Zoos are sometimes seen as necessary but not poor alternatives to a natural environment

Questions:

Discuss some of the arguments for and/or against keeping animals in zoos.

     There are not many people in the world who haven’t visited a zoo or safari park in their lifetime. Not only is a trip to the zoo a fun day out, it is a chance for many people to get relatively close to animals they are unlikely to see elsewhere. Zoos are run to a strict standard, with licences and regular welfare checks all being required. Despite these standards, many individuals are against animals living in captivity and being “paraded” in front of people for monetary gain. Others believe, for many animals, captivity is the only way their species will survive extinction. What you choose to believe is entirely your choice, but it may help to hear the opposing arguments.

Benefits or Pros

     The average zoo today is a far cry from the zoos of old when cement cages and steel-bar enclosures were commonplace. A much more natural approach is taken these days, with modern zoos using streams and moats to prevent animals from leaving a specific area.

The animals are also housed in what is known as a mini-habitat, this means the enclosure where that particular animal lives is as close to its natural habitat as possible. When a zoo wishes to acquire a new animal, there is a strict procedure to follow. In the past, representatives from the zoo would simply capture the desired animal from the wild and bring it back. Now zoos are required to either get animals from other zoos or through specialist captive breeding projects.

     Breeding programs are focused on breeding animals that face extinction, meaning captivity is the only chance some animals have at survival. On odd occasion a zoo may adopt an abandoned or orphaned animal, usually from individuals who have bought an animal for a pet that they can no longer look after properly.

     Whereas in the past, staffs were trained in general zoo upkeep, zookeepers now have specialist knowledge and often specialise in a particular animal. As well as understanding the animal’s food and sleep requirements, each zookeeper will be in charge of arranging activities for their animal to prevent mental deteriation. This may be a game, involve toys or a simple treasure hunt for dinner. This prevents the animals from becoming bored and depressed.

     One of the most valuable benefits a zoo has to offer is the chance for scientists to conduct important research. This subsequently helps the scientists develop new ways to improve each animal’s wellbeing, as well as important new medicines. Most zoos also run education programs, which teach people everything they need to know from caring for animals to taking part in conservation projects. These important educational sessions provide the general public with an insight into not only zoo life but the harsh reality of illegal hunting, endangered animals and extinction.

Cons

     The main argument against zoos is the belief by some professionals that, even with the best intentions and conditions, a zoo cannot provide the perfect environment for every type of animal. For example, it is extremely difficult for zoos to recreate the natural environment that an elephant is used to living in. This is because in the course of a day an elephant can walk anywhere up to 50 kilometers a day. Elephants also travel in packs of thirty or forty in the wild. In most zoos, elephants will usually have just several acres to walk around in and maybe a couple of other elephants if they are lucky.

     All zoos and safari parks have to adhere to guidelines laid down in the Animal Welfare Act. While these guidelines are extremely strict, many anti-zoo campaigners believe it is rarely enforced and zoos tend to follow a relaxed version of the rules.

     People against animals being kept in zoos are also unimpressed with the attempts to create an animal friendly habitat for each occupant. They argue that these habitats, while attractive and a vast improvement on the past, are rarely big enough and do not prevent the animals from becoming depressed. For example, animals such as giraffes and zebras were designed, and are built, to run across miles of terrain, something they cannot do in captivity.

     Anti-zoo supporters also argue that by making animals live in artificial surroundings the zoo is messing with natural mating and hunting activities. According to scientists, this can cause something called zoochosis in the animal, which is similar to the human Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Another problem is privacy, because the animals are living in habitats that are often extremely smaller than they are used to, the animal cannot enjoy much needed privacy. This can cause depression and obsessive behavior in the animals.

While all conservation efforts must be admired, for those people against keeping animals in a zoo it is all a pointless exercise. For example, in the last century there have been 167 attempts to reintroduce a certain species, of which only 16 have been successful. While this figure is certainly better than nothing, protestors believe the success rate is not worth the suffering endured by the animals that are alive and living in captivity. Protestors even go as far as saying that zoos are no longer a benefit to people, after a study showed the average time an individual stood at each animal display was less than one minute.

Conclusion

     There is no denying that the animals kept in zoos argument is a bit of a hot potato but both sides of the argument make valid points. At the end of the day, everyone involved, from members of the public and zookeepers to conservation specialists and scientists all have one common interest – to ensure the welfare of the animal. As long as the focus remains on keeping the animals happy and healthy, the argument for and against can rage on.

