HM Journal Volume 4 Issue 2

T H E H O R A C E M A N N

JournalV O L U M E I V I S S U E 2

Letter from the Editor

THE HORACE MANN

Journal

2

Editor-in-ChiefLucy Golub

Managing EditorsPriyani Karim

Eden David

EditorsSamantha Albstein

Isabel FriesnerSara HiradeZarina Iman

Rebecca OkinElizabeth Raab

Faculty AdvisorMorgan Yarosh

The Horace Mann Journal is a current events publication for Middle Division students. The views reflected in the publication do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the school as a whole. Please contact Lucy Golub with any questions about the publication as a whole.

Issue II Volume IVMay 2015

Dear Readers,

This issue is the second issue of the fourth volume of the Horace Mann Journal, a publication designed for Middle School students to express their opinions on international and domestic issues. Although this issue took longer than expected, due to delays on the part of the editorial board, we are incredibly excited and proud to bring this issue to you. Next year, our Editor-In-Chief will be Eden David.

Enjoy!

Table of Contents

Diseases of PovertyAri Moscona-Skolnik 4

Fire in Edgewater, New JerseyDana Jacoby 14Je Suis CharlieEunice Bae

Crusade of the Food BabeSurya Gowda

The Future of ManufacturingSajan Mehrotra

IncarceratedWilliam Golub

Cruelty Behind Animal Testing for FoodEuwan Kim

1012

16

2018

22

Table of Contents

The Future of TerrorismAaron Snyder

Brian WilliamsKarina Iman 26

13Technological Breakthroughs Sonia Shuster

8United States and Cuba RelationsKatie Goldenberg

4 Issue II Volume IV

the horace mann journal

Ebola virus is a microscopic virus shaped like tiny tree branches and is composed of genes in the form of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and a membrane envelope that looks like the membrane of a cell. The four types of Ebola virus from different geographical regions of Africa all cause a hemorrhagic (bleeding) fever disease that is one of the most dangerous and fatal diseases yet experienced. Ebola is classified as a Biosafety Level 4 virus -- extremely dangerous to humans because it is very infectious, which means that it is possible to transmit from person to person and that it has a high mortality rate, so a large percent of the people who get the virus will die. Another reason Ebola is dangerous is there have not been any drugs or vaccines to use against it. Outbreaks in Africa have had a 90%

mortality rate in the past, meaning that 90% of people who get the virus died from it. People have been scared of this virus for many years, partly because of the popular 1994 book The Hot Zone: A Terrifying True Story by Robert Preston. This book gave a terrifying description of Ebola and what could happen if an outbreak occurred in the U.S. Since it was based on a lot of actual information about the disease, Prestons book was realistic and people were very scared by the possibilities that it proposed. The book was a global bestseller and made a lot of people conscious that there could be scary viruses popping up around the world still, the only one that most people had heard of was Ebola.

In reality, the first known Ebola outbreak was in the South Sudan and the Democratic

Republic of Congo in 1975, and from that time until the current outbreak there have been only 2,200 cases of Ebola infection (68% of those were fatal). All of these cases were in Africa. The recent outbreak has totally changed this picture, as the virus has been spreading through parts of Africa that had never seen it before, and because the virus remains out of control. This is the first time that the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Mali, and Senegal have seen this virus before the present outbreak, it was still found just in Central African countries (Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan) where it was first discovered.

As of December 2014, there have been about 19,340 cases of Ebola in 8 countries, and 7,518 people have died of Ebola since the start of

Diseases of poverty:Why the U.S. only knows about EbolaAri Moscona-Skolnik

5May 2015


the outbreak. Despite the raging outbreak in Africa that started in early 2013, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring a serious outbreak in April 2013, most people in the U.S. did not pay much attention until the first patients were treated in the US. Two health care workers were brought to the U.S. for treatment in August, a few days before the WHO declared that Ebola was a public health emergency of international concern. Even though several more health care workers were brought in for treatment, the panic did not start until a Texas man travelled from Africa when he was already infected, was treated in Dallas hospitals and died a week and a half later. He had been exposed to Ebola in mid-September in Liberia and travelled to the U.S. on September 20th. He began to have symptoms on September 24th and went to an emergency room in Dallas. From then on, several mistakes were made that possibly led to this mans death and also helped generate panic in the U.S. about Ebola. The man had a fever and several symptoms of Ebola, but the medical staff did not pay attention to whether he had traveled to or

from Africa and did not test for Ebola. While he was in the emergency room his blood tests showed many abnormal findings that should have at least made the staff very concerned and caused them to think about his travel, but instead they sent him home. He was then out and about in the city potentially exposing a lot of people until September 28th when he returned to the hospital in much worse condition and the doctor realized that he had traveled from Liberia and needed to be tested for Ebola. Only then he was finally correctly diagnosed. Despite being hospitalized and treated at that point, he deteriorated and died on October 8th. Before it was known either if people in the city had been infected while the man was out of the hospital or how to identify all of his contacts, there was a panic in Dallas.

Then panic spread nationwide when it was discovered on October 12th and 15th that two nurses who cared for the man had been infected. This was shocking because health care workers and the public had been operating under the belief that the methods used to protect people from infection would be 100% certain. Instead, even nurses who were trained in these protection steps became infected. Suddenly everything was unclear and the public completely lost their faith in the medical professionals and in their ability to protect the public from Ebola. As part of the governments effort to calm this panic,

an Ebola czar was appointed and discussions started about quarantining health care workers returning from Africa, limiting air travel, and many measures were taken suddenly once the public began to feel that Ebola is here in the U.S., and not just the concern of a distant land. When an infected NYC doctor was diagnosed after he returned from Africa, the whole City panicked about his having taken the subway and a cab, and people worried about traveling around the city.

However, the truth was that in the U.S. the outbreak did not take off, for a few reasons. The virus is not that easy to transmit from person to person because that requires direct contact with the secretions (saliva, blood, urine) of someone who is very sick. People are not at high risk unless they are healthcare workers or close family members of an infected individual. Most important, in the U.S. we have government health agencies that work to identify and isolate those people have come into contact with patients and very quickly put a stop to the spread. .It seems that the alarming news reports and books have trained us to be afraid of this kind of plague but not to think about other diseases and infections that may be less dramatic but are equally serious. Once there was a case of Ebola, everybody thought this is it, its finally here since they had been hearing about something like this from the media and entertainment polls in the U.S. showed that at least two-thirds of people were scared of Ebola.

