Archives
An Australian aboriginal elder died of a heat stroke in a prison van. Reports claimed that the 46-year-old who is known otherwise as a Mr Ward had to endure temperatures above 50 degree celsius during the four-hour continuous journey due to a faulty air-conditioner. He was on the way from Laverton to Kalgoorlie to face a drink-drive charge in court. Talks about auditing the passage of people through the custodial system to reduce the possibility of further deaths is underway. While an error has been made, nothing can undo the untoward incident. Nevertheless, the system did receive a massive jolt that it needed. Since Mr Ward's death, plane and coach transport services for prisoners have been introduced and dysfunctional prison vehicles have also made way for new fleets of vehicles.
Who would have thought that we would one day watch moving scenes from a black box? Come to think of it, the idea of sitting comfortably on a couch and switching channels with just a click of the remote seems intriguing. However, the fact that people are spending more time, approximately two to three hours per day, on watching television merely shows how important this asset is to families nowadays (ATUS 2003). Perspectives have been changed and people now see television as a common necessity more than a luxury. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that television viewing causes harmful effects, such as the underdevelopment of certain skills, the acceptance of violence and the cultivation of an unhealthy lifestyle. Firstly, children who watch television excessively may not develop thinking skills that will carry them throughout their years. According to Jones (2001), television viewing is a passive activity. Neither do viewers move physically, nor mentally because there is no need to do so. This encourages the mind to remain stagnant, further causing the brain to lose its ability to generate thoughts after some time. Children, especially, do not develop imaginative skills to create fictitious characters, situations and make-believe worlds (Leigh 2001). Without these abilities, they are not able to come up with practical and speedy solutions when a problem arises. In other words, they cannot fully organise their thoughts into action. Besides that, children may accept violence as a normal part of life through television viewing (Sharif 1999). Children nowadays do not just watch cartoons, and even if they do, cartoons are just not as innocuous anymore. Some portray violent scenes, albeit to a minimal extent. Prime time news showing graphic scenes are also a source of exposure. Regardless, exposure is exposure and we cannot deny that. When scenes like fighting and beating people are too common until the adults themselves do not react, children become desensitised to violence (Sharif 1999). Worse still, they may think of it as an acceptable solution to any problem in the future. On another note, television viewing creates opportunity cost for homework and exercise. As portrayed by the UK Time Use Survey (2000), people spend most of their time on television and less on sports and reading. When we are so engrossed in watching television, we do not mind going all the way in making sure that our must-see programmes are not missed (Rutherford 2002). Hence, we organise our timetable around the programme schedule. In some sense, we are turning ourselves into slaves of television as other activities have to wait no matter what. The option for a sedentary lifestyle, coupled with excessive snacking, may even lead to obesity and related disease. In conclusion, I truly believe that television viewing hinders the development of certain skills, causes children to be desensitised to violence and eats into the time set for homework and exercise. However, I would also like to stress that the existence of these negative effects should not be a barrier to watching television. The key to smart viewing is self-discipline. So long as we know our limits, I reckon there is nothing wrong in a little de-stressing. As Rutherford (2002) brilliantly puts it, television is a bad master but a good servant. The onus is on us to use it wisely.