Is Technology Making Us Lonely?

Technology is supposed to make us more connected. We can stay in touch with our friends all the time on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, and, of course, by texting. But are our smartphones actually getting in the way of real socializing? Could technology be making us more alone?

As social media reshapes how we connect, we have to rethink what we need to feel fulfilled in our relationships, and realize that no amount of tweets, texts or Facebook status updates can provide it.  While social networking is a great tool, there’s a profound difference between an online social network and a real one.  Despite the fact there will always be someone, somewhere awake to “like” our latest status update – however witty or banal it may be – when it comes to friends, quantity doesn’t equal quality.

Recent studies have found that despite being more connected than ever, more people feel more alone than ever. Surprisingly, those who report feeling most alone, are those you’d expect it from least: young people under 35 who are the most prolific social networkers of all.    Another recent study found that 48% of respondents only had one confidant compared to a similar study 25 years ago when people said they had about three people they could confide in. So as we have built expansive social networks online, the depth of our networks offline has decreased.  So it seems that because technology makes it easier to stay in touch while keeping distance, more and more people find themselves feeling distant and never touching. Or at least not enough to avoid us feeling increasingly alone.

Social media allows us to control what we share.   It appeals to our vulnerability and vanity. We can pick and choose which photos we share and craftily edit our words to ensure we convey the image we want others to see. Yet it also provides the illusion of friendship that, in real life, may be shallow, superficial and unable to stand the demands, and pressures genuine friendships entail.

Digital communication can never replace in person, face-to-face, contact in building relationships – personal and professional. As a study by Harvard Business Review found, team performance went up 50% when teams socialized more and limited email for more operational only issues.  But whether loneliness leads people to the Internet, or the internet to loneliness, it seems that many of us turn to the internet to avoid simply being with ourselves. As Sherri Turkle author of Alone Together wrote, until we learn how to be okay with solitude, we are not going to be able to connect deeply with others. Social networking provides a means of escaping confronting aspects of ourselves and our lives we wish were different, better, more glamorous and less mundane. It’s an all too convenient tool for avoiding sometimes harsh realities and playing pretend (to ourselves and others) with our life.   Online websites promise avatars that will allow us to love our bodies, love our lives, and find the true romance we dream of. But at what cost to the real life (marriage, body, friendships) we have to face when we close our computer down?  Even the most brilliant and mesmerizing avatars cannot compensate for what is missing in real life.

Don’t get me wrong; online technology is not some “necessary evil.” Far from it. It’s a magnificent tool for staying in touch with people across miles, time zones and years. We’ve all witnessed it’s power in rallying people behind noble causes (think KONY 2012), overthrow governments (as we saw in the Arab Spring last year), enable people in isolated corners of the globe to plug into resources and information they could never otherwise access (think North Korea), and provide opportunity to conduct business more efficiently than ever before.  But like all tools, we have to learn how to use it well, and not let it use us. We cannot become dependent on it to do things it simply cannot do – like fulfill our deep innate need for intimacy, genuine connection and real friendship. All needs which can only be fulfilled through sometimes-uncomfortable conversations, in which we share openly what is happening to us and engage authentically with what is going on for others.

As we rely on technology to communicate more efficiently in an increasingly global world, we mustn’t lose tough with the physical community around us or forget that human element within any relationship can never be replaced by technology. The more we rely on technology in our lives the more mindful we must be to turn it off and spend time with people, without our gadgets beeping at us to return texts that really, aren’t worth our time to reply to. While it might be stating the obvious, if you want to connect with people more, you need to be in converse with people more – openly, authentically and with a vulnerability that may sometimes make you uncomfortable.

PRO/CON: The world's getting warmer, can nuclear power help us?

By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff
02.05.16

PRO: Using more nuclear energy will stop greenhouse gases

Nuclear power plants produce energy by splitting apart the nucleus, or center, of atoms. When the nucleus is split, heat is released. That newly released energy is then used to produce electricity. In turn, that electricity is sent through a grid to light our homes and power our computers. 

Nuclear power is only one of many ways of producing electricity. However, it is superior to any other method for one important reason. It is the best way to produce carbon-free electric power. 

Carbon is in carbon dioxide and other gases. It is released or emitted when fuels like coal, gas or oil are burned. People burn these fuels to power cars and all sorts of machinery. 

