Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?

Source: Discover Magazine

Would you say that breathing healthy air is important?  Further would you be happy to learn that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering 'data' which would result in 'relaxed' standards for the current "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards"?  Which translates to emitters being able to pollute the environment in which you breath your air with mercury and other toxic chemicals.  Do I have your attention now?  Luckily, the attention of Senator Tom Carper was not only received, but he followed up and took action with an inquiry.  This action was important since recently (as in last Friday), the EPA released the initial report which will be open to public comment.  First, enjoy the background and concern of altering dangerous levels of pollution in the air.



Below is the inquiry (in letter form) in text from the original letter which can be found here.  The letter is worth reading for several reasons.  The least of which is the historical precedence provided by Senator Carper on the evolution toward enacting the standard called "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard" (or MATS):

Dear Administrator Rao:

I write with great concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed reconsideration of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Supplemental Finding (81 FR 24420, April 25, 2016).  Your office received this reconsideration proposal for review on October 4, 2018.  According to press reports, EPA intends to propose to reverse its decision that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury and toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants.  These reports indicate that, in arriving at that conclusion, the EPA is attempting to ignore or dismiss many of the MATS rule's public health benefits.  If this is the case, this proposal should be rejected.  It would contravene Congressional intent and endanger the health of all Americans.

  

Mercury and other air toxics (such as lead, arsenic, benzene, and acid gases) harm the public while airborne, and when they settle on the soil and in the waterways we depend on for the water we drink and fish we eat.  These toxic substances, which are emitted by power plants, then build up in  our bodies, causing cancer, respiratory illness, mental impairment, and death.  Mercury pollution is especially dangerous for unborn children, who can suffer long-lasting neurological damage if exposed during development.  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, there is no safe level of mercury exposure for children--none.

After a long delay, in 2012 EPA issued the MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule was expected to reduce utility mercury emissions by 90% and other ait toxic emissions by 50%.  In the agency's 2011 cost-benefit analysis for the MATS rule, EPA estimated that the quantifiable benefits to public health (including 11,000 fewer deaths each year) of the MATS rule far outweighed the estimated costs of compliance for the utility industry.

The substance of the MATS rule survived court challenges, and remains on the books today.  However, in the 2015 Michigan vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that EPA should have considered costs when deciding whether it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous air emissions from power plants.  Instead of vacating the MATS rule, the Court allowed the rule to stay in place while EPA addressed the Court's concerns.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he wrote: "We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value.  It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost."

In April 2016, in response to Michigan vs. EPA, EPA issued the MATS "Supplemental Finding."  That finding reconfirms that it is "appropriate and necessary) to regulate hazardous emissions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  EPA reiterated its conclusion after considering "the full range of factors relevant to the appropriate and necessary finding."  In coming to this conclusion, EPA reviewed the industry's compliance costs (e.g., revenue, consumer costs, capital expenditures, operation costs, etc.) based on data provided for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).  EPA also reviewed all the health and environmental benefits, including those that "are impossible, to quantify or monetize, but are no less real than any other advantage of regulation."

Despite the MATS rule's overwhelming public health benefits, former-administrator Scott Pruitt announced in 2017 that EPA would reconsider the April 2016 MATS Supplemental Finding.  OMB's Regulatory Review Dashboard shows that your office is currently reviewing EPA's proposal to recosider those determinations.  Based on public comments made by EPA Assistant Administrator Wehrum--both when he was a private citizen representing clients that opposed the MATS rule and supported a reconsideration of the MATS Supplemental Finding, and now in his official capacity at EPA--I believe the agency has decided to make a legal finding that it is no longer appropriate and necessary to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Further, Mr. Wehrum's comments suggest that EPA is making such a finding based on a limited view of the benefits from the MATS rule. It is my understanding that EPA has determined that it will only consider quantifiable costs and benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, not all the actual benefits.  If ture, this blatant attempt to undermine the MATS rule would contradict longstanding EPA practice, OMB requirements, Congressional intent, and common sense.

EPA should not turn a blind eye to the societal benefits of the MATS rule that cannot easily be reduced to dollars and cents.  Economic tools for projecting and estimating costs and benefits are always evolving and they work better in some situations than others.  For example, EPA has good health, exposure, and mortality data that can translate to monetized health benefits for criteria air pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.  Yet, EPA has struggled for over four decades to precisely monetize the health benefits of controlling air toxics such as mercury.  EPA explains that difficulties in monetizing the health benefits of controlling mercury arise because: "the adverse health effects of toxics are often irreversible, not mitigated or eliminated by reduction in ongoing exposure, and involve particularly painful and/or protracted disease.  Therefore these effects are not readily studied and quantified in human clinical studies, in contrast to, for example, ambient ozone."

