Enough About You – WaywardSundial

Original

Money seems to have a big role in our society; you can’t do much or get far if you don’t have any. Money is valuable in different ways, even when you don’t see it physically. In today’s society you must have faith in the government and in the banking system that your money is being handled in the proper manner; if not, then you would have to hide all of your money under your mattress or around your house. I have no clue what happens in the banks, or how they take care of your money. I always thought money was simple; you either have some or you don’t—that’s it. However, being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar. You don’t actually see your money being transferred. When you get paid, you aren’t handed cash, you don’t receive a physical check, the money’s all directly transferred to your bank account, and you just have to trust that you got more money.

Revision

Money seems to have a big role in our society; one cannot do much in life without it. Money is valuable in different ways, even though it is not always physical in form. In today’s society there must be faith in the government that the peoples money would be safe; if not, then the act of stashing money would be the most viable way to go about things. I have no clue what happens in the banks, or how they take care of money. I always thought money was simple; people have money or they don’t—that’s it. However, being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar.The depositor doesn’t ever see the money being deposited. When employees are paid, they receive a paper check that can be cashed out to ones bank account, all the while no physical money being seen.

RobustVerbs – WaywardSundial

Original:

There is a huge problem in Vancouver with heroin addicts committing crimes to support their habits. The “free heroin for addicts” program is doing everything they can to stop the addicts. The problem is that there is a large crime rate due to the addicts. It is obvious that addicts have a hard time getting through their day to day lives. Daily activities such as jobs, interactions, and relationships are hard to maintain because of the fact that they are using. By heroin users being addicted, they will do whatever they have to do to get their hands on the drug. The types of crimes committed are those of breaking and entering as well as stealing. There are no limits to where they will go to retrieve this drug so that they can feed their addiction. The problem with this program is that it won’t help to ween these addicts off using heroin. It is only trying to save the city from rising crime rates that they’re up to. By providing the drug, these addicts will be off the streets, which in turn will prevent them from committing minor street crimes. This will also keep the heroin users out of the hospital. It is pointless that the hospitals have to deal with people that want to use bad drugs or unsanitary needles and find themselves being unable to afford hospital bills and hard to cope without the drug. This program gives people free heroin in the cleanest way possible. This will in turn fix the city  but not the addiction that these people face.

Revision:

Heroin addicts commit crimes within Vancouver. Programs that provide free drugs are working to cease the crime rate, not helping the well being of the individuals affected. Addicts will do anything to gain the means to purchasing their drug, from breaking and entering anywhere they can gain access to, robbing innocent civilians, as well as a plethora of other heinous crimes. These acts alienate themselves from those in their life. The “free heroin for addicts” programs merely provides heroin to prevent the crimes they would normally commit in order to get their drug. Although it gives clean heroin and prevents the addicts from using unsanitary needles leading them to hospitals, it does nothing whatsoever to helping the addicts get off the drug indefinitely.

Rebuttal – WaywardSundial

Small Amounts are Still Relevant

Cleaning pollution that resides in the ocean has direct consequences that harms life living in it, as well as outside of it. Unintentional harm from several techniques cleaning the seas can hinder or even kill unsuspecting marine life, especially from dispersants. Whether it is plastic waste never fading in the sea, oil spills, or even emissions from seafaring vehicles, any attempts to clean these issues will add further damage to the ocean itself and the life that lives in or around it including humans.

When pollution is being cleaned, one could argue that the amount of waste added as well as the damage dealt doesn’t compare to the amount of pollution that is being cleaned, as more good is being done than harm. Although that is true, many lives within the ocean will be harmed in potentially more severe ways. With the example of oil nets that clean up oil spills or emissions from aquatic vehicles, although there exists chances of animals being harmed, a good quantity of pollutants is being taken out of the environment. While this is mostly positive, the few lives in question would be snuffed out due to these efforts. It would be unfair as well as cruel to dismiss the possibility of loss of life, no matter if the loss in question is a fish or bird.