Carbon-containing gases are the main cause of the so-called greenhouse effect. Once they are released through the burning of fuels, they remain in the atmosphere and trap heat, just as heat is trapped in a greenhouse. Over time, this has caused average global temperatures to rise. 

A Valuable Tool

The global increase in average temperature is known as climate change or global warming. It is putting the planet at risk. Polar ice caps are starting to melt, thereby causing ocean levels to rise. Increasingly, coastlines and island nations are being submerged. In other parts of the world, droughts are becoming common as lakes and rivers dry up.

The world is starting to come together to try to limit climate change. Clearly, a carbon-free source of energy like nuclear power is a valuable tool in that effort.

Nuclear power now accounts for more than 60 percent of the United States' zero-carbon electricity. It is playing an essential part in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Wind power and solar power can also produce energy without releasing carbon. However, they are not constant. To work, the sun has to be out, or the wind has to be blowing.

Nuclear power plants run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are the only constant source of power that does not emit greenhouse gases.

An Excellent Safety Record

Many claim nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear power plants produce radiation, which can be a dangerous form of energy. Even a small amount can cause severe damage to living things. Nuclear plants are built to keep radiation from leaking out, but many people worry such leaking will happen anyway.

Actually, there is no reason for concern. The nuclear power industry has an excellent safety record. 

The first commercial nuclear reactor began producing electricity more than 50 years ago. In all that time, there has not been a single death or injury from a radiation-related nuclear power plant accident in the United States. 

Many other countries also successfully rely on nuclear power. In France, nuclear power supplies 75 percent of the electricity, with enough to spare to provide almost a quarter of the electricity in Europe. 

The picture is very different in China, the world’s biggest carbon polluter. There, nuclear energy provides only 2 percent of the power. Coal remains China’s main energy source, and its use is increasing not only in China but throughout Asia.

Last month, representatives of most of the world's nations met in Paris, France, to discuss the climate crisis. The agreement they signed was far-reaching. It set a goal of bringing carbon emissions down to zero by the second half of this century.

Meeting that goal might seem impossible. However, France and Sweden show that countries can change their energy use very quickly. Both have been able to greatly increase their use of carbon-fee nuclear power in a relatively short time.

Reducing The Need For Oil

If the world built nuclear reactors at the same rate as France and Sweden have, the effect would be enormous. In 25 to 34 years, all the electricity now produced though burning coal and natural gas could be produced by nuclear power.

During this period, electric vehicles powered by nuclear-generated electricity could dramatically reduce the need for oil. These changes would greatly lower global carbon emissions and would help prevent dangerous climate change.

Meeting the new climate control goals is a daunting challenge. The world’s population is expected to increase to more than 9 billion by 2040. As a result, global demand for electricity will nearly double.

Unless the use of nuclear power is greatly increased, it will be impossible to both meet future energy demand and prevent dangerous climate change. Nuclear power is the only way to achieve both those goals at the same time.

CON: Nuclear power is only part of the answer, we need more solar and wind energy

The 2015 Paris climate agreement sets a remarkable goal. It calls on all countries to greatly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Most of these emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. The message could not be clearer: We need to change the way we generate and use energy, and do so quickly.

The United States set itself a modest goal. It has pledged to cut emissions by around a quarter by 2025. The country has already taken some steps to meet that goal, but much more is needed.

Perhaps the most realistic approach is to increase the use of both nuclear power and renewable energy. Renewable energy sources, also called renewables, include such things as wind power and solar power.

A Better Bet

China has been using this approach. It plans to double its nuclear power capacity, and has 24 new plants now under construction. However, it is also expanding its use of wind and solar power.

Should the United States do the same? Yes, but only in part. Currently, our 99 nuclear reactors only account for about 8 percent of the electricity the U.S. consumes. Most of the energy we use, about 81 percent, comes from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power will have an important part to play, but it is unlikely to replace much fossil fuel use. It is still too expensive and too risky.

A better bet is to expand the use of renewables, while also working to make our energy use less wasteful.

Globally, nuclear electricity production has been leveling off while wind and solar power are soaring. There are good reasons for this.

One is cost. The new nuclear plants now being built in the U.S. are expected to cost $8 billion to $9 billion each, possibly more. It is also very expensive to safely shut down plants, which eventually becomes necessary when they are too old.

These very high costs make it difficult for the private utilities that provide our electricity to increase nuclear power generation. They see more promise and lower costs in natural gas-powered plants or in turning to renewables.