Congress, EPA, and OMB have long recognized that if EPA cannot quantify the benefits that does not mean those benefits do not exist.  When Congress wrote and passed the 1990 Clean Air Amendments--including Section 112(n)--there were few, if any, quantifiable data available on cancer risks of air toxics and no quantifiable data whatsoever available for non-cancer risks, like birth and neurological defects.  Despite the lack of quantifiable benefits, Congress still found it necessary to require EPA to pursue robust regulations to address major sources of air toxics emissions.  At the same time, Congress indicated that it was well aware of the limitations of relying exclusively on cost-benefit analyses when assessing air toxics, stating: "[T]he public health consequences of substances which express their toxic potential only after long periods of chronic exposure will not be given sufficient weight in the regulatory process when they must be balanced against present day costs of pollution control and its other economic consequences."  Based on this legislative history, it is clear Congress did not intend for EPA to ignore public health benefits that could not be quantified into dollars when determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Congress also did not intend for EPA to ignore co-benefits that can be monetized.

The scientific information critical to determining the monetized value of reducing air toxic pollution is still limited.  This has resulted in some of the most important benefits (including reduced incidents of birth defects and cancer) not being able to be quantified in EPA's cost-benefit analyses for air toxic rules.  In 2003, then EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeff Holmstead testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the difficulty of quantifying the benefits of reducing air toxic emissions from power plants, saying: These estimates [for clear skies] do not include the many additional benefits that cannot currently be monetized but are likely to be significant, such as human health benefits from reduced risk of mercury emissions, and ecological benefits from improvements in the health of our forests, lakes, and coastal waters."

EPA has tried to bridge the air toxic data gaps through various stakeholder workshops over the years.  The latest workshop in 2009 concluded that monetizing all air toxic benefits is still not possible, making a cost-benefit analysis "difficult" to do for any action involving hazardous air pollutants: "[F]of many chemical son the [Clean Air Act hazardous pollutant] list, the information on potential health effects is so limited that quantitative benefits analysis is not feasible...This lack of information is in contrast to the criteria air pollutants for which there is extensive human exposure or epidemiological data on the health effects at ambient-exposure levels...characterizing the health effects of air toxics at ambient levels can be subject to a very high level of uncertainty; thus, using these health effects in economic benefits assessment is difficult."

Fortunately, OMB has long recognized the constraints of using cost-benefit analysis when evaluating a rule, especially when it is difficult to quantify benefits.  That is why OMB's 2003 Circular A-4 requires EPA and other agencies to conduct a complete regulatory analysis that "includes a discussion of non-quantified as well as quantified benefits and costs.  When there are important nonmonetary values at stake, you should also identify them in your analysis so policymakers can compare them with the monetary benefits and costs."  In addition, OMB clarifies in Circular A-4 that all ancillary benefits should be counted in any rule analysis, directing agencies to "look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of your rulemaking and consider any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks.  An ancillary benefit is a favorable impact of the rule that is typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking."   OMB also states that when agency personnel "can estimate the monetary value of some but not all of the ancillary benefits of a regulation, but cannot assign a monetary value to the primary measure of effectiveness, you should subtract the monetary estimate of the ancillary benefits from the gross cost estimate to yield an estimated net cost."

For decades, and in multiple Administrations, EPA has followed OMB's direction by providing a robust record of all the quantifiable and qualitative data for ai toxic rules.  The Congressional Research Service has found that, since January 1, 200, EPA has issued at least thirty-two Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for rules that involve regulating air toxics under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, including the MATS rule.  None of thes thirty -two RIAs fully quantified the direct benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, yet the rues discuss benefits that cannot be quantified as important justifications for reducing the toxic emissions--particularly those regarding critical health benefits.  For the MATS rule specifically, EPA concluded "there are some costs and important benefits that EPA could not monetize, such as other mercury reduction benefits and those for the [hazardous air pollutants] other than mercury being reduced by this final rule.  Upon considering these limitations and uncertainties, it remains clear that the benefits of the MATS are substantial and far outweigh the costs." 

In these thirty-two RIAs, EPA also provided monetized ancillary benefits, sometimes referred to as "co-benefits."  The co-benefits included the dollar value of lives saved and other health benefits from the reduction of sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution that occurs along with--and often as a result of--the reduction of ai toxics.  EPA found that the quantified ancillary benefits for MATS are significant, up to $90 billion in the benefits per year.

Based on all the health and scientific data, Congressional intent, and historical justification and precedent, it just does not make sense for EPA to change course regarding the consideration of non-quantifiable benefits in its Supplemental Finding for MATS.  No judicial or legislative directive requires this willful blindness to the public health consequences of EPA's proposal.  This decision is especially peculiar given that MATS is resulting in faster and significantly more cost-effective public health benefits than EPA initially predicted in 2011.  On July 10, 2018, every major electrical utility trade organization representing coal-fired and other utilities joined with labor organizations in a letter to EPA that confirmed our power plants have already "reduced mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent over the past decade."  These reductions are in large part due to the investments that were made to comply with MATS--investments that turned out to be about one-quarter the costs EPA conservatively predicted.  The utilities and labor organizations explained that industry compliance with the MATS rule was easier than first estimated, stating that today "all covered plants have implemented the regulation [MATS] and that pollution controls--were needed--are installed and operating."  The letter went on to cite the important of regulatory certainty given all the investments made to meet the MATS rule and asked EPA to "leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective."

