Why Should We Have Good Manners?

Good manners are important to live happily among people. Without good manners we are only slightly better than animals.

The modern society consists of more people than it did in the past. These people are of various cultural, racial, religious and professional backgrounds. It therefore requires great powers of endurance and abilities of mixing with people. Good manners enable one to tolerate the disagreeable attitudes of others to a great extent. They also help to promote friendship among the people around.

If one has good manners, that person is respected by those who associate with him or her. Having good manners, however, does not mean that being polite, understanding, and sympathetic when not only outside but also inside his or her home. There are many people who are very kind and polite to people outside their homes, but within their own homes they are worse than the devil himself. Such people do not really have good manners.

Having good manners means being good to others. Our speech and habits as well as our behavior should not hurt the feelings of others or cause them any inconvenience. We should not also talk ill about others or boast about our achievements or personal possessions. We must not laugh at the weaknesses and failures of others. Further, if we are angry we must try to use words in such a way that others are not offended.

If we have all these qualities, we will have more friends and well-wishers. We will also have less trouble from others, and those who associate with us will also learn how to behave well. In this way, our good manners will help to spread better understanding and good-will among others. Thus, we can live a happier life. It is for all these reasons that we should have good manners.

City apartments or jungle huts? By their microbes you shall know them

By Associated Press, adapted by Newsela staff

02.24.16

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Whether it is a jungle hut or a high-rise apartment, your home is covered in bacteria. That is not always a bad thing. However, new research from the Amazon rain forest suggests city dwellers might want to open a window.

Learning About Microbes

Scientists traveled through South America, from remote villages in Peru to a large Brazilian city, to track one of the unseen effects of urbanization. Over time, more and more people have moved to urban areas like cities. Many things change as new buildings arise and more people live in a small area of land. This study focused on how urbanization affects the diversity of bacteria inside people's homes.

The study is a small first step in a larger quest to understand how different environmental bugs help shape what's called our microbiome. Microbiomes are the collections of bacteria and other tiny microbes that live inside our bodies. These trillions of bacteria share our bodies and play a critical role in our health.

"Very little is known about the microbes of the built environment," according to microbiologist Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello. She is a professor at New York University, and led the study in South America.

The Walls Have Germs

Her team found that as people in the Amazon rain forest come to live in larger villages and cities the kinds of bacteria in their homes change. They lose the bugs mostly found in nature and pick up those that typically live on people.

In fact, in city dwellings, the researchers could tell just by the bacteria on the walls that "this is a kitchen or this is a bathroom or this is a living room. That's amazing," Dominguez-Bello said.

As she puts it, "the walls talk."

Everyone carries a customized set of bacteria on the skin, in the nose and in the gut. This bacteria starts accumulating at birth and helps with such things as digestion and the immune system, which fights off colds and disease. What influences the balance of good bugs and bad varies depending on such things as your diet, how you were born, and what antibiotic medicines you take. Environmental exposures play a role, too.

One Theory Of Allergies

For example, one theory suggests asthma and allergies are on the rise in Western populations because kids get less contact with bugs that were once common in their surroundings. This theory may be one reason why children who grow up on farms or around animals tend to have fewer of those immune-related illnesses.

Increasingly, scientists also are investigating where we spend a lot of time, especially our homes. To track the effects of urbanization, Dominguez-Bello's team studied the bacterial communities of 10 houses and their inhabitants from four different locations. Three of these were in Peru: a village of hunter-gatherers, a slightly more modern rural village and the medium-sized city of Iquitos. The fourth location was Manaus, a larger city in Brazil.

These locations gave the scientists the opportunity to compare similar people living in four different states of urbanization. Peru and Brazil are neighboring countries in South America. Each includes large sections of the Amazon rain forest. The people living in the two small villages are relatively similar to those living in Iquitos (population about 150,000) and Manaus (population about 2,000,000).

Bad Germs: Gone With The Wind?

Housing styles help tell the story, said study co-author Humberto Cavallin, an architect at the University of Puerto Rico. Large families shared open-air jungle huts with no outside walls. Homes in the rural villages had indoor walls but they did not reach the roof. City homes were larger with standard rooms and smaller families.

Despite having fewer people living in them, it was the city dwellings that had the most human bacteria living on their walls and floors, the researchers reported. In Manaus, bacteria normally found in the mouth and in the gut were the most important in telling rooms apart. The more crowded jungle and village homes were filled with bacteria commonly more found in soil and water than with human microbes.

The walls of city homes were acting as traps and retaining the bacteria that people shed. This was especially true when compared with the village homes that allowed air to circulate more freely, the team reported. Dominguez-Bello was so struck by the findings that she insisted the windows in her New York office be unsealed so she could open them.