Nuclear Waste, And A Disaster

The problem of radioactive waste is another big reason to avoid an increase in nuclear power. There is currently no acceptable way to dispose of the highly radioactive waste nuclear plants create. 

There is also always the chance of the kind of disaster that occurred in Fukushima, Japan. In 2011, an earthquake there caused radiation-contaminated water to leak out of a nuclear plant, poisoning the surrounding area. The U.S. public remains understandably concerned that such a disaster could happen here.

A better way is for the country to greatly increase its use of renewables. At the same time, we should try to use energy in a way that is less wasteful. A non-wasteful use of energy is known as energy efficiency.

There are many ways to cut down on wasteful energy loss. Among them are improved building design, and a greater use of trains and buses in place of cars. We should modernize our electrical grid, and design better lighting, heating and cooling systems.

The United States also should put more money into research on promising new types of energy.

The federal government has long favored nuclear power and fossil fuels. For the past 10 years, renewables and energy efficiency have begun to receive significant support. We should keep moving in that direction, and quickly.

Questions:

1. What are the advantages of using nuclear plant?

2. What are the disadvantages of using nuclear plant?

3. Which countries are currently using nuclear plant as their main power supply?

4. Define "renewables" and give a few examples.

5. In your opinion, should our country use nuclear power and why?

When a friend yawns, women feel urge to yawn too, study says

By Los Angeles Times, Adapted by Newsela staff

02.11.16

If a person yawns, some people will yawn back. Women do this more often than men. Scientists from Italy made this claim recently in a science magazine. They did tests to find out if people can catch the urge to yawn.  

A yawn is involuntary. A person does not mean to do it. It happens by opening the mouth, breathing in, expanding a tube that leads to the eardrums, and then exhaling. The whole event takes about six seconds. 

Catching yawns is an example of a social contagion. A social contagion is when information, ideas or behaviors are spread from person to person. It spreads almost like a cold does. A person who sees a friend yawn might also yawn, even if he or she is not tired. A person may also yawn if they hear, see, read about, or even think about yawning.

It Starts In Childhood

Scientists connect contagious yawning to empathy. When a person is empathic, they can sense other people’s feelings. They may even feel the way the other person does. Contagious yawning seems to start when children are 4 or 5 years old, about the same time children start to develop empathy. In old age it falls off, along with empathy.

Scientists looked at why contagious yawning is related to empathy. They say it uses the same neural network. A neural network is a system of cells that send messages to the brain, spine and nerves. Contagious yawning also happens more with friends and family than with strangers.

People are not the only ones who catch yawns from others. Chimpanzees, bonobos, dogs, wolves and other animals do also. Contagious yawning can even spread between animals and humans. Scientists have found that chimpanzees and dogs both catch human yawns.

Strangers Get No Reaction

Science also suggests that women have more empathy than men do. Scientists connect more empathy to more contagious yawning. They say that if women are more empathic than men, then they must catch more yawns, too.

To find out, the Italian scientists took a closer look. They observed people at work, eating dinner and at other places. Over five years, they recorded almost 1,500 cases of yawning. The scientists watched 92 pairs of people who passed a yawn at least three times.

They found no difference between men and women in ordinary yawning. However, women did catch yawns much more often than men did. Scientists also found that both men and women yawned when friends and family yawned. Neither one yawned very often when people that they did not know well yawned.  

Scientists say the fact that women have more empathy could affect more than just social yawning. It could make them better parents, better at communicating, and better at living in groups. Greater empathy may also allow women to have relationships that last longer.

Vocabulary:

a. empathy 

b. urge

b. contagion 

d. involuntary

- the communication of disease from one person to another by close contact (                     )

- the ability to understand and share the feelings of another           (                         )

- done without will or conscious control (                        )

- a strong desire or impulse (                         )

Questions:

1. What was the claim that the scientists from Italy made?

2. What is the process of a yawn?

3. What cause people to yawn?

4. Why women are more contagious to yawn?

5. In your opinion, how does a good sleep affect a person's daily routine?

Grade Level 5

Where the bombs fall day and night

By Los Angeles Times, adapted by Newsela staff

04.16.14

ALEPPO, Syria — A family stood shivering on a balcony in Aleppo’s Anadan suburb as midnight approached. Their sleep had been interrupted by the nightly flight of a government helicopter.