My hope is that OMB will ensure that EPA follows Congressional intent under the Clean Air Act when it comes to determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate air toxic emissions from power plants.  If EPA looks at all the actual benefits and updated costs of this rule instead of persisting in its tortured effort to re-define its own legal authority and responsibility, there is no reasonable conclusion other than that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate these dangerous power plant emissions under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  I echo the call of health and environmental groups, states and the business community: Keep the entirety of the MATS rule in place. 

I thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  If you or your stff have questions about this letter, your staff is encouraged to contact Laura Gillam of my Environmental and Public Works Committee staff at laura_gillan@epw.senate.gov. 

With best personal regards, I am, 

Sincerely yours,

Tom Carper,

Ranking Member

Senator Tom Carper lays out a convincing argument based on history for the continuation of reducing Mercury and other toxic air pollutants rather than relaxing regulations.  Of course, the Trump Administration is trying desperately to 'roll back' regulations to save coal power plant operators money at the expense of your health along with others (including mine).  Which is terrible.



Just last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report (temporarily, yet to be finalized until after public comment) which runs counter to the suggestions above by Senator Tom Carper.  Which is completely disappointing to say the least.  In an article from the Associated Press titled "Trump EPA orders rollback of Obama mercury regulations" the "next steps" in the process of finalization are the following:

The proposal Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency challenges the basis for the Obama regulation. It calculates that the crackdown on mercury and other toxins from coal plants produced only a few million dollars a year in measurable health benefits and was not “appropriate and necessary” — a legal benchmark under the country’s landmark Clean Air Act.

The proposal, which now goes up for public comment before any final administration approval, would leave the current mercury regulation in place.

However, the EPA said it will seek comment during a 60-day public-review period on whether “we would be obligated to rescind” the Obama-era rule if the agency adopts Friday’s finding that the regulation was not appropriate and necessary. Any such change would trigger new rounds in what have already been years of court battles over regulating mercury pollution from coal plants.

The report generated by the EPA is a result of the calculations which state that the health benefits to the public does not outweigh the costs to the coal power plant industry.  According to a number of environmental groups these calculations are flawed and can result in polluted air which will have adverse (negative) health affects on the surrounding communities.  This result is disappointing as I have already mentioned.



Conclusion....



Upon release of the report by the EPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics has responded with an official statement which can be read by clicking here.  Regardless of which side you come down on the argument, the world needs 'cleaner air' -- which is inarguable. As long as the pollution does not end up in the lungs of the coal fired power plants or other law makers, then the right to pollute is fine.  When pollution affects everyone equally (negatively), then action will be taken to improve the quality of air around us.  Fortunately, leaders like Senator Tom Carper are fighting for our 'right' to have clean, breathable air for years to come.  Thank you Senator Carper.  Keep fighting the fight.



As soon as the comment period opens, I will post a link for the public to comment.  Until then, have a Happy New Year Celebration!



Related Blog Posts:



What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

What does a Government Shutdown look like?

Source: The Green Dandelion

With the holidays passing, a government shutdown is underway.  One might actually forget about the shutdown if social media were not around (and assuming that you do not pay attention to the news).  Anyways, I was perusing Instagram (a social media site) and found the following image shown below:

Source: NOAA

Remember, this is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- whose mission is to inform and update on conditions relevant to the atmosphere, oceans and major waterways.  Where else would one go for information?  After noticing this message, I wondered about other Federal agencies.  Just out of curiosity, what does a government shutdown look from an internet perspective?  Below are a few images:



1) The first federal agency site I decided to look at was the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) which is shown below:

Source: USDA

The message "Update: This website will not be updated during a lapse in federal funding. Content on this website will not be current or maintained until funding issues have been resolved." That is reassuring for anyone interested in updates -- NOT.



2) Next up was the Department of Homeland Security which is shown below:

Source: Department of Homeland Security

The message was hidden in the center title "INFO: Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. More info".   What was strange was that each of the agencies had a different way of presenting a discomforting message -- which is that the government is shutdown and services will not be available (except emergency or life threatening during that time).



3) After looking at the Instagram account for the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, I had to visit the website to check for updates.  This is what I found:

Source: NOAA

The message along the top of the web page reads: "Parts of the U.S. Government are closed. This site will not be updated; however NOAA websites and social media channels necessary to protect lives and property will be maintained.  See weather.gov for critical weather information."



4) Last but not least, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website appeared as follows:

Source: FEMA

The message across the top of the web page read: "Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. More Info."   Apparently, there will be no natural disasters during the shutdown that FEMA would have to deliver information/funding/relief toward.  Wow.  The government must have great predictive powers to be able to defund (shutdown) such an important agency anytime.



Take home message: Any time that the government services are not available, one realizes just how important the services are for them.  Maybe not during this particular shutdown, but there could be a natural disaster (hurricane, wildfire, torrential rain, etc.) to deal with.  Then what?

What about State Department?

