Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Basic Concepts and Theories of Modern Architecture Research Paper
Basic Concepts and Theories of Modern Architecture - Research Paper Example As modern architecture is displayed in society, it is able to create an impact on the philosophies and understanding that is a part of every community. The beginning of modern architecture is one that was initially defined by the Greeks and Plato, with the belief that architecture that influenced or changed visual understanding and impact was considered modern. The most recent definition of modern architecture; however, began in the 1850s with the emergence of the industrial revolution and the movement into World War I. The concept that was used with modern architecture became influenced through the avant-garde movement, which began to create theories based on experimentation and influences through the breaking of boundaries and traditional forms of architecture. The theories that were created from the avant-garde included changes that directly impacted the technical, economic and social understanding through alternative philosophies. Moving outside of the mainstream and expected demands of popular culture then became the basis of modern architecture and the avant-garde movement. The movement was defined specifically by altering, c hanging or disregarding the expectations within architecture and the buildings that were a part of this. Instead, architecture was used as an expression of art and the society that surrounded this (Benevolo, 1977). The concept of experimentation and the modern architecture that has followed this is further defined by the approach that many architects have used for contemporary methods of buildings. An important aspect of this is the idea of sophisticated technology. Combining this with the architecture that it is used for practicality, function, and design has become an important component in architecture.
Monday, October 28, 2019
The effects of corruption on the Nigerian economy
The effects of corruption on the Nigerian economy To evaluate the effects of corruption on the Nigerian economy, we utilise the estimated size of the hidden economy (a proxy for corruption) in effect to Nigerian economy growth, (Salisu, 2006). A MIMIC is a structural econometric model for estimating an equation in which the dependent variable is unobservable (latent). (Frey Weck-Hannemann, 1984) pioneered the use of MIMIC modelling in the context of the hidden economy. Since then, a number of other studies have employed this technique, (Aigner et al. 1986; Schneider 1997; Giles 1997, 1999; Tedds, 1998). It is a powerful technique for estimating the underground economy, as it allows for simultaneous interaction between multiple explanatory variables and multiple indicators of the hidden economy. The latent variable is linked, on the one hand, to a number of observable indicators (reflecting changes in the size of the unreported economy); and on the other hand to a set of observed causal variables, which are considered to be importan t determinants of the unreported economic activity. 4.4 Discussion of Empirical Results for Model Based on the reasoning we try to model the existence and the effect of corruption on Nigerian economy (FDI) based on the model by Johnson and Dahlstrom which depicts the picture of what we applying. The model is based on assumption that the bureaucrat has monopoly in providing government services that the MNE needs in order to operate in the host county,( Dahlstrom and Johnson, 2004): 4.4.1Equation 1 Corruption if: à †¡ à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥ c ( i) No corruption if: à †¡ Where à †¡ is an agents expected payoff from corruption and c is the expected cost. For corruption to take place à †¡ à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥ c for all involved agents. 4.4.2 Equation 2 Equation two below presents payoff functions for the two types of agents. Payoff for MNE à †¡mne = ÃŽÂ ²Ãƒ †( ii) Payoff for bureaucrat à †¡off = ÃŽÂ · Where ÃŽÂ ² is the probability that the bureaucrat indeed delivers the government service, à †signifies the value of that government service for the MNE and ÃŽÂ · signifies the size of the bribe. The payoff of corruption is simply the monetary value an agent can earn by realising the action. For an MNE the payoff of engaging in corruption could for example be the future cash flow connected to a building contract granted by the bureaucrat. For a bureaucrat the payoff of corruption is simply the size of the bribe (Dahlstrom and Johnson,2004). The probability variable ÃŽÂ ² has been discussed by (Shleifer and Vishny ,1993) among others and can be used to distinguish bribes from taxes. As discussed earlier, (Shleifer and Vishny, 1993) distinguish between centralised corruption where a single agent (bureaucrat) collects the bribe. Decentralised corruption implies that several individual bureaucrats can demand bribes. Therefore, even when having paid a bribe there is still a possibility that the MNE does not get access to the government service that it wants. This would force the MNE to pay yet another bribe to get the demanded service. Under a decentralised system of corruption it is more likely that additional bureaucrats would put up demands for bribes. This is one example of how corruption introduces an element of uncertainty for the MNE. For an economy where centralised corruption dominates we would expect ÃŽÂ ² to be close to one while decentralised corruption would imply a smaller value of ÃŽÂ ² (Dahlstrom and Johnson,2004). They went further citing that the cost of corruption for the bribed is normally the punishment that can be imposed on him if he is found guilty, while for the briber it is the expected cost of punishment as well as the size of the bribe that composes the cost. The culture in the host-country can be assumed to influence the willingness of the agents to engage in corrupt practices. In economies where corruption is frowned upon there should, ceteris paribus, exist less corruption than in an economy that accepts corruption. The general cost function shown in equation 3 below tries to take all of the above into account. 