Who would have thought that we would one day watch moving scenes from a black box? Come to think of it, the idea of sitting comfortably on a couch and switching channels with just a click of the remote seems intriguing. However, the fact that people are spending more time, approximately two to three hours per day, on watching television merely shows how important an asset it is to families nowadays (ATUS 2003). Perspectives have changed and people now see television as a common necessity more than a luxury. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that television viewing causes harmful effects, such as the underdevelopment of certain skills, the acceptance of violence and the cultivation of an unhealthy lifestyle. Firstly, children who watch television excessively may not develop thinking skills that will carry them throughout their years. According to Jones (2001), television viewing is a passive activity. Neither do viewers move physically, nor mentally because there is no need to do so. This encourages the mind to remain stagnant, further causing the brain to lose its ability to generate thoughts after some time. Children, especially, do not develop imaginative skills to create fictitious characters, situations and make-believe worlds (Leigh 2001). Without these abilities, they are not able to come up with practical and speedy solutions when a problem arises. In other words, they cannot fully organise their thoughts into action. Besides that, children may accept violence as a normal part of life through television viewing (Sharif 1999). Children nowadays do not just watch cartoons, and even if they do, cartoons are just not as innocuous anymore. Some portray violent scenes, albeit to a minimal extent. Prime time news showing graphic scenes are also a source of exposure. Regardless, exposure is exposure and we cannot deny that. When scenes like fighting and beating people are too common until the adults themselves do not react, children become desensitised to violence (Sharif 1999). Worse still, they may think of it as an acceptable solution to any problem in the future. On another note, television viewing creates opportunity cost for homework and exercise. As portrayed by the UK Time Use Survey (2000), people spend most of their time on television and less on sports and reading. When we are so engrossed in watching television, we do not mind going all the way in making sure that our must-see programmes are not missed (Rutherford 2002). Hence, we organise our timetable around the programme schedule. In some sense, we are turning ourselves into slaves of television as other activities have to wait no matter what. The option for a sedentary lifestyle, coupled with excessive snacking, may even lead to obesity and related disease. In conclusion, I truly believe that television viewing hinders the development of certain skills, causes children to be desensitised to violence and eats into the time set for homework and exercise. However, I would also like to stress that the existence of these negative effects should not be a barrier to watching television. The key to smart viewing is self-discipline. So long as we know our limits, I reckon there is nothing wrong in a little de-stressing. As Rutherford (2002) brilliantly puts it, television is a bad master but a good servant. The onus is on us to use it wisely.
Who would have thought that we would one day watch moving scenes from a black box? Come to think of it, the idea of sitting comfortably on a couch and switching channels with just a click of the remote seems intriguing. However, the fact that people are spending more time, approximately two to three hours per day, on watching television merely shows how important an asset it is to families nowadays (ATUS 2003). Perspectives have changed and people now see television as a common necessity more than a luxury. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that television viewing causes harmful effects, such as the underdevelopment of certain skills, the acceptance of violence and the cultivation of an unhealthy lifestyle.
Firstly, children who watch television excessively may not develop thinking skills that will carry them throughout their years. According to Jones (2001), television viewing is a passive activity. Neither do viewers move physically, nor mentally because there is no need to do so. This encourages the mind to remain stagnant, further causing the brain to lose its ability to generate thoughts after some time. Children, especially, do not develop imaginative skills to create fictitious characters, situations and make-believe worlds (Leigh 2001). Without these abilities, they are not able to come up with practical and speedy solutions when a problem arises. In other words, they cannot fully organise their thoughts into action.
Besides that, children may accept violence as a normal part of life through television viewing (Sharif 1999). Children nowadays do not just watch cartoons, and even if they do, cartoons are just not as innocuous anymore. Some portray violent scenes, albeit to a minimal extent. Prime time news showing graphic scenes are also a source of exposure. Regardless, exposure is exposure and we cannot deny that. When scenes like fighting and beating people are too common until the adults themselves do not react, children become desensitised to violence (Sharif 1999). Worse still, they may think of it as an acceptable solution to any problem in the future.
On another note, television viewing creates opportunity cost for homework and exercise. As portrayed by the UK Time Use Survey (2000), people spend most of their time on television and less on sports and reading. When we are so engrossed in watching television, we do not mind going all the way in making sure that our must-see programmes are not missed (Rutherford 2002). Hence, we organise our timetable around the programme schedule. In some sense, we are turning ourselves into slaves of television as other activities have to wait no matter what. The option for a sedentary lifestyle, coupled with excessive snacking, may even lead to obesity and related disease.
In conclusion, I truly believe that television viewing hinders the development of thinking skills, causes children to be desensitised to violence and eats into the time set for homework and exercise. However, I would also like to stress that the existence of these negative effects should not be a barrier to watching television. The key to smart viewing is self-discipline. So long as we know our limits, I reckon there is nothing wrong in a little de-stressing. As Rutherford (2002) brilliantly puts it, television is a bad master but a good servant. The onus is on us to use it wisely.