Dispersants are chemicals in which they are poured on oil spills, “dispersing” the pollution so that it appears to be clean, however there very well may be more harm than benefits with this method. With a notable quote from (http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-weird-way-cleaning-up-oil-spills-can-actually-harm-animals/) “While it would be nice to believe that dispersants rid the ocean of oil forever, the truth of the matter is that dispersants do not reduce the amount of oil entering the environment. Instead, they literally just push the problem (a combination of oil AND chemicals) underwater where we can’t see them …” and  “ Not only does it appear that our methods of cleaning up oil spills are ineffective, but the chemicals used in dispersants are also damaging marine life. Dispersants wreak havoc in ocean environments, and have proven to be harmful to many marine organisms.” These quotes show the dangers and effects of a single type of “rescue” people use to clean up oil spills.These dispersants spread the oil to eventually settle on the seabed, where it causes arguably more harm than it did on the surface. From being in the same environment as these harmful chemicals and toxins, marine life become not only tainted but also hindered by these toxins, passing the harmful effects to human were they caught and ingested. The effects of a product of humans seeking to help the ocean and those who benefit and live within it inadvertently negatively impacts the beings who are dedicated to it.

Dispersants deployed on oil spills near coral reefs may be more harmful to them than the oil itself. Done by an organization publishing their research on “ACS Publications”, a group of scientists and oceanographers revealed that dispersants were more harmful to coral than crude oil. “The dispersed oil and the dispersants were significantly more toxic than crude oil WSFs.” alongside a series of tests, this was the conclusion they discovered. Again, the opposition to my overall thesis is that more good may be done than harm in the overall scheme of cleaning ocean pollution, however this example proves that more than just the well being of the cleanliness of the water is at stake.

With today’s technology, there is simply no plausible way to rid the ocean of all its maladies while also ensuring the lives that are affected by the status of the ocean remains intact. Another refutation to my claim are certain concepts, such as wind, solar, and ocean current power. Although these technologies exist, there are no reported sources of these means setting out to complete the end where ocean pollution will fully be quenched. Sailboats do and have existed for many centuries, and perhaps certain means can be taken in order to utilize them for pollution cleanup although as of now that option isn’t the most viable due to the extent that pollution reaches; sailboats even in a fleet would not be the best option for skimming or other forms of pollution cleanup. With anything that is done to clean up pollution, from using boats to clean up floating plastics, driving cars to clean beaches, skimming oil with boats either sail or engine powered, and any of the plethora of methods will still add pollution and harm to the world as well as the ocean, regardless of how minute an amount.

References

Causal – WaywardSundial

INSERT PROVOCATIVE TITLE HERE

With modern efforts set in place to rid the ocean of pollution, every way to do so adds further contaminants to the seas of the world. From oil emissions that are derived from relief efforts whose very goal is to rid the ocean of pollution counter intuitively contributes their own amount of damage. Ocean pollution is also derived from plastic waste being thoughtlessly tossed into the seas, out rightly damaging the marine life as well as humans.  From nets skimming the surface layer of the ocean for oil harms animals, and although not outright pollution, there still is damage added even though the intent was of an amicable nature. For any efforts that set out to relieve the ocean of pollution, there are sources wherein unfortunately the blame is due to the attempts seeking to expunge the various scourges of the ocean.

With the ocean being such an immense source for the air we breathe, water that we drink, alongside a plethora of other resources it is truly an upsetting prospect that pollution in many forms are being added to it every day. Whether it be intentional or accidental, oil emissions, plastic, and runoffs are among the most damaging and common forms of ocean pollution. Regardless of the form that ocean pollution takes, the effects of such damage are very severe, harming both the life that resides in the depths alongside humanity itself. From an article from (http://www.planetaid.org/blog/how-ocean-pollution-affects-humans) a notable bit of information is “Chemicals such as oil, mercury, lead, pesticides, and other heavy metals can all be found within the ocean and can contaminate water supplies and our food chain by affecting the marine life involved. If humans are exposed to these toxic chemicals for long periods of time, then this can result in dangerous health problems, which include hormonal issues, reproductive issues, and damage to our nervous systems and kidneys.” Although this quote doesn’t focus on the specific ways that wildlife is harmed, it focuses more on the effects of pollution on humans. With the cause obviously being humans for the majority of the pollution being added to the seas, it seems very ironic that it comes around to harm the very creatures that have created this vast scourge. As stated before, with so many resources being taken from the ocean such as water and food, it is incredulous that certain behaviors are committed by any group of people that add pollution, as the results are truly devastating on the health of the ocean, the marine life that reside within, and humans themselves.