4.4.3 Equation 3 The general cost function cj= ((ÃŽÂ ´+ÃŽÂ ±)) p)+ ÃŽÂ · (iii) Where c j is the cost of the j:th bribe with j going from 1 to n, p signifies the perceived risk of being caught, the expected punishment is denoted ÃŽÂ ´, while ÃŽÂ ± represents the social cost of being revealed as engaging in corrupt behaviour and ÃŽÂ · is the monetary value of the bribe. For the bribed ÃŽÂ ·=0 while ÃŽÂ ·>0 for the briber. The social cost of corruption ÃŽÂ ± goes from to infinity where a low value signifies that corrupt behaviour is widely accepted and a high value signify a culture with a strong aversion against corruption. Similar cost components of corruption for the individuals can be found in (Sen,2002,). The risk of being caught is dependent on the effectiveness of the police as well as the legal system. (La Porta et al, 1999) argues that countries having common law are better protected against corruption since the legal system has stronger property rights. But the enforcement of the laws is of equal importance. Triesman, finds that is perhaps not only the use of common law that decreases the amount of corruption but also whether or not a country has been under British rule, thus having had a strong influence on the legal culture not only the legal system. By taking the first derivative of equation 3 with respect to ÃŽÂ ´ we get the sensitivity of punishment. As can be seen the punishment depicted in law is highly dependent on surveillance and enforcement to have a deterrent effect on corruption in a country. Many developing countries have all the laws and regulations demanded from the international society regarding corruption but suffer from a severe lack of enforcement of the l aws. Thus those laws have little effect besides working as cosmetics for an ugly economy in need of aid and trade relations with developed countries (Triesman,1999). 4.5 Social cost of corruption The social cost of corruption may be lower in countries with more hierarchal religions as Islam and Catholicism since it is less accepted to challenge those above you in the hierarchy than in religions such as Protestantism (Triesman, 1999). Furthermore, countries with hierarchical religions tend to have stronger family ties, than countries that practice Protestantism (Triesman, 1999) It can also be the case that in cultures where the distinction between the officials private and official power is less distinct bribery may have lower social costs. All these things tend to affect the social stigma attached to corruption thus increasing or decreasing the cost. According to (Dahlstrom and Johnson,2004) in order to develop the model we have to combine the cost and payoff functions described above in order to determine whether corruption takes place. We have rewritten equation 1 by incorporating equation 2 and 3 resulting in one set of equations for the MNE, Equation 4, and one set for the bureaucrat, Equation 5, below. 4.5.1Equation 4 MNE No corruption if: ÃŽÂ ²Ãƒ †((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) -ÃŽÂ · Corruption if: ÃŽÂ ²Ãƒ †((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) -ÃŽÂ ·Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥0 (ii) Expected profit: à ₠¬MNE= ÃŽÂ ²Ãƒ †((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) -ÃŽÂ · (iii) 4.5.2Equation 5 Bureaucrat No corruption if: ÃŽÂ ·- ((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) Corruption if: ÃŽÂ · ((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) ÃŽÂ ·Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥0 Expected profit: à ₠¬off = ÃŽÂ ·- ((ÃŽÂ ´+ ÃŽÂ ±) p) (iii) They went further, using 4.i and 5.i to solve for the expected profit of corruption for the MNE yields ÃŽÂ ²Ãƒ †=2 ÃŽÂ ·. This is only valid if we assume that all of the cost variables ÃŽÂ ´,ÃŽÂ ±, p are identical for both the MNE and the bureaucrat. This is a strong assumption since both the fines as well as the social cost probably are higher for the MNE than for the bureaucrat. If we assume that the value of the bribe, ÃŽÂ ·, is the reservation price for the bureaucrat due to the fact that the MNE has more bargaining power. 4.5.3Equation 6 Equation 6 below show the total monetary value of the bribes paid in an economy. This could be seen as the actual cost for the economy when we disregard the uncertainty of corruption. This uncertainty comes in two shapes, the one of getting caught and the one of fulfilling ones obligation. If the service would have been delivered as a tax service equation 6 would equal the tax cost the MNE would have paid. n Total monetary value of corruption (6) V= ÃŽÂ £v j 1 Where is the monetary value of the j:th bribe with j going from 1 to n, with n being the number of transactions where it may be possible to offer a bribe, vj = ÃŽÂ ·j if both 0 à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ ÃŽÂ ² j -((ÃŽÂ ´ j + ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j) ÃŽÂ · j -(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j for all other cases vj=0 . In a developing economy n can be assumed to be higher under decentralised corruption than under centralised corruption since there are probably a greater number of different bureaucrats that demand bribes in the former case than in the latter. 