Junk food, as defined by Smith (2005), is as any food perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value. The plight of the sale of junk food in schools has been highlighted lately and there seems to be a divided opinion among all. Statistics have proven that the nutritional value of food intake by Australian children has been declining over the past few decades and junk food is believed to be the culprit (Tran 2005). As so, I strongly believe that junk food should be banned in schools as it contains little nutritional value, contributes to litter problems and contradicts with the advocacy of healthy diet.
True to its name, junk food contains little nutritional value whatsoever. As projected by Health Foundation (2005), a large proportion of snack food consumed is low in nutritional value. Ardent junk food fans vehemently promote its mouth-watering taste, what with the different flavours offered by a variety of brands in the market. Oblivious to them, however, chemical additives, artificial flavouring, colouring, preservatives and excessive sugar are commonly added to junk food during the manufacturing process to enhance the taste and prolong its shelf life. These additives, when consumed, may trigger behavioural problems and cause obesity (Smith 2005).
Furthermore, junk food packaging contributes to litter problems in the society (The Food Show 2005). Junk food nowadays comes in neatly-packed or vacuum-sealed packaging in the name of hygiene and convenience. These packagings, when not treated responsibly, are going to end up on the floor or any nooks and crannies. Laziness explains people’s preference to throw wrappings away than to look for a litter bin. Not only would the wrappings be an eyesore, people would have valid excuses to throw more rubbish. As a result, city councils have to incur extra cleaning costs to get rid of the litter or risk tarnishing the country’s image (Smith 2005).
On another note, the sale of junk food in schools contradicts their responsibility to educate healthy diet as part of the syllabus (Tran 2005). It is impossible to tell children to not indulge excessively in junk food when it is readily available in the canteen. A survey by the Australian Nutrition Journal (2004) has proved that adolescents eat more fat and sugar and less fresh fruit and vegetables than the recommended intake at home. By providing healthier food options in the school canteen instead, students can be made to realise that healthy food can taste as good as junk food. After all, students’ health should be the school’s utmost priority.
In a nutshell, I am all for the banning of the sale of junk food in schools due the above reasons. Though junk food may hold a place in children’s heart for being divinely palatable, the potential banes it may bring should be enough to wake people up. Harsh as it may sound, I reckon it is time we put a ban on the sale of junk food in schools to avoid ruining our future generation any further. For those against the notion, I say it is now or never.
Junk food is as any food perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value as defined by Family Journal (2005). The plight of the sale of junk food in schools has been brought up lately and there seems to be a divided opinion among all. Whether junk food will be banned in days to come, one thing for sure is that society has become increasingly health-conscious. As so, I strongly believe that junk food should be banned in schools as it contains little nutritional value, contributes to litter problems and contradicts with the advocacy of healthy diet.
Junk food, as suggested by its name, contains little nutritional value whatsoever. As projected by Health Foundation (2005), a large proportion of snack food consumed is low in nutritional value. Ardent junk food fans vehemently promote its mouth-watering taste, what with the different flavours offered by a variety of brands in the market. Oblivious to them, however, chemical additives, artificial flavouring, colouring, preservatives and excessive sugar are commonly added to junk food during the manufacturing process to enhance the taste and prolong its shelf life. These additives, when consumed, may trigger behavioural problems and cause obesity (Family Journal 2005).
Furthermore, junk food packaging contributes to litter problems in the society (The Food Show 2005). Junk food nowadays comes in neatly-packed or vacuum-sealed packaging in the name of hygiene and convenience. These packagings, when not treated responsibly, are going to end up on the floor or any nooks and crannies. Laziness explains people’s preference to throw wrappings away than to look for a litter bin. Not only would the wrappings be an eyesore, people would have valid excuses to throw more rubbish. As a result, city councils have to incur extra cleaning costs to get rid of the litter or risk tarnishing the country’s image.
