Haze: A Danger to Health

            The haze is a constant phenomenon faced by Malaysia and her neighbouring countries. The haze is basically pollution of atmosphere, which is clogged with pollutants and other substances from forest fires.

            The haze is a direct effect of forest fire in Kalimantan and other parts of Indonesia due to slash and burn method of farming. The Indonesian authorities appear to have no power to control farmers from practising such methods. The haze is further worsened by open burning practised by most Malaysians. Open-field burning of rice straw by the rice planters and open burning of dried leaves and garbage done by the public are a few examples that done by Malaysian. Many are ignorant of the health effects of open burning.

            During the haze, hospitals and clinic often report a dramatic increase in respiratory problems, lung infections and asthma attack. The Air Pollution Index (API) usually indicates the hazardous and dangerous levels of pollution during this period. The haze has long-term side effects. Prolonged inhalation of polluted air will result in serious lung infection which particularly affects the elderly.

            The government must play its role to reduce the haze treat. It has to cooperate with the Indonesian authorities to stamp out forest fires. The culprits must be brought to justice, either through healthy fine or prison sentence. Constant vigilance would ensure the perpetrators do not repeat their offence.

           The government should also raise the public awareness of the dangers of forest fire. Continuous campaign of the cause, solutions and steps-need-to-be-taken to reduce the haze need to be promoted through all types of social media like television, radio, newspaper and even via internet. The authorities should also provide assistance to farmers and introduce more sophisticated forest clearing methods.

            In Malaysia, strict laws must be imposed to penalise those who practise open burning. On-going campaigns on the dangers of open burning should be intensified. Individuals have a role to play too. They must participate in every campaign and stop burning. Students can advise their parents not to practice open burning.

            Every individual has to remember that we do not own the world, but instead we lent it from our future generations. We must protect our world so that our grandchildren would have a healthy earth to live.

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?

A hot dog a day can cause cancer, scientists say

By Associated Press, adapted by Newsela staff

Grade Level 5Word Count 730

PARIS, France — Bacon, hot dogs and bologna taste good to most of us. Unfortunately, it turns out they can be very bad for your health. The World Health Organization (WHO) said such meats can cause cancer.

The WHO is part of the United Nations. It is a group whose members are countries that work to solve the world's problems.

Cancer is a terrible disease that kills millions of people every year. It causes cells in the body to grow uncontrollably. Lumps form inside the body and spread, and can lead to death.

Bacon, Bologna And Colon Cancer

The WHO scientists looked at two kinds of meat: processed meat and red meat. Processed meat is meat that has been flavored or preserved, often by adding chemicals. Bacon, hot dogs and bologna are all processed meats, along with sausages, beef jerky and anything smoked. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb and goat.

The WHO said processed meat is definitely linked to cancer. In particular, it can lead to cancer of the colon. The colon is also known as the large intestine. The colon helps the body digest or break down food and prepare waste for elimination.

The WHO said red meat probably can cause cancer as well. So far, there is not enough proof to be completely sure, however.

Happy Doctors, Angry Meat Producers

The new WHO report is the most complete study yet on the link between meat and cancer. Doctors have long suspected there was such a link.

The report was prepared by the WHO's cancer agency. The agency looked at more than 800 earlier studies on possible links between meat and cancer.

Cancer experts welcomed the new report.

Meat producers are angry. The North American Meat Institute represents U.S. meat producers. It has begun to fight back against the new WHO report.

The meat institute said cancer is a complicated disease, with many causes. It said cancer is "not caused by single foods."

Hot Dogs, Smoking And Danger

For the first time, the WHO has put processed meats in the same danger group as smoking. Its findings do not mean that hot dogs and salami are as bad as cigarettes. It only means that there is a proven link to cancer.

Eating one hot dog a day is enough to increase your chances of getting cancer. Eating several slices of bologna a day is also enough to raise your risk of getting cancer. The more processed meat a person eats, the higher the risk of getting the disease.

Still, eating processed meats is much less dangerous than smoking cigarettes. Smoking three cigarettes a day is far worse for you than eating three slices of bologna a day. It is around 27 times more likely to give you cancer.

Even so, the risks of eating certain kinds of meat are real. Experts have long warned of the dangers of chemicals used to preserve, flavor or color meat.

Cancer Risk And Healthier Choices

The risk of getting colon cancer from eating processed meat is small, said Dr. Kurt Straif of the WHO. However, the risk increases, the more of it you eat.

Every year around 34,000 people die of cancers linked to eating processed meat. Usually these are people who ate a lot of processed meat.

Doctors have long advised against eating lots of red or processed meat. They have done this not just because of the cancer danger. The high levels of fat and salt in these types of meat can also lead to heart disease.

Cancer expert Susan Gapstur said the WHO report is "an important step" in helping people make healthier food choices. She suggests choosing fish or chicken instead of red meat or processed meat.

Food scientist Gunter Kuhnle accepts the WHO's findings. However, he thinks people should not become overly worried. Processed meats are nowhere nearly as likely to cause cancer as cigarettes are, he said. Eating a little bit is probably not dangerous.

Kuhnle said the new findings are very important. However, they should not be used to alarm or frighten people, he said.