When the virus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) started infecting people, there was a huge scare. Fortunately that outbreak seemed to die down and SARS is no



longer a big problem. The movie Contagion with Gwynneth Paltrow showed a situation where a new virus emerges (she plays the first person infected) and spreads around the world causing a complete nightmare of death and destruction. Again it is a terrifying movie that is based on realistic facts. These fears in the case of Ebola led to panic that was unhelpful, but the fears are also in some senses based in reality. The new viruses and other infections that are starting to infect humans around the world are in truth becoming more and more of a problem, and we should be paying attention to them. Another 1994 book, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance by Laurie Garrett explained scientifically what we need to worry about and steps that we could take to prevent outbreaks that affect everyone. The U.S. faces a large problem. We are ignoring a lot of other viruses and infections that are equally important as SARS and Ebola and that will affect us in the U.S. too. One reason may be that many of the serious emerging infectious diseases that affect many millions of people are diseases that have mainly affected poor people. Many people

in the U.S. who are aware of Ebola have never even heard of these diseases that spread more easily than Ebola and affect many people here in the U.S. already. A group of tropical infectious diseases that most people in the U.S. have never heard of are the most common infections in the world and most of them primarily affect the worlds poor.

While these diseases are starting to affect us in the U.S. as well, people here hardly know about them because they are mainly diseases of poverty. Most of the poorest people in the world have one of more of these infections, including hookworm infection, sleeping sickness, or Chagas disease. These are the most common infections of people in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, and many of these infections last for many years. Because people are infected for so long, the infections lead to stunted growth in children, poor mental development, underdevelopment of the baby during pregnancy, leading to people being able to accomplish less with their education. Even though a lot of these infectious diseases do not kill people, they cause huge problems for people and their ability to be educated and to work, and these diseases may be one reason that it is so difficult to decrease poverty in poor

communities. It is possible that these diseases may actually cause poverty because they have such a negative impact on both childhood development and education. It is astonishing to me that this situation exists and we could be doing so much more to help the situation.

The wealthier nations of the world including the U.S. could do more to develop vaccines and drugs against these infections, and ways to train medical staff in the countries where the poorest and most infected people live. In order to do this, we need to make more people aware of the situation of billions of people infected with diseases that make them unable to succeed in life. Instead of just showing the scary outbreaks that people fear could spread to them, the media should be educating people about the situation of other infections in the world and about what we can do to solve the problem. Even during the Ebola outbreak going on now, we have seen that the people who are treated properly in the U.S. have survived and are back at home or at work. It is because of the poor conditions and lack of medical care as well as the weakened state of many people in much of West Africa that allows

the same virus to kill people so often there. We should find ways to expose this situation and start to help, not only when there is a scary outbreak in the press, but all the time.

Part of the problem is that because these diseases often affect the poorest parts of the world, the vaccine and drug companies do not want to spend time and money working on vaccines or drugs for these diseases, because it is more difficult to profit from drug and vaccine sales. We need to work with the financial sector to develop a strategy to make it possible for vaccine and drug developers to work on diseases that affect poor people, and not just focus on the diseases of the wealthy countries.

What even more people do not realize is that these diseases have appeared more and more in the U.S. as well. The poorest people in the U.S suffer from a group of these tropical infectious diseases. At least twenty million Americans live in what is actually extreme poverty, and in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the poverty rates are around 20 percent or more. Now these already poor people are becoming infected with infections that lead to even worse poverty by preventing children from reaching their potential. Dengue fever, for example, an infection caused by a virus spread by mosquitos,

used to be only found in Mexico and Central America but is now in the South of the U.S. Cysticercosis, an infection that is caused by a tapeworm that damages the brain and causes seizures is all through the South. Many other infections that very few people in the U.S. has heard of are making poor people in the U.S. sick (like toxocara, leishmaniasis, and murine typhus).One of the most frightening disease that is now infecting people in the U.S. is Chagas. It is a parasitic disease spread by a bug that looks like a cockroach but feeds on human blood. In South and Central America it is a major cause of heart failure and death. Chagas disease is already a cause of severe heart disease in about 300,000 people in the U.S. mostly in Texas and other Southern states, and also in California and some big U.S. cities. However, about half of U.S. health care workers never think of Chagas disease when treating patients with heart disease, and do not even know the symptoms. It is still thought of as a disease that occurs elsewhere. More worrisome still, if Chagas infects a pregnant woman, the disease is passed on to the baby. In 2012, we had the first case of Chagas disease in a newborn in

the U.S. The problem is that most doctors have not heard of these diseases and are not looking for these infections. Also, the people who these diseases are affecting first the extremely poor do not use the medical system often. Their clinics are also poor and not able to make diagnoses of infectious diseases. So this is a cycle of poverty: poverty leading to the appearance of these diseases, the diseases making the poverty worse, and the poverty preventing the people from getting the right care.

What can we do? We should make people aware of this problem that is globally important but also right here, and aware of the cycle that sustains both the diseases and poverty. There are many ways that we can take action right away. We can start to monitor for infections so that we catch outbreaks before they can expand. We must pull together to help the companies and medical workers develop tests for diagnosing these illnesses, so they do not continue to infect people many of these infections are caused by worms or bacteria that are very simple and cheap to treat if you know you have them. Of course we also need to make people aware of the need to develop new vaccines and drugs, but the first step is to make the best use of the drugs that we already have, and get them to the people

It is our responsibility to help prevent and treat the diseases of poverty.

7May 2015


who need them. But this would, as for Ebola, mean that the financial world will need to help us make it possible for the drug companies to do something that will not lead to much profit for them. It is very difficult to think about how this problem can be solved, but broadly sharing accurate information about these diseases would be a start.

The Ebola panic in the U.S. has calmed down. Despite the fact that the outbreak continues causing terrible suffering in Africa, US citizens have seemed to realize that in a developed country with medical resources we can stop the spread. However, we should take this as a wake-up call. First, we must do much more to help stop outbreaks in the countries where they start.. Peoples realization that infections can spread here should help us raise efforts to help. Next, Ebola should not be the only tropical infectious disease that people know about. In todays world, infections that affect others elsewhere in the world should matter to us as well, and it is our responsibility to help prevent and treat the diseases of poverty. It seems likely that by helping prevent and treat the diseases that prevent children from learning and reaching their full potential, we will help break the cycle of poverty that keeps poor communities poor. Once people recognize the connection between diseases and poverty, I believe that people will

be motivated to try to intervene and stop this vicious cycle.

It is very important to try to find out which strategies actually work for attacking this cycle of infection and poverty. Clearly we need to work on new vaccines and medicines for infections that we cannot treat. However, as I described above, many of the diseases that affect the poorest people in the world, including those in the U.S., are already treatable. Also, in some cases the best approaches to preventing infection may not even involve drugs or vaccines at all, but simple behavior changes; not leaving uncovered, still water in which mosquitoes can lay eggs goes a long way in the prevention of Dengue fever.

