Aug 13

Transparency in Research: The Controversy of Fracking in NY

You’ve probably heard a lot about the controversial practice of natural gas drilling, or fracking as it’s more commonly called. It seems like every few weeks or months there’s some new story about the benefits or harm of fracking. No matter the story, it seems like it’s always followed by protest or disagreement over the latest issue. New York has become the latest site of controversy over this means of extracting alternative energy with Governor Andrew Cuomo considering allowing some communities in Southern New York the power to decide whether or not fracking will happen in their towns. For this reason, Gov. Cuomo and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have come under fire.

 

Why is fracking so controversial? The process of fracking injects chemically treated water at very high pressures deep underground to release natural gases for use as energy. The main problem with this practice is that the evidence is still out on the harm, or potential harm, that can result for the environment and health of those nearby. There is research both for and against the practice. It is this research that really creates the controversy in New York. Gov. Cuomo vowed, when he took up the issue of possibly lifting the moratorium on fracking, to base his decision off science and facts. However, scientists, physicians, economists and many other are crying foul that the review on fracking pros and cons compiled by the DEC for Gov. Cuomo’s use in making a decision is blatantly pro-fracking and ignores other scientific evidence. Many suspect the director behind the review has ties to the gas industry and that the outcome will be a biased and unfair decision, which would be a real violation of ethics.

 

Although I lean towards the side that says fracking is bad, I honestly don’t know because I think there needs to be more reliable, unbiased research done. But, what I do think is that this fracking issue in New York points to a larger issue with natural energy that needs to be addressed. We have to remember that not all alternative or natural fuels are necessarily without fault. Take the example of using corn as fuel. This seemed like a great idea at first with the overabundance of corn in America. But as we’re seeing now with the major drought in the Midwest, prices on corn could skyrocket, making this no longer a reliable or viable source of Continue reading

Share

Aug 10

Breastfeeding in the USA

I was already thinking of doing a piece on breastfeeding when I learned that August 1st to 7th is apparently World Breastfeeding Week 2012. There is literally a day established to represent anything and everything, isn’t there? All kidding aside, it’s great that there is a day to bring recognition to and celebrate the gift that is breastfeeding. The fact that a woman can raise and make strong this tiny little life solely on something that her body produces is pretty powerful.

 

One of the notable points that struck me about was this year’s theme: “Celebrating 10 years of WHO/UNICEF’s Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding,” was the absence of the mother (at least in previous years the mother has been included). It’s important to remember that the mother is just as important in the breastfeeding equation as the baby. Without healthy mothers, there won’t be healthy babies. One of the best aspects of this week’s celebratory activities was the photo contest encouraging photos of women breastfeeding, learning about the benefits of breastfeeding, basically anything breastfeeding related. This contest is important because it represents another way to help reduce the hypersensitivity American society has towards the images of women breastfeeding.

 

A recent example of this is the story of one New Hampshire woman who was breastfeeding her baby at a restaurant when she was asked to cover up (it is legal by state law in New Hampshire to nurse in public), became upset at the request and decided to leave. What happened next to make Continue reading

Share

Aug 08

Where Do Refugees Fit Into The Olympics?

Did you know that there’s such thing as independent athletes that participate in the Olympics without representing their home country? In a sport where country pride is so fundamental to the meaning of the games, I was kind of surprised. I found out about this while reading a Huffington Post piece about Sudanese refugee and Olympic marathoner Guor Marial. Marial is one of four independent athletes, the only one that is a refugee, participating in the 2012 London Olympics. This got me thinking: “Where do refugees fit into the Olympic games?” and “How do people that are refugees participate in the Olympic Games when they have no home country to officially represent?”

 

I must admit that in previous posts I have been somewhat critical of the Olympics or circumstances surrounding it. But, this time I was pleasantly surprised. After a bit of research, I learned that refugees really do play a role in the games and are recognized for this achievement. It is a rule of the Olympics that allows refugees a chance to participate. It turns out athletes from countries that do not have National Olympic Committees, which allow them to participate in the games, can compete as independent athletes under the Olympic flag. Guor Marial, a Sudanese refugee who escaped child slavery and later came to America where he is not yet a citizen and therefore is unable to compete for the USA, is this year’s hero example of the independent athlete. It turns out that although Marial is the only current refugee in the games, he is joined by former refugees as well. He is in London with Sudanese refugee Luol Deng competing for the United Kingdom and refugees Danell Leyva from Cuba and Lopez Lomong from South Sudan, both competing for the USA.