The last federal agency site which I visited (besides the FBI - which was absent any notice -- thank goodness) was the State Department.  I was relieved to find out that the services were still being offered.  Here is an update to the State Department's Twitter feed shown below:

Source: State Department



The subject matter contained in the Tweet above is regarding a rare disease known as Lassa Fever.  The alert (message) was directed toward State Department employees or American citizens traveling in the region of Benin  -- which is in West Africa.  For more information regarding the rare disease - check out the information contained on the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) website.  For this exact warning, the importance is critical in certain cases that the government keep open certain federal agencies.  By the way, the State Department did issue a Christmas letter on Facebook despite funding issues.

Conclusion...

No one wants to be without government services.  Especially when the services are available to protect the loss of human life.  Regardless of partisan position, each of us should be able to agree that the services offered are important and need to be funded.  I was disappointed and felt uneasy viewing the messages above -- regarding the funding issues leading to closures.  Lets get the government working again -- those parts which are shut down.  Happy Holidays!



Related blog posts:


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?



Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts



Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Happy Holidays!!.....Here are some fun facts to share with family about the holidays

Source: Southern Living

With the holidays rapidly approaching, last minute shopping is all around us.  Hysteria at the malls with frantic shoppers trying to wrap up their gift giving expedition.  On top of that weight are the decorations needed for the season.  By now, neighborhoods around the nation are adorned with Christmas lights while Christmas trees are on full display through front windows of houses all around us.  For this year, a couple of fun facts are in order to spread the Christmas cheer.  The two categories will be: Christmas trees and Christmas lights.

How many Christmas Trees are purchased?

Each Christmas season, trees can be spotted on the top of cars as they are transported from the farm to the house to be decorated.  I always have wondered about the number of trees on average which are sold during Christmas.  Therefore, I decided to search Google with the following question: How many Christmas Trees are sold each year?   The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, there are between 25 and 30 million Christmas trees sold each year in the United States.  What was fascinating is the total number of Christmas trees grown in the U.S. each year are 350 million.  The information highlighted in the box above comes from the National Christmas Tree Association's website which has a few more fun facts about Christmas trees shown below:

There are approximately 25-30 million Real Christmas Trees sold in the U.S. every year.

There are close to 350 million Real Christmas Trees currently growing on Christmas Tree farms in the U.S. alone, all planted by farmers.

North American Real Christmas Trees are grown in all 50 states and Canada. Eighty percent (80%) of artificial trees worldwide are manufactured in China, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

Real Trees are a renewable, recyclable resource. Artificial trees contain non-biodegradable plastics and possible metal toxins such as lead.

There are more than 4,000 local Christmas Tree recycling programs throughout the United States.

For every Real Christmas Tree harvested, 1 to 3 seedlings are planted the following spring.

There are about 350,000 acres in production for growing Christmas Trees in the U.S.; much of it preserving green space.

There are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas Trees in the U.S., and over 100,000 people are employed full or part-time in the industry.

It can take as many as 15 years to grow a tree of typical height (6 - 7 feet) or as little as 4 years, but the average growing time is 7 years.

The top Christmas Tree producing states are Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington.

I immediately wondered why there was such a large difference between the amount of Christmas trees planted each year and those that are sold.  Sounds like there are only 1 in 10 trees which actually make the cut to be sold in order to end up in a living room for display with decorations and lights.  The industry requires a significant workforce to support the retail which comes along with the Christmas celebration.  Just take the amount of trees grown to be sold are staggering by itself.



To understand the magnitude of the number of trees which are planted along with the amount that are sold, let's imagine that each tree is stacked on top of one another.  How high would that stack of trees reach? The analysis below will show the answer to that question.  In order to start, an assumption regarding the average height of a Christmas tree needs to be introduced.  For the purpose of this analysis, the assumption will be made that the average height of a Christmas tree is 6 feet tall.



First, the amount of trees which are sold annually in the United States is large.  Therefore, choosing a 'unit' of measurement which will appropriately shed light on the magnitude of the values is essential.  A common unit of measurement for large distances on Earth is the 'mile'.  If Google is consulted with the following question: 'How many feet are in a mile?'  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

There are 5,280 feet in every mile.  To begin analyzing the values, let's look at the numbers which we are interested in.  Each year, there are between 25 million and 30 million Christmas trees sold in the United States.  That is out of a total of 350 million Christmas trees growing across 15,000 farms.



First, each of the amount of trees sold (and grown) in the United States must be converted to units of miles -- using the assumption that each tree is on average 6 feet tall.  The unit conversion is shown below:

The results above indicate that the range 25-30 million trees sold equal to the distance of 28,409-34,090 miles.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown annually would equal a total distance of 397,727 miles.  In order to understand the magnitude of these distances, a metric is needed to compare the distances with.  What if we took the total distance of stacked Christmas trees and wrapped the line around a sphere (the Earth)?  How many times could the line of trees circle around the Earth?



We need to determine the total distance around the Earth.  If we consult Google with the following question: What is the circumference of Earth?  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

One trip around Earth (at the center) is equal to traveling a total distance of 24,901 miles.  The three distances of Christmas trees can be divided by the circumference of the Earth -- 24,901 miles as shown below:

The answers indicate that the amount of Christmas trees sold in the United States each year would stack up to a range of 28-34 thousand miles -- which would equal just over 1.4 trips around the Earth.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown in the United States would stack up to a distance equal to 16 trips around the Earth.  These numbers really drive home the magnitude of the amount of Christmas trees needed for the Christmas holiday.  Here is a great idea for recycling parts of the Christmas tree -- click here.