The important thing is to actually test which ways of making changes will actually work, and not just spend the money on help that may not really help in the long run. As one example of a way to test what may work, an economist (Michael Kremer) did an experiment to test different ways of improving education for children in towns in Africa, using different methods in different schools. One method he tried was treating all the kids to remove their intestinal worms (deworming the kids). Most of the kids had intestinal worms, , that in addition to causing stunted growth and poor mental development also caused them to miss more school. Deworming is very cheap at a few cents

per kid. In the experiment, deworming led to the kids missing 25% less school compared to the baseline. When the economists went back a few years later to find those kids who were treated, the ones who had been dewormed were earning more money than the untreated kids. Based on this experiment, there is now a program called the Deworm the World Initiative where this method is being tried in more areas of the world and the goal is to make it a global program. I think that in order to convince people that it is worth putting time, effort, and money into helping, it is important to do trials like this deworming trial, which can show what methods will actually work while costing the least. It is even important to test this method (deworming kids) by doing trials in different parts of the world and testing whether this method will lead to improvements that help the kids health and as a result help the community become less poor. It is our responsibility in the U.S. to help prevent infectious diseases and help wipe out the diseases that make poverty worse both globally and here in the U.S. and it is our duty to do this on the basis of knowledge that will guide us to provide the kind of help that will really work. All this can start when people in the U.S. become aware that the real plague is not just Ebola but all the infections that keep people suffering and living in poverty. HMJ

Chagas DiseaseDengue FeverCysticercosisSARS

Prevalence of Lesser Known Diseases



On December 14th, 2014, Barack Obama and Ral Castro (president of the U.S. and Cuba respectively) publicly reported that the United States and Cuba would be repairing diplomatic relations that had been disrupted for over 50 years. The announcement was a surprise to the public; Obama and Ral Castro had been negotiating in private for over 18 months, and had finally ended their deliberations with a prisoner swap and a break in the stalemate.

The rocky relationship between Cuba and the United States first began in the period of the Cold War. In 1959, Fidel Castro gained control of the Cuban government, and the United States recognized his power and status. However, Castros control began to hurt the USs economy; for example, it promoted trade with the Soviet Union, a US-owned property, and increased taxes on American imports. It was at this time that the relationship between the two countries began to take a turn for the worse. In response to Castros actions, the United States issued bans on sugar imports from Cuba, and President John F. Kennedy went on to cancel all trade and limit travel.

United States/Cuba Relations

By Katie Goldenberg

9May 2015


In 1961, diplomatic ties with Cuba were fully eliminated, and the United States began undercover operations to overthrow Castros government. This lead to attempted sabotages from both countries - including the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis - which bred mistrust from both nations. Following this span of events, the United States continued to economically and diplomatically isolate Cuba, and embargos such as the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and 1996 Helms-Burton Article stated that the policies would not be lifted until Cuba ran fair elections. These trade restrictions have ended in an enormous loss of profit for Cuba.

President Obama came into office seeking to restore relations with Cuba, and in doing so reversed several previous restrictions. However, several obstacles were in this path to recovery, such as the imprisonment of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor, by Cuban authorities in 2009. At the same time as he wanted to keep Gross under Cubas watch, Ral Castro wanted the release of several of

his own prisoners in the United States. The United States labeling of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism as a result of Castros training of rebels in Central America was a second established conflict. Human rights also remained a concern for U.S. officials, who worried about the repression of Cuban individuals and groups who criticized their government.

On December 17, 2014, Barack Obama and Ral Castro announced the restoration of diplomatic ties. This restoration was followed by a prisoner swap and eased restrictions on remittances, travel, and banking. Obama also announced that the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism would be reconsidered by the Secretary of State.

In January, regulations were enacted that enabled U.S. travellers to visit Cuba without first applying for a government license. In return, Ral Castro has spoken about the need to reform Cubas economy and loosen restrictions on personal freedoms.

In my opinion, this restoration of relations

between Cuba and the United States was necessary, but needed to be approached in a very cautious manner in which our nation gave support but did not submit its entire standings. President Obamas careful deliberations with Ral Castro were a crucial step to reform, but I feel the easing of so many restrictions on Cuba all at once could be potentially problematic. If a nation gives up too much of its position, it may not have a negotiating position at all, and the other side has no incentive to abide by an agreement. Moreover, if the United States surrenders too many of its demands, there is no reason for Cuba to follow our recommendations.

Lifting the embargo does increase trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba, which provides economic benefits to the United States. However, this is based on the assumption that Cuba will keep its word and maintain freedoms as well as free market reforms. If Cuba does not follow through and we have lost our position on the matter, what recourse do we have? HMJ



In 2001, one of the most notable years for terrorism, 4,555 people died due to terrorist attacks. In 2013, 17,891 people died due to terrorist attacks. The Guardian states that, terrorism is on the rise, with an almost fivefold increase in fatalities since 9/11.

Though it seems like terrorism has increased gradually since 2001, it has

actually grown quite quickly in the past few years. The 2013 terrorism death toll was 60% higher than it was in 2012. Terrorism is rising, and it is rising rapidly.

The largest act of terrorism ever committed, 9/11, happened in 2001, making 2001 seem like terrorisms biggest year. In addition, since 2001 there have been no 9/11-scale attacks, which makes it seem like terrorism has died down. And while there have been notable attacks since 2001 (the Boston Bombing, the Fort Hood Shooting, the shooting in Sydney and most recently

the attacks in Paris), none of those attacks has killed more than 15 people. The reason terrorism claims so many more lives each year is because there are more of these smaller attacks.

The main difference (besides the death count) between 9/11 and these shootings and bombings, is that 9/11 was carefully planned and executed by leaders of a terrorist

group (in this case Al Qaeda), whereas in these smaller shootings and bombings the perpetrators are homegrown extremists who commit the acts in the name of the terrorist group. In many of these attacks, the terrorist groups that the attackers act on behalf of do not even know that there will be an attack, but they praise the attackers after they hear about the attack.

The reason that there are no longer huge 9/11 scale attacks is because those attacks are easier to predict and prevent. The NSA says that in recent years its spy programs

stopped 50 potential attacks, including one to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. The smaller attacks carried out by homegrown extremists are much harder to prevent.

The more people that are involved in planning and executing an attack, the easier the attack is to predict and prevent. However, the more people involved, the more effective the attack is. Due to advances

in security since 2001, it is much harder to carry out a huge attack than it is to carry out a smaller attack. Thus, it can be predicted that the future of terrorism will consist of small attacks by homegrown extremists rather than huge 9/11 scale attacks.