4.5.4 Equation 7 Equation 7 below gives an account for the total cost of corruption that MNEs experience in a country. Here we include the cost of uncertainty unlike equation 6. n Total corruption cost for the MNE (7) CMNE = ÃŽÂ £ c j 1 Where cj is the expected cost of the j:th bribe with cj=(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j )+ ÃŽÂ ·j if both 0 à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ² j à †j ((ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j ) ÃŽÂ ·j and 0 à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ ÃŽÂ ·j(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j . If 0 à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ² j à †j ((ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j ) ÃŽÂ ·j but 0 à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¤ ÃŽÂ ·j(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j then cj=(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j ) but for all other cases cj=0 Cost of corruption for the MNE IF à †¡off à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥ c off then official chooses corruption IF à †¡ off then official chooses no corruption IF à †¡ à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥ CMNE then MNE chooses corruption cj=(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j )+ ÃŽÂ ·j cj=(ÃŽÂ ´ j+ ÃŽÂ ± j)* p j IF à †¡ MNE then MNE chooses no corruption 0 0 (Source: Dahlstrom and Johnson,2004) It is evident from the above equations 6 and 7 that, i.e. the actual cost of corruption for the MNE is greater than just the size of the bribe thus it would have been less costly for the MNE to invest in a country where the services would have been supplied as a tax service. Further corruption as opposed to a tax does not benefit the government but the individual bureaucrat. The tax income could, if used efficiently by the government, promote growth of direct investment through increasing the stock of human capital or improving market economy institutions. This tax income could also be used to combat corruption through the legal system or by raising the salaries of the government officials. But for taxes to be less damaging than corruption this does not have to be the case. The only necessary condition is that there is less uncertainty involved. Furthermore, companies seldom have the choice whether to pay tax or not so the corruption cost will be something that has to be paid in addition to taxes, ( Dahlstrom and Johnson,2004). 4. 6 Effect of the host country corruption from the analysis The resulting effect of host-country corruption is that the actual cost of conducting business activities in the country is higher than what could be expected based on observable costs such as wages or transport costs. Based on this reasoning, corruption gives rise to extra costs that the MNE has to operate in the host-economy. If MNE presence does reduce corruption while corruption has a negative effect on FDI there might exist virtuous or vicious circles. If there is little FDI in a country the corruption stays high which discourages the MNE to invest, thus decreasing the FDI. Here we have a vicious circle but the opposite is also possible. If an MNE invests in a country the corruption decreases this further improves the incentives for future investments. If one also assumes that both FDI and low corruption encourages growth the country who finds itself in a virtuous circle will have a much higher probability of development than one that finds itself in a vicious circle. We now proceed to try to develop an expression that describes the effect of host country bureaucratic corruption on FDI inflows. We start by introducing a profit function for the MNE: à ₠¬(à  ,w,ņ¹)= max { à  y c(w,y, CMNE ) where p indicates the world market price of the output y of the MNE, w is the cost of production factors and CMNE represents the MNE cost of corruption as earlier Use of the expression py implies that demand for the good in the host country is too small to have an effect on the price that the MNE receives for its output. This assumption is most suitable for an export-platform type of FDI as described in (Ekholm et al, 2003) where the MNE production in the host-country is exported to third country markets. This type of FDI is most likely to appear in developing economies where small domestic markets exclude market-seeking motivated FDI but with low labour costs. This implies that the profit function is most suitable for MNEs that operate in developing economies. It might be argued that the MNE only starts production in the host country if the expected profit from doing so is larger than some minimum level of profits: E(à ₠¬)=[ E(p)E(y) -c(E(w),E (y),E(CMNE ))] à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ °Ã‚ ¥ E(à ₠¬) where à ₠¬ is the minimum profit necessary for entry. Therefore, a rise in CMNE, the costs caused by corruption, should decrease the amount of FDI inflows that a host-country receives. It is also possible that MNEs that are already established in the host country decide to close down facilities if the costs of corruption become too high. (Cuervo-Cazurra , 2006) Although corruption has a negative impact on FDI because of the additional uncertainty and costs, such costs vary depending on the country of origin of the FDI. With respect to this topic, more FDI is gotten from OECD countries which are the rationale behind a corrupt country like Nigeria decreasing the quantity of its inward FDI because of the costs which the foreign MNC will have to incur to establish business in Nigeria. So therefore results show that the relationship between corruption and FDI is modified by the country of origin of the FDI.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Deer Hunting is Necessary :: essays research papers
     It is a freezing twenty-two degrees outside. Even though it is still too dark to see, as you look over the hills, you see a breathtaking sunrise that will soon creep through the heavy fog. Every breath that you take is like smoke coming out of a dragon’s nostrils. As you are waiting patiently, still, and quietly, you finally see your kill, the white-tail deer. Without a doubt, the white-tail deer should be hunted.      First, the population of the white-tail deer is entirely too big. In fact, there is a total of twenty-five million white-tail deer in the United States alone.1 Because of this enormous number of deer, they are constantly on the move. This means that they go straight to the roads. Ten thousand white-tail deer get hit by cars and die each year while they try to find new eating grounds.2 Not only is this wasting meat, but it causes severe damage to cars. Deer can even cause car accidents on the highway, killing humans as well. Also, deer are constantly getting pushed into the city because of little food due to the over-populated area of deer. Unfortunately, this causes a hassle in major cities when people try to catch the deer without harming it. Debra Fluitt, a citizen of Tulsa, Oklahoma, said, â€Å"Last year a big white-tail deer came into my very own house as I was unloading groceries. When the police tried to get it out, it destroyed over $800 worth of my belon gings and finally jumped through the window.