How about Christmas light?



In the next section, an analysis will be carried out to highlight the total number of Christmas lights which are purchased each year in the United States.

How about Christmas Light?

On top of all of the Christmas trees which are sold annually and would wrap around the circumference of Earth are Christmas lights -- at the very least to provide the minimum amount of decoration.  In order to wrap a few strands of Christmas lights around a given tree, either one must store Christmas lights in the garage or choose to purchase new strands.  There is nothing wrong with purchasing new lights in a given year.  Especially when the old lights break or strands of bare exposed wire show -- which could easily cause danger when voltage is applied to them (i.e. plugged into the wall socket).  How many strands are sold in the United States each year?



If a Google search is conducted with the question above, the following answer appears below:

Source: Google

According to our search, there are 150 million strands of Christmas lights sold each year in the United States.  If the same analysis from above is used, the first step will be to convert the strands of lights into a distance.  For this, an online store needs to be consulted to find out the distance sold.  The Christmas lights (clear, no color) sold at Target are shown below:

Source: Target

The length of the Christmas lights in the picture above (100 count) is 24.7 feet.  If the total number of strands of Christmas lights is multiplied by the length (in feet) of a single strand, the total distance would be yielded:

The answer indicates that the total number of strands of Christmas lights would add up to a total distance of 701,704 miles in length.    Last, if the total distance of Christmas lights sold is divided by the circumference of the Earth, the total number of trips around Earth will be yielded as shown below:

The total amount of Christmas lights sold in the United States each year would equal traveling around the Earth 28 times.  Wow!  That is an enormous amount of Christmas light sold each year.  The enormous number made me question the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages in American houses across the country.  Additionally, a certain percentage of this enormous amount of purchased Christmas lights must be recycled.



If the Wikipedia page for Christmas Lights is consulted regarding the recycling of Christmas lights, the following information can be found:

Christmas lighting does lead to some extensive recycling issues. Every year, more than 20 million pounds of discarded holiday lights are shipped to Shijiao, China (near Guangzhou), which has been referred to as "the world capital for recycling Christmas lights".[28] The region began importing discarded lights around 1990 in part because of its cheap labor and low environmental standards.[28] As late as 2009, many factories would simply burn the lights to melt the plastic and retrieve the copper wire, releasing toxic fumes into the local environment.[28] A safer technique was then developed that involved chopping the lights into a fine sand-like consistency, mixing it with water and vibrating the slurry on a table causing the different elements to separate out, similar to the process of panning for gold.[28] Everything is recycled: copper, brass, plastic and glass.

More and more cities in the U.S., for example, are setting up sensible alternatives and schemes to recycle Christmas lights, with towns organizing drop-off points for handing in old or discarded lights.[29][30]

Installing holiday lighting may also be a safety hazard when incorrectly connecting several strands of lights, repeatedly using the same extension cords, or using an unsafe ladder during the installation process.

The total amount of Christmas lights (in weight) which are shipped to China each year is around 20 million pounds.   I wonder how much material (copper, brass, plastic, and glass) -- percentages of each are recovered.  And used for what?  The process of recycling is interesting and worth reading about for further information.

Conclusion...

The Christmas holiday is a time of celebration.  At the same time, the holiday is an opportunity for families to gather together and catch up on life.  The fun facts calculated and gathered surrounding the Christmas holiday are perfect to add into a trivia game or dinner conversation.  The analysis above showed that the enormous amount of Christmas trees would add up (stack up to) to enough miles to equal 1.4 times traveling around the Earth.  Further, the total number of Christmas trees planted on farms would equal a distance equivalent to traveling around the Earth 16 times.  That is amazing to say the least.  That is a large amount of wood to recycle or burn.



And what about the Christmas lights which are sold each year in the United States?  The total distance of all of the strands of lights sold in the United States each year would be equivalent to traveling around the Earth 28 times.  My goodness that is quite a large amount of Christmas lights sold each year.  Imagine the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages around the United States.  To add to that, 701,704 miles are purchased each year.  Christmas time is a very popular holiday of the year.  Have a great holiday celebration!!



Related Blog Posts:


Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?


Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?

Source: Time Magazine

More people than are commonly thought to suffer from some degree of anxiety disorder.  You may be wondering what is the operational (psychiatric) definition of anxiety.  No worries, I will get to that shortly.  Recently, as in the past two years, research has shown that politics has played a major part in increased anxiety.  How?  A scientific study published in the Journal 'Science' titled "The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties" showed that on average, families spend fewer number of hours together as a result of the division based upon differing political views in the current political climate.  Remember, the study was conducted after the election.  The current political climate has caused noticeable adverse changes in family dynamics.  How does one differentiate between anxiety based on events (politics) and anxiety which is inherent to each of us to some degree.