There are two types of these smaller attacks. The first is an attack planned and executed by two or more people. Over the past couple of years, these attacks have tended to be a family business. Both the Boston Bombing and the attacks on Charlie

The Future of TerrorismThe Future of TerrorismBy Aaron Snyder

11May 2015


Hebdo in Paris were executed by brothers. These attacks are capable of causing quite a bit of damage, and are relatively hard to prevent. The second type of smaller attack is a lone wolf attack. There have been many examples of this type of attack since 9/11. The most recent examples of lone wolf attacks are shootings in Sydney, Australia and Copenhagen, Denmark. Generally lone wolf attacks are shootings, but they can also be bombings or suicide bombings. Lone wolf attacks tend to not be extremely effective, but they are very hard to stop or predict.

The majority of these homegrown extremists act on behalf of a terrorist group. They also get training from these terrorist groups. Both the Boston Bombers and the two brothers responsible for the recent attacks in Paris were highly trained by established terrorist organizations. In addition to training, homegrown terrorists receive aid from terrorist organizations. The FBI said that its investigation of the Boston Bombing led it to believe that the bombs used were built by terrorists, or that terrorists helped build them.

Bolstering security will help reduce the damage these attacks are able to cause, but will not eliminate the damage. As long as homegrown extremists are receiving training and aid from terrorist groups, these small attacks will not stop. The only way to stop them is by stopping them at their source - the terrorist groups. By eliminating groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and Khorasan, we can reduce the number of terrorist attacks and the effectiveness of the attacks that do occur. Of course, that is easier said than done.

An alternate way to reduce terrorism is to reduce the number of terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security said that it must be vigilant against new types of terrorist recruitment by engaging communities at risk of being targeted by terrorist recruiters. If new recruits do not join these terrorist groups, where they become radicalized and receive training, there would be no people to commit the acts.

Whatever happens, terrorism will evolve and adapt to cope with our efforts to stop it. It already has evolved from big carefully planned attacks to smaller homegrown attacks. These smaller spontaneous attacks will continue to escalate until we stop them. When we do stop these attacks, terrorism will evolve and adapt new strategies and tactics. We too will have to evolve to stop terrorisms new tactics. HMJ

Many experts argue Western airstrikes are counterproductive and will likely energise

ISIS

Almost 18,000 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 2013, a 61 percent increase from the 2012. Four terrorist

groups, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Boko Haram were responsible for two thirds of all such deaths

around the globe.

Since 2000, the Taliban has been responsible for the most deaths, 8763, from terror attacks, closely followed by Al-Qaeda with 8585. The Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL) and Boko Haram both became more active in 2009, which was

the first year that either group killed over 300 people.

A 2014 poll shpws that there is a growing fear of terrorism world-wide. Concern about Islamic extremism registered 84 percent in Israel, 80 percent in Tunisia, 75 percent in Egypt, 65 percent in Palestinian territories, 62 percent in

Jordan, and 50 percent in Turkey.



For the past decade, China has been the go-to source for American companies to manufacture their goods. Now, with manufacturing rates soaring in China due to minimum wage laws, many companies are looking for a new place to cheaply and efficiently manufacture goods. The answer? India.

A decade ago, China was the best place to go for manufacturing cheaply. It had the largest work force in the world and its manufacturing costs were extremely cheap. Labor costs in China, however, have risen exponentially over the past decade. According to Bloomberg Business, for every dollar that it costs to manufacture in the US, it costs 96 cents in China. This cost does not even include shipping and exporting costs. With those factors added in, it is actually cheaper to manufacture in the US than in China. Say Goodbye to Made in China.

Right now, the cheapest place to manufacture goods is Indonesia. India comes in second, with Mexico in third. However, out of the top three countries, only one is good enough. Indonesia and Mexico dont have a large enough labor force to pick up where China is leaving off. Only India can do that. With the second largest labor force in the world, and one of the cheapest manufacturing costs, India is the golden opportunity for manufacturing.

In China, the hourly pay for a factory worker is on average $3.52. In India however, that cost

is only $0.92. This means that manufacturing in India is cheaper than in China, and by no small amount. Exports in China, as a percentage of GDP, have fallen over the past 5 years. However, they have increased in India. This means that while manufacturing is falling in China, it is rising in India. In fact, India has almost caught up to China. India is becoming the next global manufacturing power.

However, India isnt perfect. Indias poor infrastructure results in many blackouts. John Ginascol, the vice-president at Abbott Laboratories, just opened up a factory in India, despite these problems. He says that the officials in charge of the area were able to deliver very good, very reliable power, water, natural gas, and roads However, Indias prime minister is working to fix these infrastructural issues. That is the reason why factories like the one owned by Abbott Laboratories are having such great success. With huge initiatives like the Make in India campaign designed to fix Indias infrastructure, India is becoming the ideal place to manufacture.

From a historical standpoint, every major civilization, whether it was the Romans, the Greeks, the English, or the Americans, prospered during about 100 years of rapid economic growth. If you catch the tidal wave of growth when it is just a ripple, you make fortunes. The place to be to do that 100 years ago was the US. India right now is like the US was in 1900. The only difference is that India

is bigger, and therefore better. The size of the Indian market is huge. Also, over 1 million people in India make over 100,000 dollars in income. That is a huge wealthy class. The political system, similar to that of Britain during its Industrial Revolution, is ideal for making money, and fast. The US, in 1900 had one of the best economic growths a civilization could have, and yet India is doing more than twice as well. Because of this, India is the ideal place to invest, whether it is in manufacturing or infrastructure. The Indian economy is phenomenal. And with the Prime Minister revolutionizing the infrastructure, that problem is being solved. Manufacturing costs are low, and there are no better options. India is the Golden Opportunity for manufacturing. It is the only country with the perfect combination of low labor costs and a huge labor force. The government is changing the infrastructure, creating an India with reliable power, water, and natural gas. And, there is the evidence of history. History shows that India is the place to invest in manufacturing because this is the Indian Industrial Revolution. There are also no other countries with a big enough, rapidly growing economy with a labor force that can sustain manufacturing. Manufacturing in China has gotten way to expensive to make it worth it, with soaring labor costs. This is the end of the Made in China age. Welcome to the new era. HMJ

The Future of ManufacturingBy Sajan Mehrotra

13May 2015


New discoveries of more accurate ways to help us get more solar and wind energy have helped us with environmental and efficiency issues. Energy is like a river. A river flows, and it has barriers. Those barriers stop the rivers flow, and we dont want those barriers there. Energy has barriers, too. There are breaks in the flow very often, which we dont want because our wind and solar energy will stop with every break. This can happen in areas with wind farms where there is on and off wind, wind that isnt continuously powering us, letting us get the energy we want. However, areas in the U.S. like the extended plains of eastern Colorado are perfect for wind farms because now, with

super accurate predictions of wind, we can see the almost exact spots where there is good wind and good solar energy. This discovery can help us place wind farms and solar farms in the most beneficial locations, places with masses of energy.