A Balancing Act

She next will compare the microbiomes of the residents with their homes. However, she did acknowledge that there is a balancing act to this. While jungle and village homes may allow for more air to move within them, these have their own set of problems. For example, many of these homes do not have screens to keep out disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Still, the findings reflect research in U.S. homes and hospitals about the role of ventilation, said Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago. He is a microbiologist who was not involved in the study. His own housing study was able to match which family lived where by the bacteria they shed inside.

He said that when it comes to studying microbiomes and bacteria, "our modern homes are set up perfectly."

Questions:

1. How did Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello make her discovery about bacteria?

2. According to the study, what is the connection between urbanization and bacteria?

3. Why did village homes have less human bacteria than city homes?

4. Microbiomes are the collections of bacteria and other tiny microbes that live inside our bodies. These trillions of bacteria share our bodies and play a critical role in our health.

Which word would BEST replace "critical" in this sentence without changing its meaning?

A. minor

B. important

C. negative

D. mysterious

5. The walls of city homes were acting as traps and retaining the bacteria that people shed.

What is the BEST definition of "retaining" as used above?

A. to clean something

B. to harm something

C. to transform something

D. to hold on to something

6. Based on your understanding, define the word "antibiotic".

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?

Barbie gets lots of new looks; will more girls want to play with her now?

By Associated Press, adapted by Newsela staff02.02.16

NEW YORK, N.Y. — Poor Barbie. She had plastic surgery to become more socially acceptable. Unfortunately, many people do not like her new look.

Mattel, the company that makes Barbie, announced that the doll has three new body types. She comes in curvy, tall and petite. Barbie will also now come in seven skin tones, 22 eye colors and 24 hairstyles. Michelle Chidoni is a Mattel spokeswoman. She said the product is evolving to "offer more choices" to make "the line more reflective of the world girls see around them."

Too Much Stress On Fashion?

However, not everyone thinks the change is good. Kris Macomber is a professor of sociology at Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina. She's "reluctant to celebrate Barbie's changes because it doesn't change the fact that Barbie dolls and other kinds of fashion dolls still over-emphasize female beauty. Sure, all body types should be valued. And, sure, all skin colors should be valued equally. But why must we keep sending girls the message that being beautiful is so important?"

Josh Golin is with the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. He tries to get companies to stop showing so many commercials to kids. Golin said Barbie's changes are due to activists who for years have challenged her "unrealistic and harmful body type" and worked for change. But body type "was only one of the criticisms," he said. "The other was the brand's relentless focus on appearance and fashion." Mattel cares too much about outside appearance, he thinks.

Fewer Girls Choose Barbie

Kumea Shorter-Gooden is the co-author of "Shifting: The Double Lives of Black Women in America." Shorter-Gooden said in the past Barbie has a bigger impact on black girls struggling with messages about skin color and hair. Shorter-Gooden praised Mattel "for diversifying the size and look of Barbie." However, she noted that "European-American hair still prevails," and that the dolls' outfits still "convey a traditional and constraining gender norm about how girls and women should look."

Barbie's looks may never measure up to society's changing expectations. Another question worth asking is whether kids still want to play with Barbies. 

Barbie sales fell 14 percent in the most recently reported quarter. Worldwide sales have fallen every year since 2012. A study by BAV Consulting found that consumers think of the Barbie brand as being "less relevant" than most of the 3,500 brands BAV studied. BAV also found that consumers think of Barbie as being in the bottom third of all brands when it comes to social responsibility.  However, it is thought of as the top 2 percent when it comes to being traditional.

Some Girls Want Different Dolls

Mattel said it will still sell the original 11.5-inch Barbie. The new versions will begin arriving on U.S. store shelves in March and will roll out globally after that. They are available for preorder at shop.mattel.com, and will ship in February.

Quiana Agbai is an African-American mother of two. She has written about "the effects of dolls not looking like my 5-year-old daughter" on her website, www.harlemlovebirds.com. Agbai said Barbie's new look is "a step in the right direction." However, she noted that "there are brands already filling this need in greater detail." Agbai's husband's family is Nigerian, so she found a Nigerian princess doll for her daughter from a line called Queens of Africa. Agbai herself grew up playing with the American Girl doll Addy, whose story line involved escaping from slavery.

Some, however, saluted the new Barbie wholeheartedly.