On another note, the sale of junk food in schools contradicts their responsibility to educate healthy diet as part of the syllabus (Weekend News 2005). It is impossible to tell children to not indulge excessively in junk food when it is readily available in the canteen. A survey by the Australian Nutrition Journal (2004) has proved that adolescents eat more fat and sugar and less fresh fruit and vegetables than the recommended intake at home. By providing healthier food options in the school canteen instead, students can be made to realise that healthy food can taste as good as junk food. After all, students’ health should be the school’s utmost priority.
According to Family Journal (2005), junk food is defined as any food perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value. The plight of the sale of junk food in schools has been brought up lately and there seems to be a divided opinion among all. Whether junk food will be banned in days to come, one thing for sure is that society has become increasingly health-conscious. As so, I strongly believe that junk food should be banned in schools as it contains no nutritional value, contributes to litter problems and contradicts with the advocacy of healthy diet.
Junk food, as suggested by its name, contains no nutritional value whatsoever. As projected by Health Foundation (2005), a large proportion of snack food consumed is low in nutritional value. Ardent junk food fans vehemently promote its mouth-watering taste, what with the different flavours offered by a variety of brands in the market. Oblivious to them, however, chemical additives, artificial flavouring, colouring, preservatives and excessive sugar are commonly added to junk food during the manufacturing process to enhance the taste and prolong its shelf life. These additives, when consumed, may trigger behavioural problems and cause obesity (Family Journal 2005).
Furthermore, junk food packaging contributes to litter problems in the society (The Food Show 2005). Junk food nowadays comes in neatly-packed or vacuum-sealed packaging in the name of hygiene and convenience. These packagings, when not treated responsibly, are going to end up on the floor or any nooks and crannies. Laziness explains people’s preference to throw wrappings away than to look for a litter bin. Not only would the wrappings be an eyesore, people would have valid excuses to throw more rubbish. As a result, city councils have to incur extra cleaning costs to get rid of the litter or risk tarnishing the country’s image.
On another note, the sale of junk food in schools contradicts their responsibility to educate healthy diet as part of the syllabus (Weekend News 2005). It is impossible to tell children to not indulge excessively in junk food when it is readily available in the canteen. A survey by the Australian Nutrition Journal (2004) has proved that adolescents eat more fat and sugar and less fresh fruit and vegetables than the recommended intake at home. By providing healthier food options in the school canteen instead, students can be made to realise that healthy food can taste as good as junk food. After all, students’ health should be the school’s utmost priority.
In a nutshell, I am all for the banning of the sale of junk food in schools due the above reasons. Though junk food may hold a place in children’s heart for being divinely palatable, the potential banes it may bring should be enough to wake people up. Harsh as it may sound, I reckon it is time we put a ban on the sale of junk food in schools to avoid ruining our future generation any further. For those against the notion, I say it is now or never.
To start off, weather patterns could be much more erratic. This translates to heavier rainfall and snowfall, longer periods of drought and flood, more hurricanes, storms and heatwaves (Woodford, 2006). Shocking as it may sound, Brazil, surrounded by the hurricane-free South Atlantic, recorded its first ever hurricane in 2004 (An Inconvenient Truth 2007, DVD, Paramount Pictures.). Worse still, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina flattened the entire New Orleans, carrying away innocent victims and precious assets. This comes to show that weather patterns have become increasingly unpredictable, posing greater risks for civilians. Millions could be left permanently homeless since properties are subject to destruction during these phenomena. The aftermath, commonly catastrophic, may indirectly reel the insurance industry as it brings upon massive destruction and horrendous deaths (Woodford, 2006).
Besides that, heat generated from global warming warms the oceans, prompting two possibilities which lead to an increase in sea level. When temperatures rise, the ocean’s temperature follows suit. The heated amount of water expands and takes up a bigger volume, leading to increased sea level. The second explanation is that glaciers and ice sheets, too, may melt under higher temperatures, channelling more water into the oceans. In fact, global sea level may increase as much as 80 meters if Antartica’s ice were to melt (Woodford, 2006). Consequently, rapid beach erosion may occur, leaving low-lying nations such as Bangladesh and Maldives completely submerged in water (Riebeek, 2007).