In Colorado, hundreds of wind turbines record the speed of the wind every few seconds. Every 4-5 minutes, they send out the data to extremely powerful computers, about 100 miles away at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado. Using weather satellites, weather stations,and other wind farms, the data is put together and the computer based technology predicts the places where the

wind and solar energy are the most powerful. From 2009 to 2013, the amount of wind power increased twofold. This means that the forecasts made by the NCAR are helping electrical companies get over one of the largest problems of wind power: its unpredictability. For most utilities, using slight amounts of energy isnt a problem, partially because the call for electricity varies from time to time. However, if a utility goes for wind power in presence of coal or oil, that utility definitely needs a backup plant - one using a more reliable source than wind power, which alters in availability. These plants help protect the companies from sudden loss of wind. They typically burn fossil fuels, and they are filthy and pricey. Luckily, with the new forecasting, which is much more accurate, utilities dont have to worry too much about loss of wind, and they can reduce the amount of power that needs to be put aside in reserve, decreasing the role of these unpleasant backup plants. Before the forecasts, Xcel Energy, a company that supplies most of Colorados power, didnt want to install any wind farms because they assumed it was too unreliable. However, after the forecasts and the new technology, Xcel Energy decided that wind energy was a lot more trustworthy, and now the company has more wind power installed than any other U.S. utility.

Yet Solar power wasnt as successful. It lags wind power production by 10 years. In 2009, an earlier version of the super accurate forecasting was released, but in 2013, there was real success. Not only did the accuracy improve by a lot, but also the forecasts saved Xcel close to as much money as they had in the three years before. This means that Xcel has saved more money than they were getting three years before the installation of Solar and Wind power generators. Now, utilities can rely on this forecasting much better, so much better that they can completely drop some of their backup plants. Not only is it an efficient way to get energy, but its also better for the environment! HMJ

Technological Breakthrough: Wind and Solar PowerSuper Accurate Predictions of Wind and Solar Power

Sonia Shuster



It was Wednesday afternoon, January 21, in New Jersey when the fire broke out, leaving over 1,000 people homeless. Miraculously, there were no deaths, and only a few minor injuries. Caused by unlicensed plumbers at the Avalon at Edgewater, a luxury complex overlooking the Hudson River, over 500 people are permanently homeless, and another 500 are temporarily displaced.

The first reports of the fire came at 4:30 pm. The residents at work were promptly notified, and the building was evacuated immediately, as were the surrounding buildings. Despite this, there was no chance for people to collect their belongings, valuables, or anything else of importance, and many residents lost everything. Along with this, multiple pets were unable to be

rescued. The Red Cross provided shelter for the

displaced. The tightly packed rooms with thin sheets and little privacy hardly compare to the luxury apartments destroyed. Hotels are offering free rooms as well for the people left homeless. Along with that, there are multiple charities out to help those made homeless by the fire, and free food is being given away from the unaffected neighbors and local food markets.

Multiple events contributed to the spread of the fire. The fire began when unlicensed maintenance staff at Avalon was using a blowtorch to do plumbing work. Due to the building construction, the fire rapidly flared up and spread. While the lightweight wood structure that was used is cheaper and faster to build with, it is also more flammable. Tom

Jacobson, Edgewaters fire chief, said this wouldnt have happened if the buildings had been built out of concrete and cinderblock. Likewise, the truss style roof, designed so sections of the building could be built on the ground and then raised into place, contributed to the rapid growth of the fire.

Despite the contributions these had to the fire, the buildings were constructed in accordance with the safety codes. Officials say the sprinkler system worked according to plan, with the intent being to slow the fire, giving the residents time to escape, rather than trying to put it out. Likewise, the structure provided enough time for the residents to exit the building safely.

In that sense, the structure functioned perfectly. Aside from pets, there were no casualties, and only four minor injuries. But

Fire in Edgewater, NJDana Jacoby

15May 2015


what if the fire had happened at night, when everyone was home? With so many more people to evacuate, unprepared and just awakened, would the outcome have been the same?

The question that remains, however, is whether the safety codes are justified when it only considers human casualties. When the safety code doesnt encompass more, who suffers? Rather than the government who created the codes, or the company who owned the buildings, the people are the ones who lost pets they loved, countless memories, amongst everything theyve ever owned. People having to sleep in strange beds with little privacy, with no home to return to, and still recovering from a near death experience, is something that should be prevented by safety codes where possible,

especially when the solution is something as simple as changing the construction material.

Despite this, changing the building material increases both the costs and time needed for construction. Fires dont occur often, so using the cinder block and concrete isnt always necessary. But in this case, the building lost millions of dollars, and at least a few years as they rebuild. Their desire to save money not only cost them, but everyone in the area. Because of this huge potential for loss, the safety codes need to be changed to make sure buildings are completely fireproof.

This is also not the first time the safety codes have fallen short. Almost fifteen years ago, August 2000, a fire broke out in the exact same location. The very same 408-unit apartment building was under

construction when the fire hit it, burning it down within a half hour. Along with that, neighbors property, cars, and other apartment buildings were destroyed. Despite this, when the construction began again, they continued to use the same lightweight, flammable wood and truss style roof. So its not surprising that another fire of the same large scale broke out again in the same area.

Fires cant be avoided all together. The risk can be reduced, but not eliminated. However, simply changing the building materials can very easily stop the spread of fires. After millions of dollars lost, memories, and pets, there is no reason to continue using this flammable wood. After two occurrences in the same area, caused by the same thing, something needs to be done to prevent another occurrence. HMJ

Fire in Edgewater, NJDana Jacoby



Je Suis Charlie: Where must the line be drawn?

Eunice Bae

On the morning of January 7th, at 11:30 AM CET (5:30 AM EST), 3 masked gunmen stormed the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, France. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical French weekly magazine that often features jokes and cartoons involving political and religious figures. Offended by a recent depiction of the prophet Muhammad, brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi along with a third man (who later turned himself in) killed 12 people, including the magazines editor, Charlie Hebdo himself. Protests immediately sparked throughout the world, and the phrase Je suis Charlie, meaning, I am Charlie in French, became a commonly used slogan by the supporters of the magazine. Protestors all over the world were uniting as a whole to stand along side the magazine to show their support and dedication to protecting the rights they believed were violated by the shootings.

In response to the shooting, many countries worldwide have offered their condolences and their support, condemning the attack. For instance, Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany held a meeting in London and offered the assistance of their intelligence agencies to French president Francois Hollande.

Many see this shooting as a stand against the right to freedom of speech. Although people worldwide continue to fight for freedom of the press and expression in order to avoid situations like these, these freedoms have remained issues in several countries worldwide.