Alongside oil emissions from vehicles being added to the ocean or literally dumped into it, plastics are another form of pollution that has been proven to be extremely detrimental to the well being of all three parties involved; the ocean itself, the wildlife, and humans. From an article exclusively dedicated to the causes and effect of plastics that have entered the waters of the ocean discusses how impactful this issue really is on everyone. (https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html) Discussing a harmful property of pollution in the ocean, “In fact, not only do the toxins in plastic affect the ocean, but acting like sponges, they soak up other toxins from outside sources before entering the ocean. As these chemicals are ingested by animals in the ocean, this is not good for humans. We as humans ingest contaminated fish and mammals.” This quote provides insight into the issue of the less spoken portion of plastic pollution. When plastic waste is sitting in the ocean, it essentially absorbs the toxins in the water that were pre-existing due to other forms of pollution. Consequently, when marine life eats the tainted plastic they would in turn be contaminated with this odd form of pollution transfer, due to the seepage of the waste that resided in said plastic. With the scale of fishing that people do, the amount of people that are impacted by this is of a serious degree. When the captured marine life are eaten, the transfer that initially started from two forms of pollution will then end up in the individual that consumes it, with the effects described in further detail in the article discussing plastic and its effect on the ocean when discarded so carelessly. With this type of damage being caused by plastic pollution, it is disheartening to realize there are a plethora of ways that plastic harms the ecosystem of the ocean ever further. Aside from the fact that pollutants seep from the plastic were it to absorb any external sources of pollutants, plastic waste in the ocean physically harms animals living within as it is very easy for a creature to mistake a plastic bag, fork, or straw as a food source. Countless sea turtles alone are recorded every year that they suffocate on plastic bags floating in the ocean as they share a resemblance with a key component of their diet, and that being jellyfish. Amongst the many viral videos depicting sea life getting plastic waste stuck in their throats, nasal cavity, or their necks tangled amongst 6-pack plastic bindings, it seems that they spark more motivation for people to band together and try and end this hardship that people and animals have to endure. Although efforts are being made to rid the ocean of all forms of pollution, plastic included, those very attempts also add pollution that very well may impact an individual negatively purely due to the fact that as of now there are little to no ways to safely and effectively clean the ocean with a 100% certainty that no further pollution will be added.

With so many causes that lead to such negative effects, it seems imperative that ocean pollution of all forms ceases to exist. Although with modern technology, that goal is not directly feasible, however any attempts still help clean a portion of the majority, although it is not the entirety it surely helps. Although the many reasons for pollution has been discovered, the means by which to stop and get rid of existing pollution is not fully in effect. Were a solution to be founded and put into effect, it seems obvious that the well-being of the ocean, those that reside in it, as well as humanity will benefit greatly not just in form of health, but in the sense that the purity of the ocean will not be as tainted as it is in its present state.

References

Open Strong – WaywardSundial

Dominic Fargnoli

10/17/18

Openings

Strong Openings

1.

Any exhibitions set out that desire to rid the ocean of pollution will directly be contributing to the very deficit they wish to rid. From boats that skim plastic waste as well as oil emissions from the surface of the sea, any fuel consuming vehicle used in these types of attempts will add small amounts of pollution. Although there is no “perfect way” to clear the ocean of pollution, there still are alternate ways of if not clearing entirely the waste, at least some portion of the oceans pollution will be diminished.

 

2.

Pollution that lies dormant in the ocean directly harms humanity as well as the wildlife that reside within the foulness that we humans have directly caused. From direct harm being caused to marine life from ocean pollution, such as plastic and oil emissions, the life that we as humans eat can cause a wide variety of health issues. This point aside, the wildlife themselves are being harmed in the wake of toxins leeching from plastic as well as emissions from vehicles that consume fuel. Because so much of the ocean is polluted coupled with the fact that more damage is being caused every day even from efforts set out to rid said damage, it seems paradoxical that we can cure the plague that haunts the ocean when any efforts that try to end the reign of toxicity will also being adding to it.

Definition – WaywardSundial

Dominic Fargnoli

10/17/18

Definition

Ocean Pollution

When one brings to mind the concept of ocean pollution, it may bring to mind sludge, trash, and plastic waste ensnaring marine life. Although it seems very one sided in terms of definitions, there are many aspects that can be mentioned about it that provoke thoughts from a different perspective. From the physical description, where pollution resides in the ocean, to more political or general cleanliness-relating descriptions.