 

But, the Olympics do more than just allow refugees to compete in the games without the formal backing of their countries. They also have teamed up with the UNHCR to put on, for the third time, the ‘Giving is Winning’ donation drive giving 100,000 brand new sports and casual clothes donated by the athletes themselves, to refugees camps. This has been a growing campaign since it started in the 2004 Athens Olympics and continued in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This summer’s games will be the largest donation drive yet.

 

Now, maybe you’re thinking what I was at first glance: “Great, another handout of some ridiculous looking clothing (given the context of poverty in refugee camps) to refugees in camps that need their basic needs, like water and sanitation, met.” It’s always so easy to criticize charity. But, let’s look beyond the literal gift that is being handed out here. Sports offer refugees a way to empower themselves and keep hope alive about a better future for their families. Refugee Olympic athletes (and other successful refugee athletes) like Marial Continue reading

Share

Aug 07

Girls’ Self Esteem Peaks At Age Nine

 

To be honest with you, none of these statistics look promising. However, one statistic shocked me even more than the rest. Research shows that girls’ self esteem peaks at age nine. Just nine. What does that mean for us? It means that we are creating a generation of girls, whose self confidence peaks before they even reach double digits. It means that from that point on, their confidence starts to fade, slipping away as insecurities, doubts, and body image issues begin to take hold. How can we reverse this troubling trend? How can we create a generation of girls whose confidence and self esteem continues to rise throughout their teenage years, past the age of nine, propelling them into leadership roles and successful careers?

To continue the discussion, tune in for my online presentation next week called “Redefining Beauty: It’s Time for A Change. It’s Time for A New Standard of Beauty” on August 14, 2012 at 2 pm. My presentation will examine the unattainable standards of beauty that are currently  set by the media. It will focus on the consequences of such impossible standards on the development of girls’ self esteem, body image, and confidence. The conversation’s not over yet. It’s only getting started.

Share

Aug 06

The Ebola Outbreak in Uganda: Why should we worry?

The biggest public health news currently is about the Ebola Outbreak that began in the Kibbale district in Uganda. You may have heard about it in the news or online. According to the World Health Organization, about 38 cases have been reported, and 14 people have already died from the virus. Currently, government and health officials are working to stop the spread of this infectious disease through various precautions. However, officials do believe that the number of people infected will increase in the coming days.

The Ebola Virus

 

What is the Ebola Virus?

The Ebola Virus was first discovered in an African nation called Zaire (now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1976. Individuals diagnosed with the Ebola often suffer from symptoms such as haemorrhagic fever, muscle weakness and pain, headaches, internal and external bleeding. The virus spreads from direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids of an infected person. It also can be contracted from handling or touching an infected primate. Currently, there is no treatment or any type of medicines that can cure this disease. In addition, there are no vaccinations available to even prevent it. The only way to stop the spread of the disease is by isolating individuals that already contracted the virus from people that have not. People who are infected with the disease are more likely going to die because there is no treatment. It is difficult to recognize the disease right away because the virus has the ability to mimic symptoms of other infectious diseases in the first few days of onset. As you can see, this virus is life-threatening and has the ability to kill thousands of people very quickly.

A medical worker from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working on the Ebola outbreak in Uganda, is photographed August 2, 2012 at a laboratory in Entebbe 29 miles from the capital Kampala. (Credit: AP)

Why should we worry? 

We need to take more precautions for the future because, it is possible that we may be victims of an outbreak or endanger others. Globalization can help spread these diseases quickly because more people are constantly traveling. For instance, the incubation period of an infectious disease such as Ebola is longer than a flight back from Congo to the United States. Are travelers informed about ebola or about any special safety precautions they need to take? On the US Department of State’s website for travel, there is only a small mention of ebola. There is no in depth information about ebola available through the government’s travel website nor is there any other resource provided. Even though, ebola outbreaks may not occur every day, it is still a deadly virus with no cure. It still needs to be addressed because of its severity. Websites are useful, however many people may not actually research health risks when traveling to other nations. One way to address this problem is to encourage travel websites (e.g. orbitz.com) and airlines to frequently display messages about health information on their websites. 58% of people around the globe are more likely to buy airline tickets and book hotel reservations online. After finishing this transaction, consumers can be directed to health safety information. This will be convenient for the traveler, and the traveler will be more likely to view this information. In addition, this idea can help reduce the chances of diseases spreading to local communities at the destination and beyond. This is just one way we can prevent the chances of deadly viruses such as Ebola spreading to the other areas around the globe. We still need to come up with other effective ways to prevent future outbreaks of ebola because in the future, we may not have the chance when the deadliest outbreak is lurking right outside our homes or the homes of others.