17May 2015


For many governments, such as the Chinese Communist Party, one of the most secure ways that they can ensure control over their citizens is through the eradication of freedom of speech. This means government-produced newspapers, filtering messages and emails, etc. However, because France and many other major countries worldwide have the rights of free media and expression available to their citizens, this attack was even more of a major shock and caused a lot of outrage

The fight for worldwide freedom of the press is an ongoing one, and it isnt very clear if it can be solved in the near future. The two parts of this conflict are the cause and the reaction. The cartoonish portrayal of Muhammad provoked the attack, and

therefore both the cause and reaction could have been prevented. Having already received several threats, the magazine decided to proceed with the publishing of the cartoon of Muhammad this caused many to be offended, namely Islamist extremists like the brothers who carried out the attack, and therefore drew the attackers out. Although freedom of speech is enforced in France, it is common sense for one to know where the boundaries lie, especially considering that this wasnt even a singular offense. In 2011, the magazines office was firebombed, and received continuous threats regarding its publications offenses towards the Muslims. The magazines editor-in-chief was added to Al-Qaedas most-wanted list in 2013. Weve all seen what this group is capable of, and

being added to its most-wanted list should be considered as a final warning. However, that warning was not carefully heeded, resulting in the attack. If the editor hadnt published the Muhammad cartoon, the attack wouldnt have happened. I feel that the magazine shouldnt have proceeded to publish the cartoon yes, it is within their rights to publish, but thinking ahead would have led them to realize that not publishing the cartoon could have prevented the attack that left 12 innocent people dead. This event can serve as an example of where boundaries need to be placed. Even where there is freedom, there will always be a point where the line must be drawn before a tragic conflict occurs, costing the lives of innocent people. HMJ



In todays American society, we eat whatever we can get our hands on, whether its healthy or not. Vani Hari, better known as her online alias, the Food Babe, is trying to make sure the food we grab is healthy. Now practically a food superstar, Hari is educating people on what is in their food. Using her blog, foodbabe.com, Hari shows people what really is in their food. However, it is usually the worst things you could imagine. Along with her blog followers, the Food Babe Army, she is taking down one company at a time to create a new healthy food system in America. Hari is discovering additives and other chemicals that we ingest daily that pass through the FDA and opening them up to discussion. She believes that the reason we are being poisoned through our food is a money scheme for scientists

all over the world. Vani Hari has become a controversial topic in the food and science world. She raises the alarm about food additives.

Even though she seems like a hero to most, many scientists, as well as companies, see her as an imbecile. Hari opens up cases on different brands and attacks the additives they put in their food. Throughout her series of criticism towards all scientists, nutritionists, microbiologists, engineers, and anyone who deals with the food business, many have come to not like her. Maria Godoy wrote in NPR that, Some of these chemicals and additives may indeed be questionable, but food scientists would argue that nearly all are safe. Many critics say she lacks any fundamental training to be able to debate about nutritional matters. Kevin Folta, a horticultural science

professor at University of Florida, says that, She really conflates the sciences. If anything, shes created more confusion about food, more confusion about the role of chemicals and additives. He brings up a topic that many scientists abide by.

Vani Hari is still doing a noble thing. She is raising many questions in the food industry about what we put in our mouths. By targeting companies that use chemical ingredients that are astonishingly banned in most countries in the world, she is opening her readers eyes. For example, McDonalds in the United States uses 19 different ingredients for its French fries, while most fast food chains in Europe use at most four. More than 11 different ingredients that are put into our daily food are banned in Norway, Finland, Austria, France, the U.K., Canada, China, Japan, and almost

Crusade of the Food Babe

Surya Gowda

McDonalds in the United States uses 19 different ingredients for its French fries, while most fast food chains in Europe use at most four.

19May 2015


all European Countries. We are poisoned daily by arsenic, synthetic growth hormones, BHA and BHT, azodicarbonamide, EDTA, and other fatal chemicals. EDTAs are usually found in cream and metal chelators but are also seen in almost all meat, seafood, dairy, egg, processed fruit and vegetables, and grain products.

Scientists on the other hand are promoting these chemicals. Their excuse is that eating the product in moderation is completely safe, but passed the 11th box, it becomes deadly. Now thinking about the way an American consumes their doses of food daily, is this a logical thing to say? One of the main issues in our food are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Not all GMOs are bad. Some allowed us to eat certain vegetables we eat today like tomatoes and potatoes. Although the US and several other countries approve GMOs, Europe does not. Scientists say that

ingesting GMOs will not affect us at all and that its perfectly safe.

Vani Haris idea of GMOs is a little different. After catching multiple leading brands that use genetically modified ingredients in their products, she educates her readers what GMOs do in simpler terms that the average Joe can understand. But even though she is trying to be helpful, the way she explains everything causes a big scare to all of her readers. Something that everyone should realize is that not all GMOs are bad. The way Hari explains it makes GMOs sound like a poison that would kill you in an instant. An example of bad GMO is Monsanto modifying plants to survive the Bt toxin they use as a pest killer. Golden rice is an example of a good GMO because it includes beta-carotene. It practically has the same affect that spinach has on children.

The critics of the Food Babe make Vani

Hari sound like a completely uneducated moron who has no idea what she is talking about. Scientists state that chemical additives in small amounts have no affect on the human body and that GMOs are harmless. Yet they fail to take into account that almost all of the research done on food additives has been sponsored by the companies making or using these products. There have been very few studies on the actual widespread long-term affects of either additives or GMOs. In America, there is no way to test the intake of additives due to the lack of a control group because everyone is eating it. But Vani Hari does have a point. She defends the common mans food group. She does not speak in scientific terms, not because she is not a scientist, but because she is speaking to the everyday person. Her main point is to try to make Americans healthier. So far, she is succeeding. HMJ



I n c a r c e r a t e d

Every year, more and more Americans are incarcerated. This is not surprising. New legislation to increase prison sentences and harsher mandatory minimums are constantly raising the prison population. According to the NY Times, over 1 in 100 adults in the US are in prison and 1 in 31 adults have at some point been behind bars. However, now, many of these prisoners are housed in private prisons. Between 2002 and 2009, the number of prisoners in private prisons increased by 37%. The Prison Industrial Complex is the cap-italization of the American prison system. This includes both prison labor and private prisons. The prison industrial complex is ethically wrong and a wasteful practice that should be replaced by entirely by federal prisons without work pro-grams.

From a moral standpoint, privatized prisons create a money driven system designed to keep prisoners in prisons. As of December 2010, there were 128,195 prisoners in private prisons in 27 states: prisons which are focused more on making money than providing fair accommo-dations to their prisoners. As a result, prisoners are often overcrowded in unhealthy and unsafe conditions. Private prison corporations like the Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) or GEO Group are paid a fixed amount to house each prisoner per day by federal and state gov-

ernment. They make more money when they spend the absolute minimum on basic needs of prisoners. These companies amassed combined revenue of over $2.9 billion in 2010. The longer a prisoner stays in a private prison, the more money the corporations make, thus incentiviz-ing a longer sentence. Furthermore, prisoners can get time off of their sentence for good be-havior but can get 30 days added for an infrac-tion. In New Mexico, a study showed that CCA inmates lost more good behavior time at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons. This capitalization of the prison industry turns prisoners into profit with little incentive to guide them to their freedom.