They followed the sound of the helicopter’s whirring blades and listened to scratchy updates from rebels coming over a walkie-talkie.

News came in that the helicopter had dropped two barrel bombs on nearby towns. The bombs are oil drums filled with TNT that can level buildings.

They knew that the helicopters can carry up to four of the bombs. They waited for the last two.

Below them, lights came on in basement bunkers as others sought a small measure of protection. Khansa Laila walked out onto the balcony cloaked in several layers but still shaking in the nighttime chill.

“I woke up from the sound of the alarm, so I’m still cold,” she said, referring to the warning system the town’s residents installed. “Also, fear makes you cold.”

A series of red streaks from a machine gun shot upward against a starry sky. But the streaks rose and fell without striking their target.

Eventually the sound of the helicopter grew faint and was replaced by that of a warplane.

“We don’t take the warplanes seriously anymore,” Laila said. “They launch rockets that are precise, but helicopters drop barrel bombs that can destroy dozens of homes with one barrel.”

The family went to sleep that night to the sound of machine-gun fire and the occasional rocket.

Sad Soundtrack Of War

It is three years into Syria’s conflict. The noise of war has become a familiar companion to daily life here in the country’s largest city. The noise is the sad soundtrack to the gradual destruction of Aleppo and a shrinking civilian population struggling to survive.

For more than three months, Aleppo’s opposition-held neighborhoods and surrounding suburbs have been terrorized nearly daily by the barrel bombs. Activists estimate that more than 2,000 people have been killed in these attacks.

Those still in the city have adjusted to enduring most of President Bashar Assad’s military might with resilience.

In a shoe store, a woman tries on a pair of wedge heels and deems them not comfortable enough “to flee” in. A 1-year-old with curly hair and big brown eyes speaks mostly in mumbles, but one word she knows clearly: "tabit" — it fell.

“A barrel falls and 10 minutes later people return to what they were doing,” said Muhammad. The young man works at a temporary gas station: 12 oil drums resting on their sides serving six varieties of gasoline.

Hours earlier, a barrel bomb had struck a street, hitting three vehicles and killing eight people. With the blood fresh on the pavement, motorists stopped and peered at the deadly damage.

The next day people walked by without a glance; the destroyed vehicles had become one more addition to the city’s scary backdrop.

“Every day we see the names of the dead scrolling across the TV screen; they’ve just become numbers,” one man said. “When I was a kid and someone died we mourned for 40 days, the TV could not be turned on. Now someone dies on one side and you turn around and watch a soap opera.”

On a recent day in an Aleppo vegetable market, a warplane’s low rumble halted all business and conversation.

Unripe almonds and lettuce were momentarily forgotten. Everyone turned their faces upward to track the plane by its sound.

Not until the rumble had faded, leaving only a white trail across the sky, did the people return their attention to the boring particulars of life. The plane was now the concern of another Aleppo neighborhood.

“If it had been a helicopter, they would watch it till it dropped the barrel," Saleh Laila said. Then chaos "would break out and cars would start driving into each other and people would run, trying to get away.”

Deserted Neighborhoods

A couple of charred and stripped vehicles mark the entrance of rebel-held Aleppo.

The helicopters attack day and night. Those attacks, coupled with poundings by warplanes and artillery as well as regular clashes between government and rebel forces, have transformed the once-vibrant commercial hub into one with entire neighborhoods deserted.

More than two-thirds of the city’s population is estimated to have fled north either to Turkey or, for those not allowed passage into the country, along its border in ramshackle refugee tents.

As one Aleppo resident said of the city, “There are fighters, activists and shop owners. No one else is left.”

At A Busy Market

At the scene of twin barrel bombings at a busy market, bodies, or what was left of them, were laid out along a sidewalk.

A man, his shirt bloodied and neck bandaged, smoked a cigarette. Those around him congratulated him on sustaining only a minor injury: “Thank God for your safety.”

“Don’t gather, don’t gather!” yelled one rebel with a rifle. The rebel warned people that a crowd could invite another attack.

Hours later, the broken glass and concrete had been swept and the blood washed away.

Children gathered around an ice cream stand, standing on tippy-toes to peer at the available flavors. Men bought produce from a fruit seller, the color of the oranges bright against the gray of fallen concrete.