 

 

 

Share

Aug 06

Abortion-Included Tours

“Water always finds its way”

I’ve written a little bit about health-related tourism in the past, specifically Penang, Malaysia’s efforts to use high-quality–yet very affordable–hospitals and doctors to encourage tourists to visit the state and undergo medical procedures, but, as you probably guessed from the title, this post is a little different. The Turkish government is currently debating a bill that would increase the penalties for women who have an abortion after 10 weeks and potentially reduce the legal window in which a woman can obtain an abortion from the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to the first 4.  Those in support of the bill have been using intense rhetoric: a mayor announced on television that women who want an abortion should kill themselves instead, and the Prime Minister stated that abortions and even c-sections were slowing Turkey’s economic growth.  Pro-choice supporters have taken to the streets, and many others are incensed by the Prime Minister’s comparison of abortions to the deaths–by military fighter jet–of 34 Kurdish citizens last December.

The purpose of this post is not to discuss whether this bill, and abortion in general, are right or wrong, however, but to discuss the rather interesting response the Barracuda Tour Company had to this development.  The tourism company has begun marketing “abortion tours” for Turkish women, which are pretty much exactly what they sound like: a trip to another country where women can obtain a cheap and discreet abortion.  When I first read an article about these abortion tours I thought it was some kind of satire or joke, but they are indeed very real.  So far 16 women have booked tours out of a desire to keep their abortions confidential and avoid being prosecuted.  If this bill does pass and opens the door to a debate on banning abortions entirely, as has been predicted, one can only imagine that the number of women booking these tours will increase.

Barracuda Tour Company specializes in health tourism to foreign countries, and with this new venture will provide 3 day/4 night “abortion included” trips to Crimea, Cyprus, Bosnia, and England.  The first day of the trip is reserved for a tour of the city, the second for termination and recovery, and the remainder for free time.  The general manager of the company, Cem Polatoglu, wrote in the new brochure that while he sometimes feels like a black-marketer or opportunist for benefitting from this bill, “water always finds its way,” meaning that when something is banned or there is a shortage a way to get it will always pop up.  He has found a way, as a tourism operator, to benefit from this, and feels no guilt.  After all, his company makes some money, and the countries these women are going to make some money!  The Turkish government naturally disagrees, and the Turkish Travel Agents Association (TURSAB) and the Minister of Tourism have moved in to discipline the company. 

So now, readers, is the part of the post where I open the debate up to you.  What do you think of Barracuda Tour’s attempt to benefit from a restriction on abortions?  Is it opportunistic and questionable for a tourism company to make money off of this, or a natural extension of health tourism?  Should women with limited access to abortions in their home countries be able to go through a tourism company to get an “abortion-included” trip to a foreign country as long as the hospital is clean and safe?  Let me know what you think!

Share

Aug 06

Climate Change and the Indian Blackout

Imagine if half of the US were without power. The country would come to a complete standstill. Some people would be able to travel and those with generators would be fine, but work and the economy would slow to a halt. Now imagine the entire US population was without power; then double that. That’s what happened in India on July 31st and continued for two days with back-to-back power failures when 600-700 million Indians were left without power in the world’s largest blackout. Life came to a halt as people were trapped in traffic jams and on trains or stayed at home without power; while the country’s economy was handicapped by low productivity and increased business expenses. Something of this scale happening in the US would be unbelievable given our reliable power sources; but in a developing country like India that suffers from severe poverty, this is unprecedented and has wider implications.

 

Blackouts in India (and other developing countries), unfortunately, aren’t unusual. But, what makes this blackout so unique is the underlying factors related to climate change. To start, India’s electrical power system is shoddy at best and is in high demand by people and businesses, adding further strain to an already weak system. Couple this with a major drought caused by delayed monsoons this year (which are believed to be a side-effect of global warming), and you have a serious demand from a very large country that needs to be kept cool. Some are concerned that India’s increasingly erratic monsoon rains, rains which many crops depend on, will raise global food prices as crops fail from drought (India is one of the leading producers of sugar and grains). What does this mean? Higher food prices, resulting in greater food insecurity. A potentially unfortunate downside of climate change for much of the world.