Although most of the pollution in the waters of Earth are mainly emissions from vehicles such as boats and cars, plastic and oil pollution is still very prevalent. Ocean pollution is both a very broad topic, while also being singular in the sense that there is pollution in the ocean. Compared to the simple, straightforward take on ocean pollution there also can be taken into account the political meaning of it. With so much damage being done to the ocean every day, alongside the influx of trash and plastic being dumped into it, the effects can and are harming both the ecosystems and the beings that live inside them as well as humans. From this article, it discusses the exact ways of how pollution is added to the oceans, “https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-ocean-pollution.php.”  With all of this pollution being added through a multitude of ways, a solution must come to light soon or else there may be consequences that will be of a lingering enormity.

From the pollution being added to the pollution, a subcategory of this topic is also what happens once the harmful materials are in the water; harm to life. The fact of the matter is very frightening, as not only are the innocent marine animals being harmed, killed, and hindered through the sludge, humans in turn consume life from the ocean wherein the harmful effect is transferred to us as a whole. This is a concept that is very real, where the repercussions for humanities laziness that harms the environment also comes back around to not only humans, but all lifeforms that have the bad luck to reside in areas where pollution is prevalent. Although not every person eats seafood that was affected by pollution, those that have are more at risk for sickness as well as health problems, as consuming oil tainted fish is not the most pleasant thing to be eating. Although humans suffer greatly from this plague that we brought upon ourselves, entire environments are being put at risk. If specific groups of marine life are killed off or otherwise incapacitated from living their lives normally, entire ecosystems are in danger of being dwindled greatly, or completely disappear due to key roles being empty due to the harmful toxins that kills so equally.

Although it seems obvious, boats produce an incredibly large amount of pollution. These emissions then add to the ever increasing state of ocean pollution. The part that is somewhat obscure while being counterintuitive at the same time, is the fact that even in pollution cleaning efforts, pollution is at the same time being added to the ocean. With many operations with a focus on cleaning the ocean of trash and oil, they use boats to either skim the water or simply pick out pieces of floating rubbish. From a marine article https://counterintuitivefa18.wordpress.com/Users/Moon/Downloads/Investigation%20of%20Marine%20Pollution%20Caused%20by%20Ship%20Operations%20with%20DEMATEL%20Method.pdf. comes information regarding the output of pollution that ships themselves produce. The concept of ocean pollution as a whole can also be applied to this situation; any efforts to rid the ocean of pollution will also add pollution to the very thing people set out to put an end to. Although a very frustrating concept, it is something that must be dealt with until a way of cleaning pollution without using any resources that will directly affect the ocean in a negative way. In a way, this is an extension of my previous statement that ocean pollution has a both singular and broad definition-scape at the same time. Although troubling but still unique, there are many ways that ocean pollution can be applied to modern topics of debate as it is something that is lingering above, or at the very least at the edge of our shores, at all times.

Although there is no definitive “perfect way” to rid the ocean of pollution, nearly every way that we as a whole have to potentially solve this issue also contributes to the fact. With this in mind, perhaps alternative methods must be used such as sailboats or free-floating nets that capture and collect waste automatically with no reliance on power that directly expels waste. Although many potential methods are not in use, there still is a vast amount of opportunity that awaits. With the subject of various world leaders on this issue, it seems as if not much research is going into this issue aside from private groups that seek to diminish the pollution of the ocean. In reality the majority of the efforts actually are from multiple private groups. As stated before, methods they use is simply skimming the ocean with nets to capture several feet worth of pollution, such as trash or oil emissions. This does have several issues, such as contributing to the pollution by using fuel consuming vehicles, it also can potentially ensnare marine life that are unaware that they are about to be tangled. Although this is not outright pollution, it is still considered damage to the environment because life is potentially being harmed.

With all of the things that are a potential source of damage to the environment of the ocean and not a large amount of ways to diminish it, there is still hope. Although efforts to help using boats to slowly chip away at the immense amount of pollution, the amount of pollution that said efforts emit are not as large as the amount of damage that they in turn clean up. Yes, there still is pollution being added, although not always is it more than what is being taken. With this somewhat dark mindset, if more people were to contribute to the cleaning of the pollution that is so numerous in the ocean, the small amount of pollution the efforts may add are a cost that must be paid for the ocean to be at least more clean than it was before cleaning exhibitions were made. I believe that if people were to apply the knowledge of the fact that boats add emissions, by traversing carefully and ethically the pollution that takes so many forms may very well be lessened in the coming years.