†After the deer are captured in the city, they are taken back into an environment where food is scarce because of the over-populated deer that are already there. That deer then dies of starvation.      Furthermore, the white-tail deer is destroying the environment day by day. They eat crops that humans need for survival. They eat all of the food in their area, so they have to come to our crops. In fact, several years ago, authorities passed the Buck Law, which was meant to stop hunting so many deer. Thanks to such strongly restricted laws, deer populations expanded rapidly but ended by causing serious damage to crops. The Buck Law was soon useless.3 A group of farmers in North Texas stated, â€Å"Each year, we lose more and more money because of those stupid white-tail deer. We can’t keep them away from our crops.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation Essay
The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health. The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the U. S. , which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five years. The industry has set what they say are â€Å"safe levels†of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree, and foresee a public health crisis. Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Colorado, with dozens more planned, as telecommunications companies rush to corner markets in this fast-growing industry. These towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2-1/2 miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven. Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. [1] Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a â€Å"public health emergency†. The U. S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being â€Å"an arm of the industry†. Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated â€Å"you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show†. â€Å"Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, and the blood supply were â€Å"safe†, but which were later found to be harmful. â€Å"You can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show. – Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996 The current U. S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U. S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Can ada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is . 1 microwatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U. S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at . 02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U. S. Standard. [3, 4] Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. [5, 6, 7, 8]. There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC â€Å"safe†standards are based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the â€Å"thermal†, or heating effects of the radiation – in other words, the level at which the radiation would heat tissue, or â€Å"cook†a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works. The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not â€Å"cooked†, but they fail to address long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called â€Å"non-thermal†effects. Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. â€Å"RF alters tissue physiology†says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. [9] In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world’s leading ioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time. The world’s leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. – The Vienna Resolution, 1998 The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than . mW/cm2 – 10,000 times more strict than the current U. S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. [10] Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation. Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the . 01 to 100 mW/cm2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U. S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reported health problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, an increase in seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and impaired nervous systems. [ 11 ] Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidencereports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph. D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that â€Å"There is no safe level of EMR radiation. †He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermal effects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. Dr. Cherry wrote a 120-page review of 188 scientific studies. â€Å"The electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming. †It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. â€Å"To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence. â€Å"To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence. †– Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public health risk that is possible. Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a â€Å"probable human carcinogen†. 12] Deputy Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has stated that the safety of RF â€Å"has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it†, and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals. And the World Health Organization reports â€Å"many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent. †â€Å"The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it. †– Elizabeth Jacobsen, Deputy Director, US Department of Health â€Å"Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes,†says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. He says â€Å"at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields. †Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer. The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults. Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of â€Å"post sales surveillance†with respect to RF radiation. Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences. Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn’t be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. In short, â€Å"we are the experiment†, for health effects. Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure. [15] Hyland, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines â€Å"afford no protection†against the non- thermal influences. â€Å"Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests. †â€Å"Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate. – Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist – two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered, and are protesting this imposition of involuntary, 24-hour-a-day microwave exposure, without proven safety levels. As one citizen stated, â€Å"There’s no place left to escape. †The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away citizen’s rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons. Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed. One frustrated resident finally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near his home, and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% ver the legal limit. [16] Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Cellular phone frequencies have also seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications. Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume, opposing placement of a cell phone tower, said â€Å"Municipalities.. .. are being bullied every day by providers of wireless telephone service who use their financial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations. [17] Some Questions and Answers But don’t we need and depend on cell phones? Of course. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers, but to make them safer. If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective, then so can we. It is just more expensive to the companies. Also, we don’t have to let these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them. We can require that they erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage, and be put in the safest places possible. Why don’t we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county? In a strategic move, the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to oppose the towers based on health concerns. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers based on health concerns. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and a long legal battle is sure to follow. But it will take years, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic, cumulative radiation with each new cell tower. So what CAN we do? The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on concerns about RF emissions, but we can oppose them on numerous other valid grounds. There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the minimum towers necessary, in appropriate locations. During these moratoriums, communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell phone tower need, and creating cell tower Master Plans, to help protect the rights and health of citizens, while complying with the law. [18, 19, 20] Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens’ health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Ethical Dilemmas in Interpreting Essay
Ethical dilemmas in interpreting: case study 2 In the scenario, I am interpreting at a medical practice. The Service Provider (SP) is the GP practice and Service User (SU) is a patient. I arrive at the reception on time, the receptionist waves me in direction of the patient and then she answers a phone call. Then the patient is called into the consultation room. At the consultation room, I try to introduce myself and give my Code of Practice (CoP) to the doctor but he ignores me and asks what the problem with the patient is. I reply to him that he can ask the patient himself and I will interpret for him. Then the doctor ask me to take the patient back to the waiting room so I can interview her, while he sees another patient, then he will call us back. The following things went wrong during my job assignment: * The receptionist behaves unprofessionally because she shouldn’t leave me alone with the patient because this could cause me being partial and unsuitable to do this assignment. * The doctor ignores my introduction. The Code of Practice (section 5.24) says that Service Provider should â€Å"allow to interpreter to introduce him or herself†. Introduction is important because it allows me explain the rules and terms which I am going to follow during assignment. * The doctor should â€Å"address member of the public directly†(Code of Practice section 5.26). It is important that a service provider speaks directly to a service user, because it allows better communication and connection between, in this situation, patient and doctor, and SU doesn’t feel left out. * The doctor doesn’t want to interview the patient and ask me to leave the consultation room. The Code of Practice defines this problem as follows: â€Å"Conduct all of the interview yourself. It may be tempting to ask the interpreter to go off and have chat with your client, and then come back and tell you the relevant points, but the interpreter is not qualified to know what information to look for or how to process the information received.†(Code of Practice, section 5.29) I wasn’t sure what I should do as an interpreter to be in line with my Code of Practice. If I did what doctor asks, I wouldn’t be assertive and impartial (Code of Practice, section 2.4). If I refused to do what doctor insists, I would leave the patient without any help. I decide to explain to the doctor what my job description is and ask him one more time to interview the patient. If doctor still refuses to do interview I ask him if would be possible to assign the patient to diffe rent doctor or nurse. After I finished assignment, I would report the incident with the doctor to the agency if I work for one or report it to practice’s manager if I am be freelance interpreter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)