This incident is just another example of how the growing reliance on electricity and power are unsustainable at the rate and through the methods (inefficient coal production) that developing countries are using it. What’s most concerning is that developing countries are still heavily reliant on the burning of fossil fuels for energy, a major contributor to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that helped cause global warming in the first place. The countries that had a primary role in causing global warming (ahem, the US) are developed countries that now have the ability and resources to start switching to more sustainable energy sources, but may not be doing as much as emerging economies like China and India. Unfortunately other developing countries that don’t benefit from the growing economies and large populations that these countries do likely don’t yet have the ability for large-scale investment in renewable energies, although they are rich with these alternatives resources.

 

So, how do we solve these complex problems? How do we shift developing countries to more sustainable, low-carbon energy sources? The answers to these questions are so complex and large-scale that they are beyond my reach. But I do know that solutions will have to take place at the Continue reading

Share

Aug 02

Olympic Coverage: Let’s Talk About Those Uniforms

Let’s talk about style. Don’t get too excited – I know absolutely nothing about high end designers or the latest runway fashions. However, something that I do know about are uniforms. Let’s talk about some athletic uniforms.

I never realized the role that uniforms played in sports until I started playing lacrosse my freshman year of high school. My whole life I had played sports consisting of generally the same uniform – baggy shirt, athletic shorts, and some version of sneakers or cleats depending on the sport. It was casual, it was comfy, and most of all, it allowed me to play to the best of my abilities. Upon joining lacrosse though, all of the sudden I was expected to wear a skirt to games. To be honest with you, my initial reaction was confusion. Why did I have to wear a skirt? How did wearing a skirt help me play lacrosse in any way? We wore shorts every day at practice. So why should I be forced to wear a skirt on game day?

And there began my first lesson on gender bias in sports. Unfortunately, it wasn’t my last. Time and time again, I’ve seen sporting events where female athletes are forced (through explicit rules) or pressured (through tradition) to wear uniforms that bring out their more feminine side. To my dismay, the same theme developed early this Olympics, before the sun even rose on the first day of competition. Anyone check out the American outfits for the Opening ceremony? Pants for the men, skirts for the women. Why is there always the constant need to differentiate the female athletes from the male?

The Amateur International Boxing Association faced a dilemma earlier this month over which uniforms should be worn in Olympic competition. They were concerned that some cultures might be confused if both male and female boxers wore traditional boxing shorts in the ring. Their solution? To make the women wear skirts. In addition, the international governing body for badminton decided to take a more stylish approach by instituting a “skirts only” policy for all female players. Luckily, public outcry by female boxers and badminton players alike stopped both policies from taking place. However, skirts are still staples in the field hockey realm. Skirts transform into tight fitting spandex for the preliminary rounds of the women’s indoor volleyball matches. And then there’s that infamous beach volleyball.

I’ve heard all the arguments. “They like wearing bikinis”. “It improves performance”. It helps them move better”. However, there was one comment on an Huffington Post article regarding what would happen if they chose to get rid of the bikinis in beach volleyball which really said it all – “Ratings will drop off dramatically. Does anyone want to try to make me believe men are only watching because they admire the athleticism of the ladies!”

Is this really what we’ve come to? That wearing skimpy outfits, or short skirts is the only way to garner attention in the sports world? I don’t think that it’s necessarily true. I think that the time of hyper-sexualized and feminized uniforms is coming to an end.  Just look at the women’s soccer team, well known in both the sporting world and in popular culture alike, despite the fact that their uniforms are loose, baggy, and free flowing. In all honesty, I’m hoping and believing that this is the direction that female athletics is taking.

What other changes need to be made to avoid gender bias in future Olympics?

  1. First off, ditch the Skirts-for-the-Women and Pants-for-the-Men routine in the Opening Ceremony, and take a note from countries like Great Britain or Ireland, who made the same outfits for all athletes, regardless of their gender.
  2. Lose the skirts. You do not need a skirt to play field hockey. Same goes for tennis. Shorts will work out perfectly fine.
  3. Ditto for the volleyball gear. Sexualizing volleyball players shouldn’t be the only means for gaining publicity.