The most straight-forward solution is through the implementation of government policies. Sad to say, however, the fear of losing out economically for most developed countries pose as a major hindrance (Woodford, 2006). This needs to be changed, and change has to come quick. Picture this: the Earth is on one side of the balance, and the abundant resources that come with it lay on the other side. As commented by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, governments need to realise that without a planet, everything means nothing. By acting wisely instead, we can create more wealth and jobs. More importantly, we move forward. To sum it up, wise policies are essentially the key to curbing global warming.
On another note, we can reduce our personal carbon dioxide emissions by living greener. For instance, use energy-saving fluorescent lamps, switch to renewable energy, drive with better fuel economy in mind and reduce the usage of air-conditioning (Woodford, 2006). In fact, cycling or walking to work is also feasible. These actions may seem insignificant, but the power of every individual can never be underestimated because it takes our concerted effort to combat global warming.
In a nutshell, erratic weather patterns and a rise in sea level are some of the potential effects of global warming in terms of climate change. There could be more added to the list, however, if we continue to play deaf to the festering problems. Failing to address global warming properly will bring dire consequences to the environment and us ultimately. The solutions, whether personally or through government policies, are simple, yet requiring unwavering determination and will. The global warming message is clear: it is about time we save this planet in peril.
What are the potential effects of global warming in terms of climate change and how can they be arrested?
Global warming is real and it is happening. Of late, this statement has been a disputable issue among many, with deniers questioning the notion and alarmists pushing hard for its recognition (Carter, 2008). Fact is, a convincing number of scientists around the world have agreed to this: global warming is unequivocal (Riebeek, 2007), and the sad part is, it is anthropogenic (Woodford, 2006). To provide a rough idea, global warming is the gradual rising of Earth’s temperature caused mainly by the greenhouse effect (Woodford, 2006). It may be easy to shrug global warming off as nonsensical, but its potential effects could be the scourge of the modern millennium if they are not addressed quickly and precisely.
To start off, weather patterns could be much more erratic than what we could ever imagine. This translates to heavier rainfall and snowfall, longer periods of drought and flood, more hurricanes, storms and heatwaves (Woodford, 2006). In 2004 alone, a record of ten hurricanes swept across major oceans in the world. More shockingly, Brazil, surrounded by the hurricane-free South Atlantic, recorded its first ever hurricane that year. Still, the worst was Hurricane Katrina. The 2006 catastrophe flattened the entire town of New Orleans, carrying away innocent victims and precious assets (An inconvenient truth - a global warming, 2007, film on DVD, Paramount Pictures. Directed by Davis Guggenheim.). This comes to show that whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, weather patterns have become increasingly unpredictable, posing greater risks for civilians. Millions of people could be left permanently homeless since properties are subject to destruction during these phenomena (Woodford, 2006). Indirectly, the insurance industry could also be severely affected due to massive destructions and horrendous deaths.
Besides that, heat generated from global warming warms the oceans, prompting two possibilities which lead to increasing sea level. When temperatures rise, the ocean’s temperature follows suit. The heated amount of water expands and takes up a bigger volume, leading to a rise in sea level. Consequently, rapid beach erosion may occur, leaving low-lying nations such as Bangladesh and Maldives submerged in water (Riebeek, 2007). The second explanation is that glaciers and ice sheets, too, may melt under higher temperatures, channelling more water into the oceans (Woodford, 2006). Retreating glaciers could simply mean that the beauty of glaciers in places such as the Kilimanjoro may vanish within a decade or so. (An inconvenient truth - a global warming, 2007, film on DVD, Paramount Pictures. Directed by Davis Guggenheim.).