Questions:

Questions:

1. Select the sentence that contains a word that is a synonym for "not so clear"?

A.   A family stood shivering on a balcony in Aleppo's Anadan suburb as midnight approached.

B.   They followed the sound of the helicopter's whirring blades and listened to scratchy updates from rebels coming over a walkie-talkie.

C.   Eventually the sound of the helicopter grew faint and was replaced by that of a warplane.

D.   The next day people walked by without a glance; the destroyed vehicles had become one moreaddition to the city's scary backdrop.

2. Which of the following sentences contains a word that is a synonym for "lively"?

A.   They followed the sound of the helicopter's whirring blades and listened to scratchy updates from rebels coming over a walkie-talkie.

B.   With the blood fresh on the pavement, motorists stopped and peered at the deadly damage.

C.   On a recent day in an Aleppo vegetable market, a warplane's low rumble halted all business and conversation.

D.   Regular clashes between government and rebel forces have transformed the once-vibrant commercial hub into one with entire neighborhoods deserted.

3. The reader can learn the following from the illustration EXCEPT:

A. the total number of people killed in Syria

B. the number of children killed in July 2012

C. the number of people killed in Damascus

D. the worst affected city in Syria

4. Which statement BEST describes how the illustration helps increase understanding of the article?

A. The article focuses on the war's effect on adults while the graphic focuses on children.

B. The article gives numbers and details about the war, while the graphic is mainly just for geography.

C. The article is mainly about Aleppo and the graphic is mainly about Damascus.

D. The article gives personal stories and descriptions while the graphic focuses on numbers and facts.

PRO/CON: Should we regulate e-cigs?

By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff

03.31.15

PRO: E-cigs shouldn't be banned, but they must be regulated

In 2014, the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year was “vape.” Simply put, it's breathing water vapor in and out through an electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should take a hint from the dictionary. It should write its own definition of e-cigarettes. They contain liquid nicotine, so the FDA should define them as a tobacco product.

Congress created the FDA in 1906. The government was concerned then over the quality and safety of America’s food and drug supply. 

The agency was created to help people know whether a product is safe and healthy.

In short, the FDA was made to watch over products just like e-cigarettes.

Nicotine Is Not Harmless

E-cigarettes claim to be healthy, but there is no proof. Right now more than 16 million children can legally buy e-cigs and give themselves as much nicotine as they want. Nicotine is not harmless. Accidentally drinking liquid nicotine has caused a huge increase in poisonings — including the death of a toddler in New York state two months ago.

Sales of e-cigs are booming. Last year, analysts at Wells Fargo bank estimated that sales of e-cigarette and other products amount to $2.5 billion a year. They predict it will rise to $10 billion annually by 2017.

The growth of e-cigs is partly due to advertising. Yet, the other reason is the growth in the number of high school students using them. The variety of e-cig flavors attract young people. Cotton candy, gummy bear and root beer float are just some of them.

E-cigs should be regulated, not banned. The FDA is the only agency that can do that. The FDA should prevent sales and advertising to kids. It should also make sure that health claims made by e-cig companies are true. Finally, it should require companies to list what's in e-cig juice.

“Juice” sounds harmless, but it's far from it. It is, in fact, flavored nicotine liquid. The liquid nicotine is heated through the e-cig and turned into vapor that users then inhale and exhale. At least, people inhale this flavored vapor and not burning tobacco. Because burning tobacco releases thousands of chemicals, e-cigs are safer than cigarettes.

Stop And Think

But, then again, cigarettes kill 6 million people per year. One historian called them the deadliest invention in human history.

And here is the possible value of the e-cigarette: it could be a powerful tool for saving millions of lives if smokers switched from puffing to vaping, and then to nothing.

The problem is that the safety and health claims of e-cigarettes have not been proven. Online, some folks claim e-cigs have helped them kick the habit, yet it might just be a few people.

Initial evidence from a major new study should make people stop and think. Early findings from the study of 46,000 Americans by the National Institutes of Health and the FDA indicate that smokers frequently use both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes.

These findings agree with other studies that found that rather than helping people quit smoking, e-cigarettes may actually make it harder for smokers to quit.

Beware Of Advertising

Nevertheless, e-cigarettes are frequently advertised as if they've been proven to be healthy. Researchers at the University of California-San Francisco found that 95 percent of e-cig websites either made outright claims that they had health benefits, or hinted there were some. Sixty-four percent made claims directly related to helping users quit smoking.