What is Anxiety?

Anxiety is commonly viewed as a sharpening tool to keep us alert to any threats -- a survival mode.   For a large percentage of people, anxiety is anything but a 'sharpening tool' and more often associated with feeling of 'excessive nervousness'.   Further, a certain amount of people suffer to a large degree from anxiety on a daily basis from carrying out their normal daily lives.  Which is concerning to say the least.  In order to understand the disorder which inflicts so many people without notice, an operational definition of General Anxiety Disorder is needed.



I just finished a book titled "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump," (organized and edited by Dr. Bandy X. Lee) -- a compilation of written works describing the symptoms which contribute to the informal diagnosis of President Donald J. Trump.  By discussing possible attributes/qualities of different personality and other mental health disorders, the contributors discuss the problems facing the United States along with President Trump.  Without violating the 'Goldwater Rule', the contributors focus on what electing a person with disorders says about the electorate (you and I).



As I just mentioned, the book had a number of mental health professionals contributing to the book.  The author who I would like to highlight wrote a chapter titled "Trump Anxiety Disorder" whose name is Jennifer Contarino Panning.  She is a licensed psycotherapist in Clarkston, Michigan.  The excerpts below are shown to help introduce an operation definition of General Anxiety Disorder along with distinguishing the newly emerging Trump Anxiety Disorder.  First, lets start with a definition of General Anxiety Disorder:

It is important to differentiate generalized anxiety disorder and Trump anxiety disorder.  The "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (5th ed.) (commonly referred to as DSM-V), is widely used among mental health professionals (American Psychiatric Association 2013).  It describes generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) as characterized by excessive, uncontrollable, and often irrational worry--that is, apprehensive expectation about events or activities.  This excessive worry often interferes with daily functioning, as individuals with GAD typically anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about everyday matters such as health issues, money, death, family problems, friendship problems, interpersonal relationship problems, or work difficulties. Individuals often exhibit a variety of physical symptoms, including fatigue, fidgeting, headaches, nausea, numbness in hands and feet, muscle tension, muscle aches, difficulty swallowing, excessive stomach acid buildup, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhea, bouts of breathing difficulty, difficulty concentrating, trembling, twitching, irritability, agitation, sweating, restlessness, insomnia, hot flashes, rashes, and an inability to fully control the anxiety. 

The author goes onto state that these symptoms must be consistent and ongoing to be formally diagnosed by a physician for at least 6 months.  Moreover, that according to the National Institute of Mental Health, over 7 million Americans suffer from General Anxiety Disorder within a year....Wow!  Each of us have felt a sense of anxiety at some point in our life.  Whether that be preparing a work project or presenting a speaking event to a large audience.  That is typically normal anxiety associated with stress of planning.  Some people often have difficulty distinguishing between stress and anxiety.  Regardless, understanding the causes of anxiety or stress are important.



Which is why after certain events in time, new anxiety can be sourced to a different cause.  Although, the phenomenon on a larger scale calls for a different type of analysis.  Further, the type of anxiety causing issue at a national scale has been traced to a certain number of events.  These events have been surrounding the campaign/election of President Donald J. Trump.  Below, the differences along with the definition of Trump Anxiety Disorder will be highlighted.

What is Trump Anxiety Disorder?

As I mentioned above, suffering from General Anxiety Disorder is terrible enough on a daily basis.  Now, add in the unknown quantity of Trump Anxiety Disorder.  What is the difference between the two anxiety disorders.  Let's define it.  The author of the above excerpt, Dr. Jennifer Panning, goes onto describe Trump Anxiety Disorder in the same chapter as:

Symptoms associated with Trump Anxiety Disorder include: feeling a loss of control; helplessness; ruminations/worries, especially about the uncertain sociopolitical climate while Trump is in office; and a tendency toward excessive social media consumption.  In fact, the polarization that this has created has caused a deep divide between families and friends of differing political beliefs.  Trump's specific personality characteristics, and his use of psychological manipulation tools such as gaslighting, lying, and blaming, are described as contributing factors to Trump Anxiety Disorder. 

Trump Anxiety Disorder, albeit not a formal diagnosis, differs from GAD in regard to several measures. One difference is in the furation of time for the symptoms to develop.  The volatile events leading up to the 2016 election (i.e., false news reports, Comey's report questioning Clinton's ethics) were challenging in themselves, but many Americans were reassured by multiple polls (e.g., Silver 2016) predicting that Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide.  This led to a sense of shock and disbelief after Trump was announced as president of the United States. 

An additional symptom of Trump Anxiety Disorder is that symptoms are directly related to the uncertain sociopolitical climate.  An elevated stress level when reading articles about numerous topics--the Muslim ban, the threat/promise of disbanding the Affordable Care Act, tensions between the United States and North Korea, the possibility of Russia's having interfered in the 2016 election and Russia's financial connection to Trump, the US/Mexican wall, immigration issues, the defunding of environmental groups such as the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the defunding of medical research--is strong.  An individual impacted by Trump Anxiety Disorder may be directly impacted by one of these singular issues, have multiple concerns, or worry about the future democratic state in America given these issues.  Therefore, the ruminative worry associated with an anxiety disorder is specific to these events (Clarridge 2017).