These profit houses woo high profile inves-tors, like Merrill-Lynch, American Express, and Allstate, to put their money in a prison that has a higher recidivism rate and thus makes more money. Without knowing it, many public em-ployees pensions are invested in private prisons. They are economically successful companies that make a lot of money, yetjust dont invest in a good quality of life for their inmates. Private prisons will even go so far as to move a criminal with a longer sentence into their prisons, even if not properly equipped. Many groups that are invested in prisons push for more legislation with longer imprisonment to make the compa-nies more money. Many states have three strike

laws, where inmates can be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Three strike laws mean that if a person is convicted of three felonies, they can automatically get a sentence of life in prison. Many minimum sentencing laws also help these companies stay at full capacity.

These prisons have fewer experienced guards protecting their inmates, creating an unsafe en-vironment. One such example is a new CCA ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia. The prison only employs five guards during the day and two at night to guard over 750 inmates. Cost saving measures like this lower the quality of these prisons to sub-par and create an unsafe prison. These guards have lower salaries and benefits. According to The Sentencing Project, on average, private guards receive 58 hours less training than their public counterparts. Private prison guards receive as much as $14,901 less in maximum annual salaries. According to a study by Curtis R. Blakely of the University of South Alabama, assaults in private prisons can occur at double the rate found in public facilities.

Many private prisons cost the government more money while they spend less on inmates. Extreme cost saving measures like reduction of guards cause problems in maintaining safe facil-ities. The Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Fa-cility in Mississippi is under investigation after receiving hundreds of brutality complaints. The

William Golub

21May 2015


Sentencing Projects report also states that the facility, run by the GEO Group is also the subject of a federal lawsuit claiming that inmates live in unconstitutional and inhumane conditions and endure great risks to their safety and security due to understaffing, violence, corruption, and a lack of proper medical care. Private prisons have also been cited for providing inadequate health care. According to The Sentencing Project, in 2001, a Florida jury found that CCA staff failed

to demonstrate adequate health training which contributed to the death of an inmate who swal-lowed several Ecstasy pills. One complaint stat-ed that a GEO-run correctional facility down-graded mental health diagnoses, discontinued medicine, failed to clean feces and blood out of cell units and rarely provided mental health care, even when requested. One report attributes the failure to provide medical care to the maxi-

mization of profits at the expense of employee training.

In both private and public prisons, a workforce of powerless prisoners is exploited to provide cheap labor to corporations and government programs. Many prisoners are paid far below the minimum wage to do difficult and taxing physical labor. In some private prisons, inmates can be compensated as little as 17 cents per hour, or $20 a month. According to Global Research,

The prison industrial complex is morally wrong and economically wasteful. the highest private prison labor is at a CCA in Tennessee where highly skilled positions can be paid 50 cents per hour. In federal prisons, they can earn $1.25 per hour and can earn $200- $300 per month. Many factories are shut down and their employees fired to be replaced with

cheap prison labor. Some of the companies that use prison labor are household names: AT&T, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, IBM, Motorola, Dell,

HP, Macys, Target, and many more. These com-panies all make money off of cheap exploited prison labor. Global Research goes on to explain that the federal prison industry produces all mil-itary helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and can-teens, 93% of paints and paintbrushes, 92% of stove assembly, 46% of body armor and 36% of home appliances. Prisoners even raise seeing eye dogs for the blind but are paid at a level that is

too low to help to provide money for families with incarcerated members.

The prison industrial complex is morally wrong and economically wasteful. It should be abolished and returned to entirely public pris-ons. Prison labor exploits weak inmates in our society to make money for corporate partners and therefore should either pay fair wages or be outlawed. HMJ



CRUELTY BEHIND ANIMAL TESTINGFOR OUR FOOD

E U W A N K I M

23May 2015


Animal testing for food is a practice where laboratories/scientists perform experiments on lab animals to either find the safety and effectiveness of food products or to find ways to manipulate the amount of food that an animal produces. Animal testing has always been recognized as a disturbing practice but the story behind it is complicated; it ranges from disability to provide care for the animals to neglect and ignorance to the lab animals. But my opinion is one that goes against the idea of shirking lab animals, although the practice is necessary for the well-being of humans (meat consumers).

One of the research centers that performs animal testing is the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center located in Nebraska. The center has been known as a place that gives the most horrendous treatment to its lab animals. The center is understaffed and the attendants neglect the necessary and proper care for the animals. An example of this ignorance is when a teenage cow was put in a room with six bulls that mounted her for hours. Dr. James Keen, who has worked as one of the very few veterinarians at the center for 24 years, explained how he was called in to check on the downed cow. He explained that the bulls were being studied for their sexual libido and were only supposed to be kept with the cow for 15 minutes, but the bulls have been with the cow for hours. Dr. Keen described the cows physical state, Her back legs were broken. Her body was just torn up. Dr. Keen, knowing how to euthanize the cow, tried to find the scientist in charge of the experiment but the scientist was nowhere to be found. The attendants were left to just ignore the cow in pain. Another example of the horrific treatment of the animals at the center is the Twinning Project. The Twinning Project was started in 1981 when the centers founding director, Keith Gregory, had the idea to have most cows produce twins. They increased the twin production through embryo transfers. Mr. Gregory wrote in a scientific paper, The added meat could be a financial godsend. By 2000, the herd of cows were having 55 twin births out of 100, much higher than the usual: three out of 100 births. The ranchers were then able to take on the twin birthing themselves, and increase the amount of meat they could supply. However, there were consequences and side effects to the beneficial meat increase. 95% of the female calves that had male twins had deformed vaginas. Also, many of the twins died during birth, because their eight legs became tangled. The twin breeding also

resulted in triplets, where there were 12 legs that could get tangled. Single born calves also had trouble getting out due to the mothers large wombs (made to accommodate twins) and they couldnt get enough traction to push themselves out. By 2001, the project reported that 16.5% of the twins and triplets were dying; this was a rate more than four times the rate of single calves dying during birth. The Twinning project has continued for 31 years and ended in 2012.

