Month: April 2016

The term immunization crisis refers to the current low-point in vaccinations nationwide, especially among children. So called ‘anti-vaxxers’ have become a social movement, actively lobbying against the vaccinations of their children, relying on various (often bogus) studies to back up their claims that vaccinations do more harm than good, and that they even cause illnesses like autism, epilepsy, etc, while preventing other illnesses they consider ‘minor’.

These ‘anti-vax’ parents are also making an effort to eliminate all mandatory vaccinations that are currently being administered by doctors and at school. There are recommended vaccines and so called baby shots for small children. These cover the most common vaccine-preventable diseases, such as rubella or mumps, and are recommended by nearly all physicians.

Despite the current crisis, anti-vaccination movements have been around as long as vaccinations have. Even in the very beginning, when the smallpox vaccine was discovered and made publically available, people were scared of it and many chose not to get it at all. Mind you, many of them died as the disease was at its peak then, however the idea already existed. The reasons for it were varied, and while some of them no longer apply (people felt injecting part of an animal-cow, with smallpox-counted as bestiality), others sound strangely familiar to modern ears-such as the question of whether or not man should interfere with god’s work. Granted-this is no longer a major concern, however there are always voices asking whether we are taking medicine too far.

But why are vaccinations important? A good example are measles-on the whole a fairly harmless illness, it can claim lives, however the ‘normal’ progression is unpleasant but harmless. Either way, the illness was eradicated in the US, according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), due to vaccinations. However, with anti-vaccination movements on the rise, the illness has actually resurfaced and claimed lives again.

Mass vaccinations, especially in children have a positive effect, even on children who are not vaccinated. It’s called ‘herd immunity’ and it means that in a large group those who are or cannot be immunized are protected anyway. Leaving aside parents who simply don’t want their kids vaccinated there are always those who genuinely cannot be vaccinated for a variety of medical reasons. In order to protect those, as many of the others need to be vaccinated as possible. However, with numbers in certain states actually falling rather than rising, this can no longer be ensured and the parents are endangering not only their own kids, but also those of others.

The US government as well as almost all major (and minor) healthcare providers are taking care to raise the numbers of vaccinations through a variety of ways. Primarily they try to inform and educate by teaching parents to tell the difference between made up things and real medical evidence. They also make sure that the vaccinations are readily available, not only by making the necessary shots free, but also by making them mandatory. For example, an insurance company will refuse to insure a family unless they get all the recommended vaccinations for their children and themselves. Both of these measures have shown fairly high success rates.

The legal situation on vaccinations in the US depends on the individual states. This means that same already mandate vaccinations in schools whereas others leave it up to individual schools or parents. Obviously, the states in which certain vaccines-usually rubella, measles and mumps-are required, the overall rate of illness is much lower-the connection is obvious. However, since the situations differ, and quite a lot, that makes a one size fits all solution almost impossible as a country-wide consensus or legislation would have to be reached.

Barring that almost utopic scenario, the current US immunisation crisis with its low vaccination and comparably high infection rates cause a constant struggle to protect all its children, regardless of their parents good or bad choices, however efforts are being made towards just that goal.

References:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162046/

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/t0912_measles-outbreaks-data.html

When buying a new car, most of us will consider the same issues. Price, speed and size, perhaps color and add-ons. For what it’s worth, gas mileage usually isn’t at the top of the list, despite its importance.

The automobile industry has been working hard on improving this important aspect of it, through a variety of measures. One aspect, a fairly overlooked one, is weight. When trying to improve mileage, scientists will look at the engine, or the fuel itself. Now, these aren’t bad approaches, however there are other inroads to be made.

For a long time, the preferred way of going about this was to make the cars smaller, which wasn’t considered the best option as people wanted big cars. Certainly not everyone, however little smart cars are clearly less popular than bigger alternatives. So, on the whole, this was not the path to take.

Instead what is happening now is that they are trying to make car parts lighter, while maintaining the original shape and size of the car. Many vital car parts are still made of steel-not exactly a lightweight material. Now people are working on replacing steel with other materials. The current favourite is aluminium. Much lighter and usually thinner, it can easily replace parts of modern cars.

Concerns for safety have been easily dispelled as the newer lighter cars perform just as well in safety tests as their hard-steel counterparts. The car parts that are currently being replaced do not affect a cars safety in an accident. Not all parts are being replaced as of right now, however more than enough in order to seriously lower the weight and improve the mileage of the new cars.