Wow! After reading the above excerpt have you ever suffered from a small amount of Trump Anxiety Disorder?  I can easily see myself suffering from a fair amount of the same underlying attributes/sources defined under the Trump Anxiety Disorder.  Have you?  Many of the students from our university are showing signs of suffering from symptoms of Trump Anxiety Disorder.  On a larger scale, people around us are showing signs of symptoms too -- which is completely concerning.

Conclusion...

If you have ever had an anxiety attack or even felt a moderate amount of anxiety, I feel for you.  The symptoms above are real and have been felt by me at one point or another in my graduate career.  To have the added stress or symptoms associated with Trump Anxiety Disorder are even more concerning.  Especially since the latter anxiety is controllable -- he could have been not elected into office.  Instead, we have what we have and have to deal with what we have.



The first step in dealing with anxiety without any outside influences is to identify triggers and find solutions.  Once the triggers are known, then solutions can be found.  But with the added anxiety associated with Donald Trump is unfair.  Although, now with the election over and two years into the administration, the least we can do is to either ignore television and the online world all together.  Or, we can try to understand and move onto find solutions to deal with the current situation.  We might not be in control of other's actions, but we are in control of our own.  Distinguishing between normal anxiety and anxiety associated with Donald Trump will be beneficial in the future.




Related Blog Posts:


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science

NIH Director Francis Collins Makes A Statement Regarding Sexual Harassment In Science

National Institutes of Health - Anti-Sexual Harassment Web site


National Science Foundation Sexual Harassment of Women Study


Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?

Parameters: What is the 'mission' of the National Institute for Aging?

NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress


Dr. Francis Collins and Bill Gates Discuss Global Health And Genomics


How Much Do New Drugs Cost To Bring To The Pharmacy Counter?


Is Disease Or Treatment Different In Women?


Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

The 1% Can Push Science Research Forward -- Example1: Bob Wright!

Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?

Source: NPR

Climate scientists often discuss the alarming amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic.  According to an article in the 'Associated Press' titled "Climate change is more extensive and worse than once thought" an enormous amount of ice has melted since 1992 alone:

Antarctica has lost nearly 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992, enough to cover Texas nearly 13 feet (4 meters) deep, scientists reported in June. Greenland has lost more than 5 trillion tons in the same period.

Wow. Really?  The author extends help in visualizing the enormous amount of ice melting by providing a metric -- namely the amount would cover the state of Texas in a depth of 13 feet of ice.  My goodness.  I wanted to follow up with that statement and check to see how the numbers checked out.  Below is the analysis.

How large is Texas?

Texas has a land mass totaling 268,597 square miles as shown below:

Source: Google

With the area of Texas in hand, the only remaining parameter needed to find the total volume of water is the 'height'.   Although, in our case, we are verifying the statement above regarding the 'height' of ice over a given area (Texas).  The expression for the total volume of ice being considered in the article is shown below:

The area of Texas has already been determined by a Google search (as shown above) along with the stated value of 'height' equal to 4 meters.  Also, the total volume of ice which has melted is given too.  In this blog post, we are verifying the stated values contained in the excerpt.  Namely, that the total volume of ice -- 3 trillion tons of ice -- would spread a layer of ice over the entire state of Texas with an height equal to 4 meters.



In order to verify the values in the statement above, we need to do unit conversions of a couple of values above to end up in uniform units.  The uniform units of choice is 'meter'.  Therefore, to start with, a quick search of the number of square meters in a square mile would yield the following shown below:

Source: Google

For every 1 square mile, there are 2,590,000 square meters.  Now we have the area in units of square meters along with a height in units of square meters.  The only remaining parameter is volume to convert into units of 'meters' -- for a volume -- cubic meters.  The volume of ice is stated in the excerpt above in units of 'tons' - which is a unit of 'mass'.  In order to convert from a mass to a volume, the conversion factor used is the substance's density -- the amount of mass in a given volume.



In order to determine the density of ice, we simply type into a search engine: What is the density of ice?  The following appears as shown below:

Source: Google

The density of ice is 0.92 grams/cubic centimeter.  Since there are 100 centimeters in a meter, then there are 100 meter x 100 meter x 100 meter (volume = length x width x height).  Therefore, the density of ice is equal to (0.92 gram/ cubic centimeter) x (1,000,000 cubic centimeter/cubic meter) = 920,000 gram/cubic meter.



To convert the mass in units of 'ton' to mass in units of 'gram' the conversion factor needs to be known.  Consulting a search engine with the following question: How many grams are in a ton? The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

The answer indicates that in a ton of ice, there are 907,185 grams of ice.  An expression for the density of a given substance is shown below:

The density as indicated by the expression above is the amount of mass in a given volume.  In our case, the density of ice gives us a conversion factor to use to convert a 'mass' of ice into a 'volume' of ice -- which is part of our intention in verifying the above statement from the news.  Given that information (values) and expression for density, the volume can be obtained by dividing the 'mass' of ice by the 'density' of ice (conversion factor) as shown below:

A total of 3 trillion tons of ice was reported to have melted in a given time.  But wait, where did the number in the expression above -- 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams -- in the numerator (number above the line in the fraction) come from?  That is the converted mass of ice - 3 trillion tons - expressed in units of 'gram' rather than 'ton'.  In order to use the number in the expression above, a unit conversion was needed.  The conversion is shown below:

Using the determined conversion factor above of 907,185 grams to every single ton, the total amount of grams in 3 trillion tons of ice is equal to 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams.  This is the mass which was used in the equation to determine the volume above. 