The most straight-forward solution is by having countries to commit to ending climate change through various government policies. Sad to say, however, the one thing that is hindering the progress is the fear of losing out economically for most developed countries (Woodford, 2006). This needs to be changed, and change has to come quick. Picture this: the Earth is on one side of the balance, and the abundant resources and wealth that come with it lay on the other side. As commented by Al Gore in The Inconvenient Truth, governments need to realise that without a planet, everything means nothing. By acting wisely instead, we can create more wealth and jobs. Most importantly, we move forward. To sum it up, wise policies are essentially the key to curbing global warming.
On another note, we can try reducing our personal carbon dioxide emissions by living greener. For instance, use energy-saving fluorescent lamps, switch to renewable energy, drive with better fuel economy in mind and reduce the usage of air-conditioning (Woodford, 2006). In fact, cycling or walking to work is also feasible. These may seem insignificant, but the power of every individual can never be underestimated because it takes our concerted effort to combat global warming.
In a nutshell, erratic weather patterns and a rise in sea level are some of the potential effects of global warming in terms of climate change. There could be more added to the list, however, if we continue to play deaf to the festering problems. Failing to address global warming properly will bring dire consequences to the environment and us ultimately. The solutions, whether personally or through government policies, are simple, yet requiring unwavering determination and will. The global warming message is clear: it is about time we save this planet in peril.
SLEEPLESS residents tormented 24/7 by noisy engine braking have welcomed the sound relief of a new camera aimed at catching out trucks, motorcyclists and cars roaring through their neighbourhood.
A noise camera will be used in around 28 hotspots around Melbourne from early March.
Trucks or motorcycles letting off a sound greater than 80 decibels and a car that reaches more than 74 decibels will be detected by the roadside camera.
The noise will trigger the roadside camera to take a picture of the offender and record the sound.
Geelong Ring Rd, near Waurn Ponds, Frankston, Yarraville, Buninyoung and Southbank will be the first to be targeted.
Chairman of the local owners’ corporation in Southbank David Jones welcomed the measure that he says will finally bring relief to thousands of residents living near main roads.
“It’s a tremendous problem it keeps them up at night, trucks go past almost 24 hours a day,” Mr Jones said.
“It’s the kind of sound that really penetrates.
“It’s like a thunder clap, five or six times a second.”
Critics claim the penalty system will allow noisy drivers to escape a hefty fine as they will be given a chance to fix the problem and then face losing their registration.
Drivers will only be issued with a notice asking them to appear before an approved EPA noise testing station.
If they fail to attend then they could wind up losing their vehicle registration.
But Roads and Ports Minister Tim Pallas said the first phase of the crackdown would ensure that the problem was actually fixed rather than being used as a new form of revenue raising.
“Heavy vehicles are generally fitted with good muffler systems that cause minimal noise when the engine break is activated, but vehicle owners need to ensure their trucks are well maintained and that exhaust systems are not defective,” Mr Pallas said.
Over the next 12 months, the Government plans to introduce automatic infringement notices using the noise cameras.
It is waiting on an outcome of a trial in NSW.
Lucie van den Berg From: Herald Sun February 23, 2010 11:27AM
Summary:
The article highlights the problem of noisy vehicles in the Australian neighbourhood. The recent introduction of noise camera aimed at catching out vehicles that create noise unnecessarily will be able to restore peace to residents who have to put up with the noise daily. The camera works when triggered by sounds greater than a prohibited level of decibel. The picture of the offender will then be captured and the noise created recorded. Residents in general lauded the move as it would mean lesser noise and annoyance. However, critics claim that the system will allow offenders to escape hefty fines as they are allowed to correct the problem.
Critique:
The article is concise and straight-forward, focusing on the issue of noise problem faced by the Australian residents. It also provides a clear picture of how the noise camera works in catching out noise creators. Besides that, the author uses a neutral and fair tone without favouring any side in reporting the issue. The professionalism of the article makes it a good read as the views of both parties supporting and objecting the introduction of noise camera are portrayed clearly. In my opinion, the use of noise camera to address this problem is fairly appropriate as the offenders are jeopardizing the peace of the neighbourhood and thus shall be punished. As for the drivers, they still get the chance to fix the problem before losing their registration.