The US has a goal set for 2025-to improve the mpg (miles per gallon) to 54.5mpg. The current goal expires in 2016 and mandates 34.1mpg-so the 2025 goal would be a massive improvement, however it also still comes with serious issues. This goal is not exclusive to the US, other countries are attempting it too. In fact, the EU is the USs biggest competitor. Not all countries are capable of competing at the same level of course, however as it is now, the US are actually ahead of schedule to reach their 54.5mpg goal.

The second area (next to smaller cars) that is currently not a completely viable alternative option are fully electric cars. Hybrid cars are currently fairly popular and help make massive advances towards the 54.5 goal, however entirely electric cars turned out to be not as popular as they were originally heralded to be. They have their fans, and they are being worked on, however they are no longer considered the be all and end all of modern cars. Their limitations are simply too encompassing for now. The lack of charging stations, (reduced) lack of reach in miles.

Despite all of this, why are all of these advances made? Why does it matter how far one gets with a gallon of fuel? Aside from reducing the cost of fuel for the end user and therefore keep oil/fuel prices low, the main positive outcome is the severe lowering of emissions caused by cars. The more fuel a car needs to run, the more emissions it expels.

It is very much in the government’s interest to keep emissions to a minimum, and so it helps fund research to achieve just that. Higher mileage per gallon, lower emissions, more efficient cars, at first glance they may not be all that similar however they are connected and they are important. Important enough to warrant significant funds and investments.

However, this whole affair depends on one more factor-the consumers. All of this can only be successful if consumers buy into it-this was a major issue with electrical cars as they weren’t as well received as was hoped. However so far consumers approve, models like the new Tesla are highly sought after and are built based on much more mpg efficient technology than more commercial models. This suggests that people approve of and are interested in lightweight car models and are willing to support them, at the very least for now.

References:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml

http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/the-road-ahead-how-well-get-to-54-5-mpg-by-2025/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-boost-gas-mileage-automakers-explore-lighter-cars/

The 2015 Parisian Climate Change Agreement, signed by over 190 countries, is the first ever legally binding global climate deal. While it was signed in December 2015, the document will not be in full effect until 2020. It was signed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Paris (thus the name). For the agreement to fully become legally binding, 55 signing countries that produce over 55% of the gas emissions of the world need to adapt the rules set in the agreement into their own legislations.

The conference’s high cost was widely criticised, having taken 170 million USD or 180 million €. In response to the concerns raised about the high costs, France stepped up and, as the host country, offered to cover 20% of the cost themselves. They ended up paying for slightly more than those 20%, and the gesture was widely praised as a step in the right direction-the willingness to commit to it all was internationally appreciated. Within the country itself, many felt that the money could have been better spent-as is often the case with large financial spending of any nation.

At the time of the initial conference, there were demonstrations, worldwide, in favour of a strong and binding agreement, uniting the attending states in their desire to do good for the environment. At the time of the conference Paris had banned public gatherings due to the recent terrorist attacks, however law enforcement made an exception, allowing thousands to gather in order to express their favour for this agreement. In addition to this demonstration, there was another at the time, and that illegal gathering involved several violent clashes and injured policemen as well as over 300 arrests. The two demonstrations were held separately however.

There have been some concerns about some countries not being entirely happy with that, especially the US being rather hesitant. Without big players like the US and Russia the agreement was doomed to fail. That being said, there are meetings set for 2016 and 2017, during which certain aspects are set to be renegotiated-treating those big players more kindly and making it easier for them to implement it into their own legal bodies.

The general idea is that global warming should be limited to no more than 2°C. The short-term goal is no more of an increase than 1.5°C, with the secondary goal of stopping global emissions from rising any higher than they currently are, the long-term goal here being the overall reduction of them, which will not happen for a good while.

In addition to the overall reduction of emissions and global warming, the signing governments also agreed on other things-to periodic meetings and milestones. This means that they will meet every 5 years, continually supply information to other members as well as their public about their progress on the goals. In addition to those meetings, smaller regional meetings have also been spoken about-however those are voluntary and not required.

At every future meeting, they agreed to set new short- and midterm goals for themselves. The constant progress reports have been implemented in different ways in different countries, however they generally equate to a yearly report published and made accessible as well as half-yearly updates on it. These reports are made available by the government, but they are created, then fact-checked by independent scientists.

While there are a lot of other countries that signed this agreement, the EU took on a rather central role in the whole affair, especially supporting climate-positive actions and also financially supporting companies and individuals that are doing extraordinary work towards that, and even going so far as helping other countries (mostly developing countries) out in their own efforts to meet the goals, as most of the signing countries are aware the most effort will be required from them, despite the often unfavourable political and economic situations in those countries.

 

 

References:          http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf