills, preserving endangered animals so they don't become extinct... But hey, guess what? It's already begun and I think the best thing we can do is try and not make it worse. 

Blog Entry #9: Digital Actors

1. Is this acting or is this animation?


I think that it is both acting and animation. First, it's acting. The director worked with the actors and told them what to do for the movie. After, whatever the actors and director have done, they left the animators "to use the actors' performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end."

2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?


I think that animated characters should be eligible for acting awards. Because the actors still are acting; only the slight difference is, they're animated. The way they acted out their parts, the emotions in their voices, and their facial expressions are supposed to be the things they should look for when giving out the acting awards and not the fact that it's animated.

3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?


I think the human actors will become obsolete. Because nowadays, they make animated movies and whatnots. But if human actors become obsolete, people won't feel as connected to whatever they're watching. Also because it's animated, the stories will always be fiction. Another thing that they can do if actors do become obsolete is use CGI on them. Like what they've done in the movie Tron.

Blog Entry #8: Mashups and Copyright law

Video #3: Jay-Z Mashup

1. What is this mashup trying to communicate? Is it technical experiment, social or political commentary, a comedic parody, or an abstract work of media art?


I think that this video's trying to say that two different genres of music can come together and still sound good. Though to me, it didn't sound good but I think that's what they're trying to say. I also think that it was just an abstract work of media art. I think that there's nothing more to it than just two songs being put together.

2. Did its creator follow or break copyright laws in its production?


The creator, I'd say, did break the copyright laws in its production because it just showed almost all the parts of the music video and plus, they didn't change the song much.

3. Do you think that mashup like this requires copyright permission? Why or why not.


I think that a mashup like this requires copyright permission because the creator(s) basically just used the instrumental and not to mention the videos then just added a few glimpse of Jay-Z.

Blog Entry #7: A Look At Music Videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i7GEMQC2IY

Initial reaction: I've heard the song way before the music video was out and so I thought that the music video was going to be funny because I've heard the lyrics before. Not to mention Nicki Minaj was in the music video. I think that it's really funny how she sings her part, the way she pronounces it, and how her facial expressions were used. 


Analysis and interpretation: I think that the musician(s) created this media because they were trying to make a joke out of a profession. The music video seemed to be relying on the "naughty nurse" stereotype and I guess that was the theme that was being promoted in the video. I also think that they made the music video because they wanted to make the song popular. Almost all the time, music videos make the songs more popular and this music video is one of them. What they wore in the music video were just another sexual cliché  so that the music video would seem more inviting and sell more.
The music video,I'm pretty sure, is not aligned with Gospel Values. It's not even relevant to the song itself.


Consideration of cultural text: Well, judging from the lyrics, I think that what might have given the musician(s) the urge to create the video was a relationship break-up. To me, I think that in the song, they were trying to tell the man who cheated on her that their relationship is done for good and so he should leave her alone.


Expression of aesthetic judgment: Other than the acting and performance, I didn't really like what they've done with the video so I don't think that the cinematography, choreography, storyline, special effects, lyrics, and musicality work together in the music video. The storyline was irrelevant to the song. Although, I thought the music video and the song itself was really funny.


Ongoing reflection: My chosen video have influenced my reception of the song because the song doesn't have to do anything with the music video. I thought that the song was good and the music video was somewhat stupid because the image they were portraying in the music video discourages many students from joining the profession (being a nurse).