New Barbie Is "Real Progress"

Trina Finton is a Hispanic mom from Simi Valley, California, who works in tech. She once bought herself an engineer Barbie from the doll's career line. Finton was "thrilled" to hear about Barbie's new looks, especially the curly hair. In the past, when she's taken her 3-year-old daughter to Target, "I avoid the Barbie aisle. I just don't want her to feel bad that she can't see a doll that looks like her."

Kelly Brownell was a Yale psychology professor in the 1990s. From a 1995 study, he concluded that young girls notice the body shapes of icons like Barbie and translate them into unhealthy images. Today, Brownell is a dean at Duke University. He said the new Barbie "represents real progress." The new Barbie is "beginning to correct the wildly unrealistic body shapes and sizes of earlier days."

Questions:

1.  "But body type "was only one of the criticisms," he said. "The other was the brand's relentless focus on appearance and fashion."

Which of the following words, if it replaced "relentless" in the sentence, would CHANGE the meaning of the sentence?

A. persistent

B. sustained

C. continuous

D. intermittent

2. What are the new features of Barbie?

3. Give one example of who does not think the change is good and why.

4. Do you think the new change of Barbie will attract more girls to play with her and why?

5. In your opinion, does the feature of a toy has any impact on the young generations?

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.

More than 1 million people sought refuge in Europe this year, report says

By Associated Press, adapted by Newsela staff

12.24.15

GENEVA, Switzerland — More than 1 million people entered Europe in this record-breaking year, migration experts said Tuesday. They were driven out of their home countries by war, poverty and persecution. This mass movement of people has challenged the idea of European unity.

With just days left in 2015, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said 1,005,504 people had entered Europe as of Monday. The number was more than four times as many as last year. Almost all of them came by sea, and 3,692 people drowned trying to make the crossing.

European governments must make migration safer, said IOM official William Lacy Swing. He is general director of the organization. 

"We know migration is inevitable. It's necessary and it's desirable," Swing said. He added, "Migration must be legal, safe and secure for all — both for the migrants themselves and the countries that will become their new home."

Getting Accurate Count Is Hard

The IOM gets its the numbers from government records. The figures are from Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Spain, Malta and Cyprus, spokesman Joel Millman said. He noted that the real number of people entering Europe may be even larger. Officials are having trouble getting an accurate number because so many have entered Europe in such a short time.

Most people entered Europe from Greece, which took in 820,000 people this year. Nearly all of them crossed from Turkey by boat across the Aegean Sea. Another 150,000 came into Italy across the Mediterranean Sea from north Africa, while smaller numbers crossed from Turkey by land into neighboring Greece and Bulgaria. Even fewer arrived by boat to other countries around the Mediterranean.

Not all the migrants are included in the IOM count. Others crossed into Europe across other borders. A few thousand people have crossed by bicycle from Russia to Norway.

Many People Drowned During Trek

About half of the people entering Europe were Syrians. Another 20 percent were Afghans, and 7 percent were Iraqis, IOM said.

Many fleeing war and persecution will likely be allowed to stay in Europe. Others who came to find work could be sent back.

Of the deaths, 2,889 were people traveling from North Africa toward Italy, the IOM said. A total of 706 drowned trying to cross the Aegean to Greece, and 72 died trying to reach Spain. No one knows exactly how many have died in shipwrecks or who they were. The bodies of others, including a 3-year-old child, have washed up on Greek beaches. This shocked the world and led European officials to promise to make the migration routes safer.

The war in Syria has been particularly important in the refugee crisis. The war has killed hundreds of thousands and has caused millions to flee. European governments have struggled to agree on how to handle the migrants. They have argued whether to welcome them at all and how best to care for the huge number of people.

Cold Weather Adds To Dangers

Over the summer, some Eastern European countries opened and closed their border, which caused confusion and frustration. Hungary, in particular, angered its neighbors by building a fence to keep people out. Migrants began rushing to find alternate routes through countries, which were unable to handle so many people. A more organized system began in the fall.

Germany and Sweden have welcomed the largest numbers of refugees. About 1 million migrants arrived in Germany this year, including large numbers of people from Eastern Europe who could be sent back.

With cold weather making journeys more dangerous, the number of migrants has slowed, but people are still showing up in Greece. Also, there's no sign that the number of migrants will go down when temperatures start rising again in the spring. IOM said more than 4,100 people arrived on the Greek islands on Monday alone.

Questions:

1. Why did people sought refugee?

2, How many refugee entered Europe in 2015?

3.Where in Europe does the people migrate to?

4.Explain two ways how refugees travel to Europe?

5. Where did the refugees come from?

6. What are the dangers that might be faced by the refugees during their travelling?

7. Do you think our country should welcome refugee? Why?

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?