The cows of the center werent the only animals at the center that were experiencing the ignorant lack of nursing. The sheep were also facing the cruel conditions of the center. In 2004, the center started on a project with easy-care sheep. The projects goal was to make a breed of sheep that would be able to maintain and care for themselves in the wild, so that the ranchers wouldnt need to pay extra for the care of these animals. The pregnant ewes were sent out into the wild pastures to nurture their offspring alone. But, ewes were known for abandoning their lambs behind before bonding. The abandoned lambs were left alone in the fields, where there were many storms and predators. Cristiano Boures, a visiting student from Brazil, was assigned to pick up all the dead lambs in the pastures and ignore the other living ones. Some days, 30 to 40 percent of the lambs were dead, and some of those still alive were in bad condition, separated from the moms, and they would be dead the next morning, he said. The project is supposed to continue for four more years. Another experiment on sheep was to create larger lambs. The pregnant sheep were injected with so much male hormone testosterone, their babies genitals began to deform and they were unable to urinate. Death losses were high, the lead scientist wrote, and the experiment was abandoned because it was useless to sheep producers.

In my opinion, animal testing is morally wrong and it should be stopped right away, but animal testing for food has been proved necessary for assuring that there would be enough meat to keep the supply and demand system stable and to ensure the safest and most economically beneficial ways to supply the meat. The amount of worldwide meat consumption has increased 20% in last decade, and meat consumers are urging a higher demand and the amount of meat that ranchers can supply has a limit. Without animal testing, the demand would only go up higher and supply lower, crashing the meat economy. Also, animal testing for food also insures the initial safety of the food products

THE TWINNING PROJECT31 yearsthe length of the study

3 out of 100the original twin birthing rate

55 out of 100the new twin birth rate

16.5% death rate of twins and triplets by 2001

4x more twin/triplet deaths than single calves



Object Experiment Site Method Results

Pigs were locked in steam chambers to test their appetites at various temperatures.

An ovary was removed to test the importance of the uterus in fertility. This experiment has been performed on hundreds of pigs since 1986.

Fetuses in 119 pigs were gently crushed, according to the experiment plan, to make more room in the uterus.

Piglets were taken from their mothers at 10 days old and put on low-fat diets.

Pigs had an ovary removed and a tube implanted in the brain, through which two hormone inhibitors were injected.

Six pigs died in 1991 when a string of equipment failures sent the temperature to 102 degrees, a year after eight cows died in a similar trial. A new trial is testing pigs heat tolerance and eating habits, using pens equipped with sprinklers.

Pork producers were enabled to breed sows that have as many as 14 piglets at once, up from the usual eight. But many piglets, smaller and weaker than normal, are accidentally crushed by their mothers. Ovary removals and breeding continue.

The aim was to see if empty space in the uterus affected the intervals between pregnancies. But trial results, published in 2011, were inconclusive.

The experiment produced 21 percent more lean meat, according to results published in 2010. But early weaning traumatizes and weakens the piglets. Decreased body fat causes heat stress and prevents one in five females from reaching puberty.

Results released in June showed some promise for finding ways to override the natural hormone suspected of suppressing fertility in response to low body fat. But two animal research experts consulted for this article said the experiment plan lacked adequate protections for the pigs.

Stomach

Womb

Womb

Piglet

Womb

Brain

To develop bigger pigs

To create bigger litters

To shorten the time between pregnancies

To create leaner pigs

To reverse fertility loss caused by efforts to breed leaner pigs

*Graphic and information from the New York Times

Experiments on Pigs and Their Results

25May 2015


and the well-being of meat consumers. Animal testing may be morally disturbing, but it can provide the necessary components for the secure basis of the meat industry/economy and the welfare of humans.

Although animal testing is necessary, there are ways that can make the practice a little less brutal to lab animals. A solution to the fatal conditions of animal testing is adding stricter regulations to the AWA (Animal Welfare Act). The AWA covers less than 10% of lab animals and sets minimum standards for standards for housing, feeding, veterinary care, and social well-being. The AWA should expand its regulations to the extent of covering most lab animals and increase

the standards necessary for the welfare of the animals. The AWA should also set the maximum number of animals a lab or center could have so that there is no overcrowding and a sufficient staffing to cover all animals necessary of being cared for. This would make sure that there are regulations that research centers and labs would have to follow, but there need to be enforcements to make sure that the regulations are being followed in the labs. The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center currently has no professional veterinarians and the attendants are inexperienced. I think that the executives of the center should dig deeper to find the actual experience of the potential attendants. They should also make

sure that there are professional scientists and veterinarians that oversee the experiments at all times. A government agent that can monitor these conditions would also be helpful in reinforcing the rules and an occasional, random surprise check-up would also be beneficial in making sure that the labs that practice animal-testing are in-line with the right rules.

Animal testing is discriminated amongst many communities, but it has been proved to be necessary for the components of human well-being and economic welfare; however, there are further ways to develop a better and less disturbing way for animal testing in food than the current system. HMJ

Although animal testing is necessary , there are ways that can make the practice a little less brutal to lab animals.



Brian Williams had been a news anchor on NBC Nightly News for 11 years until recently; he has been suspended for six months. On live news, Williams falsely said that he was in a helicopter that was shot down by ground fire in Iraq. In reality he wasnt. He was in the helicopter that landed an hour or so after it. Williams claims offended the soldiers who were in the helicopter that was shot down and soldiers who watched his news report. His claims made the tasks that soldiers accomplish, like jumping out of helicopters, seem easy and not painful or scary.

After Williams was suspended, NBC Nightly News lost about 700,000 viewers. Williams daughter, Allison Williams, defended her father during an interview with television host Seth Meyers. Hes an honest man. Hes a truthful man. He has so much integrity. He cares so much about journalism. And yes, hes a really good dad, but I know you can trust him because, as any good daughter does, I have tested him on that. Many of Williams fans have told his daughter that they would like for him to return to NBC.

In my opinion, I do not believe Williams should be allowed back as a news anchor. Maybe after a yearlong suspension he can work as a reporter, but he needs to be punished for what he did. People depend on anchors to deliver accurate news. What Brian Williams did was unethical and inappropriate since NBC is one of the most important news channels there is. He has offended many people and fooled them into thinking falsely. Mark Feldstein, a professor at the University of Maryland believes that the reason NBC didnt fire him is because Hes a franchise with a following, and I think that is a lot more important to corporate executives than mere sentimentality.

Brian Williams could have possibly lied to make the news more interesting. Maybe NBC put Williams up to this so that they could obtain more viewers.

At the end of the day, a person who does not have enough time to read an entire newspaper depends on being briefed by news on television. A television anchor has to be a trustworthy person. Williams fictitious story about himself disappointed many loyal viewers. HMJ

Brian WilliamsBy Karina Iman

27May 2015


Brian WilliamsBy Karina Iman Any questions?

Interested in joining the magazine?

We are calling all middle school students to email our editors to learn about the opportunities at the Horace Mann Journal.

Lucy Golub: [email protected] Karim: [email protected] David: [email protected]

HMJ

HM Journal Volume 4 Issue 2

Documents