Safer Saws – WaywardSundial

  •  1A. In an article regarding the created of SawStop technology suing Bosch, “SawStop, and their owner Stephen Gass, who happens to be a lawyer, issued a press release about their lawsuit against Bosch. They contend that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.”
  • 1B. Stephen Gass wants to sue Bosch because he believes they are using the same technology he used in his SawStop patent.
  • 1C. This is an evaluation fact because it is evaluating the situation at hand, regarding Gass and his obvious belief that Bosch stole his technology, and wants to sue them. It is not a factual claim because although this is whats happening, the quote is merely stating what is going on and the beliefs of the parties involved, rather than saying that “Bosch stole Gass’ technology and is being sued because of it.” it is merely evaluating what is going on in this quote.
  • 1D. This quote is pretty much self explanatory, as it is observing and telling about the situation that Bosch and Gass felt. It also includes a link to a website involving Bosch’s new table saw that mimics Gass’. The quote is very straightforward, although it still is persuading the reader to think about how or if Bosch should be sued simply based on the rudimentary information about the entire deal that was shown in the quote.
  • 1E. I do not disagree with this quote as it is just saying what happened regarding the lawsuit.

 

  • 2A. A quote regarding a man who wished to sue Bosch for not having sawstop technology in their miter blades, “Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance. You can’t cut off your fingers if they don’t get near the blade.”
  • 2B. The quote talks about a man wishing to sue for Bosch for not having safety procedures in their saws, even though he wouldn’t need the technology if he practiced safe saw etiquette.
  • 2C. This is a factual quote as it is simply stating that if the man followed the procedures on the saw, and did not have his saw near the blade, he simply would not have chopped off his finger.
  • 2D. This quote has a somewhat mocking tone,as obviously the man would not have cut off his finger if he was practicing safety, and even more so if his finger was not near the blade. Also, the man was suing for a blade that didn’t even have sawstop in any model from any company which I feel the author is mocking in the tone he talks about the man.
  • 2E. I entirely agree with the quote

 

  • 3A. In a quote about how the sawstop works, “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple. They run an electrical current through the saw blade that is attached to a current monitor. When the blade is cutting wood (a poor conductor of electricity) the electrical current in the blade remains constant. If the blade touches flesh (a relatively good conductor of electricity) the current in the blade drops. The current monitor senses this drop, and triggers a brake mechanism that immediately stops the blade and retracts it into the machine. The blade can be retracted within 3-5 milliseconds, resulting in a 1/8-inch cut on a single finger, instead of a catastrophic amputation of fingers and limbs.”
  • 3B. The quote talks about how the sawstop detects flesh and stops the blade from amputating limbs and fingers.
  • 3C. This is a factual claim, as it simply is giving the fact about how the sawstop works
  • 3D. It is persuading the reader to understand the technical nature of sawstop technology, and to be familiar with how it stops amputations.
  • 3E. I find it hard to disagree with an explanation of how a machine works.

 

  • 4A. In a quote about what Gass would like to happen, “In this particular SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx lawsuit, the victory could have serious consequences for Reaxx owners. Not only is SawStop looking to block the import and sale of the Reaxx, but also the sale of the cartridges. That would mean Reaxx owners would be unable to replace cartridges. This is a component required for use. Certainly Bosch will work hard to ensure that doesn’t happen, but it will ultimately be up to the courts or a settlement between the two to decide.”
  • 4B. The writer talks about what the owner of sawstop would want happen to the ripoff that Bosch made called Reaxx.
  • 4C. This is an evaluative claim as it is reviewing the situation, and although the cartridge is not technically “required” for use as the write claims, it is necessary for the blade to stop if it came in contact with flesh.
  • 4D. The writer is trying to persuade the reader to understand the situation, as well as be aware as to where to look next for the result of the disagreement, such as the court settlement.
  • 4E. I agree with this quote, as it simply talks about the issue and evaluates both sides of the problem.

 

  • 5A. In a work about the implications of the dangers of power saws, “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place. People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries, multiple surgeries, and medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.”
  • 5B. This quote talks about how technology like sawstop could stop many amputations and injuries.
  • 5C. This is an opinionated claim as it is saying how injuries that “could” have been prevented, not injuries that would have been prevented. It seems as if the author views the sawstop in high esteem and believes it to be the end of amputations from power saws.
  • 5D. This quote is trying to persuade the viewer that sawstop technology, or similar technologies, could potentially save many people from pain and amputations and I believe does a good, concise job in moving the statement about it forward.
  • 5E. I agree with this quote as it not only talks about a potential possibility for sawstop, it also brings how people are affected that didn’t have this technology and how useful it can be for future potential accidents.