Call me a hopeless optimist, but I truly do believe that there still will be viewers if the women’s field hockey team changes to shorts, if the indoor volleyball team decides to end their spandex days, and if the beach volleyball duos cover up. The drama in the Olympics comes from the storylines- the athlete who got the second chance, the veteran poised to make history, and the wide-eyed teenager just trying to soak it all in. Let the story lines – not the clothing – take center stage, and it truly will be an Olympics to remember.

Share

Aug 01

“Latch on NYC” Doing More Harm than Good

Have you heard about the new health program starting this September in New York City? Don’t worry, I hadn’t either until I stumbled across a news article the other day. It’s a program aimed at promoting breastfeeding over formula for newborn babies. But it’s only in New York City, so the rest of us don’t need to care right? Wrong. The level of state intervention over women’s bodies in this program could set a dangerous precedent for future similarly restrictive laws regarding women’s rights.
Like I said, the “Latch on NYC” program is meant to encourage women to breastfeed their babies. The program will be implemented largely through new hospital regulations and a public relations plan aimed at spreading awareness. In hospitals, baby formula will have to be signed out like medication, rather than freely given away. Formula ads will be removed from public areas. And women who request formula will be required to listen to a talkgiven by medical staff on the merits of breastfeeding over formula. Yes, it’s true that breastfeeding is great for infants. It increases overall health, lowers the risk of infection, and is a more natural process than formula. So Mayor Bloomberg does have good intentions and a solid basis for promoting breastfeeding. But is he really going about educating the general public in the right way?

There are so many other steps the city could take if they really only wanted to encourage breastfeeding. They could create a larger educational program beyond just posters to spread awareness about the positives aspects of breastfeeding. That way women could have as much information as possible and make their decision BEFORE giving birth. Or the city could subsidize lactation consultant services. These individuals go in and help women breastfeed when they’re having difficulty. Unfortunately, they can be extremely expensive and therefore not all women have access to their services. These steps alone would address the two biggest obstacles when it comes to breastfeeding: lack of knowledge and the potential difficulty of the process. But they would also be promoting breastfeeding in a positive way, unlike the current program. So the city could achieve its goal of increasing the number of women breastfeeding without forcing the decision on them.

And right now, the city is definitely trying to force a decision. According to the mayor, the program is meant to help mothers make choices and “limit practices that interfere with that choice”. But no where in the description of the program do I see steps meant to provide more freedom. Instead, I see practices that will restrict women’s choices on a very basic, personal level. The decision to breastfeed a child is a wonderful one if you choose to make it. But that’s just it, shouldn’t it be a woman’s choice how she wants to feed her child? Does the government really have the right to involve itself in the such an invasive manner? We wouldn’t want them forcing US to eat a particular thing. So why should we be forced to feed our children in a particular way as long as they’re healthy?

But maybe I still haven’t convinced you that this is something we ALL need to worry about. After all, it doesn’t directly affect you if you don’t live in New York City. But think about the deeper message Mayor Bloomberg is sending with this new program. If the city can regulate how you’re supposed to feed your child, what else do you think the government will Continue reading

Share

Aug 01

How US Cities Sweep the Homeless Under the Rug

Recently I wrote a piece on Brazil’s forced eviction and razing of slums in preparation for the upcoming 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics. Brazil’s efforts were an attempt at glossing over poverty in a major emerging economy that is about to be in the spotlight for the whole world.  It’s easy to pass this off as an ambitious developing country’s misguided efforts to remove unsavory realities from the world’s line of sight. But, it’s not just something that developing country’s looking to impress the world do. This also happens in the most developed and leading country’s around the world, like the US.

 

I thought it would be interesting to see the parallels of what happened (and will likely continue to happen in preparation for mega-events) in Brazil compared to my own country. I’ve heard the stories before of shifting the US’s poorest of the poor, homeless people, around when some sort of major event happens in a US city. What happens to these people when major events, especially sporting events, come into our cities?

 

Well, the answer is both disheartening and illogical. There is a long track record in the US of removing homeless people from out of sight for the occasion of events. There have been reports from homeless being removed for the Super Bowl (Atlanta) or almost removed in the case of Indianapolis (although it’s arguable that outrage generated by media coverage of plans for forced removal may have put a stop to this plan). Even political events, like the 2008 Democratic National Convention or Presidential inaugurations, warrant cities to remove their homeless people.

 

What’s really interesting is the ways in which homeless people are removed from sight. There are the harsher methods of getting rid of the homeless before big events such as increased arrests (through either stronger enforcement of existing laws or the creation of new ones making it Continue reading

Share