This is false advertising. Nicotine is addictive and it is a poison. The FDA should make both of these facts clear by requiring warning labels on e-cigarettes and bottles of e-juices. Skin contact with even small quantities of liquid nicotine can cause dizziness, vomiting and seizures. Swallowing it can be deadly.

A world in which a dangerous product is marketed and sold as a healthy one is exactly what the FDA exists to prevent.

E-cigarettes are not snake oil. But gummy bear, cotton candy and sour apple shouldn’t make them any easier to use.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Sarah Milov is an assistant professor of history at the University of Virginia. She currently is writing a book about tobacco in the 20th century. Readers may write her at 435 Nau Hall South Lawn, Charlottesville, VA 22904.

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.

CON: Inhaling e-cigarettes is not like smoking cigarettes

In 1964, the office of the Surgeon General — the top government doctor — released its very first report on tobacco smoking.

It looked at scientific evidence from more than 7,000 articles on smoking and disease. Based on those studies, the report cited tobacco smoking as a major cause of lung and throat cancer.

The report launched a “war on smoking.” It soon led to health warnings on cigarette packages and bans on cigarette commercials on radio and television. In recent years, it has led to bans on smoking in public places, like restaurants.

Over this half-century of cigarette regulation, two facts have been impressed upon the nation: 1) smoking tobacco kills people; 2) once a person is addicted to smoking cigarettes, or, rather, to the nicotine one ingests by smoking cigarettes, it is very hard for a person to quit.

An Anti-Smoking Aid

Then an invention came along — e-cigarettes. They supply nicotine in much the same way as a tobacco cigarette. Yet, they don't appear to cause cancer or lung disease. Many people cheered the new invention.

Finally there was a product that could help those who were addicted. People who had tried other ways of quitting now had another anti-smoking aid to try.

Lives could be saved. People could replace their tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes. Instead of inhaling smoke and all its carcinogens — like tar — they'd just breathe water vapor. And that horrible smell would be replaced with just the light scent of a flavor like mint or strawberry.

Lives could be saved.

One would expect the public health community to be cheering loudly — and some some health professionals have, in fact, been supportive of e-cigarettes.

But some people appear to be addicted to regulation, and not to public health. For them, e-cigarettes challenge their beliefs.

Too Many Worries?

How can they try to ban a product that saves lives?

Many of these regulators are worried about the “what ifs.” “What if” vaping turns out to be harmful? “What if” people who vape decide to start smoking?

These “what ifs” are quite unlikely. However, it is on the basis of them that some people support bans. Some want bans on the sale of e-cigarettes. Others want to add grossly high taxes on e-cigarettes to discourage people from using them. Some even want outright bans on the use of e-cigarettes in public.

But such policies mean nicotine addicts will be less likely to use e-cigarettes. Instead, they may be more likely to keep smoking tobacco, which would obviously lead to more tobacco smoking and thus, more illness and death.

"Different Levels Of Risk"

The director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, Mitch Zeller, made the key point clear: “People are smoking for the nicotine, but dying from the tar.”

He says e-cigarette regulation should take into account that different nicotine products "pose different levels of risk to the individual.” He believes they should be regulated according to their risks.

Which means America should not treat e-cigarettes and vaping just like tobacco smoking and smoke. Smoking is clearly far more dangerous than vaping.

In fact, vaping can cause people to voluntarily stop smoking. Because of that, we need carefully crafted rules. If they are well-written to steer Americans from smoking toward vaping as a replacement, it will provide “an extraordinary public health opportunity,” in Zeller's words.

Zeller makes a lot of sense. On the other side are the regulation nuts. These people are the enemy of public health.

Smoking kills. Vaping is a safer alternative. Our nation’s rules will save lives if they reflect this fact.

Questions:

1. What is e-cigs?

2. Is nicotine harmful to the body and how?

3. Why are high school students attracted to e-cigs?

4. How are e-cigs being advertised to the public?

5. What are the two facts of cigarettes impressed upon the nation?

6. In your opinion, should we regulate e-cigs and why?

7. How will the economic be affected by increase use of e-cigs? 

Questions: The Charge of the Light Brigade

Half a league, half a league, 

Half a league onward, All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred. ‘Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns!’ he said: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

Someone had blundered.

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

   Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of hell

   Rode the six hundred.

Questions:

1. In your opinion, what do you think went wrong when the order was given?

2. Do you believe that war is sometimes necessary? Why?

3. Is it noble to follow orders without questions?