Next, in order to determine the height of spreading this enormous amount of ice over the entire state of Texas, an expression from above needs to be brought up -- the height -- as shown below:

Using the area calculated above which is equal to the total size of the state of Texas, the height of the total volume of ice spread over the entire state can be determined as follows:

The answer indicates that if 3 trillion tons of ice were spread over the total state of Texas, the height of the ice sheet would be just over 4 meters -- 4.25 meter. This is in accordance with the answer above -- reported in the news!

Conclusion....

Wow.  The above analysis is proof that the author is correct in their assertion of the magnitude of the terrible amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic.  Furthermore, the above analysis gives us the ability to reason through the reported numbers to convince ourselves of the magnitude of the situation.  Given that some readers might find this analysis mundane, for me, I reason through the content of an article by proving to myself (with my own analysis), that the number is justified to be reported.  Nevertheless, the amount of ice is enormous and worth considering thinking about our own unique contribution to the scale of the issue.  Eventually, the problem will have to be dealt with in the near future.



Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

CSUN Threats Embolden Students To Take Control Of The University?

Source: The Trace

Amid the mass shootings occurring in the United States on a more frequent basis, each university should be on alert.  The university at which I work is not immune to threats or scare.  As finals week was approaching, the following image appeared on Social Media (Twitter) shown below:

As indicated in the photo above, the threat was for last Wednesday -- December 12th.  The university does have protocols for such threats.  Although, exactly how to deal with threats which are still uncertain and remain a moving target.  The uncertainty which surrounds such events are a result of past shootings -- Las Vegas (2017) and Thousand Oaks (2018).  These events have raised awareness to such threats and have changed the dynamics behind the usual procedures of how to deal with them.

University President's Message

December the 12th was Wednesday, the beginning of 'final exams' at California State University at Northridge.  We received the following e-mail:

To the Campus Community,

While law enforcement does not believe there is an imminent threat to campus, I recognize the extreme stress and anxiety the recent threats of violence have caused our community.

To further ease the anxiety students are understandably experiencing that may affect exam performance, finals on Wednesday, December 12, will only be offered in alternative formats. For final exams on Thursday, December 13, through Tuesday, December 18, faculty will provide alternative exam format options and accommodate students who are not comfortable coming to campus. Students should contact their instructors to request alternative arrangements. Any student requesting such an accommodation will not be subject to any instructor-imposed penalty. This decision was made in consultation with CSUN's Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

The campus will remain open during the remainder of the semester. Employees concerned about reporting to work should contact their supervisors.

Again, as I shared in this morning's communication, CSUN Police and partner law enforcement agencies continue to investigate the threats and maintain their increased patrols across campus. Anyone with any information should contact CSUN Police immediately at 911 or 818-677-2111.

Hate has no place on this campus, and we are working to bring any perpetrators of these cowardly acts to justice. We are resolute in our duty to not allow these threats to derail our students' education. We make these accommodations entirely in the interest of our students and their success. I appreciate the dedication of faculty and staff who have exhibited extraordinary flexibility and empathy in service of our students, as well as the tireless work of CSUN Police. I ask everyone to come together as a community, supporting one another through this difficult time.

Sincerely,

Dianne F. Harrison, Ph.D.

President

The above statement was sent out to employees and students after other notices from President Dianne Harrison indicating that there would be not change in the finals scheduling.  Additionally, the following letter was found on Monday adding to the threat of violence on campus:

Source: Twitter

With the two threats on deck, the university administration decided to let the faculty arrive at 'alternative methods' to end the semester with.  Which created a large amount of uncertainty.  After various departments starting hashing out plans which fit their curriculum, the university administration decided that some plans would work while others would not.  Ultimately, this has led to total confusion at every level from the administration down to the department level.   Not good.

Students Are Capitalizing On Chaos

On top of all the the confusion lay the the students with a large amount of uncertainty on their hands as to how to handle the different instructions which arrive in their e-mail boxes hourly.  Now, faculty and students are receiving updates very frequently with different instructions in each.  Confusing to say the least.

Students are afraid to come to campus.  As a result, the ultimate hope is to take a 'final exam' online.  Which creates a large amount of difficulty to come up with an exam which might be acceptable in an online format.  Different subjects have different restrictions.  Not all subjects can immediately translate their content to an online format.  For instance math, if an instructor would like the student to plot a graph and then shade with a pencil part of the graph, the programming behind such a question might take time to develop.

In chemistry, the translation to an online format might pose difficult for certain senior level faculty who have refused to use an online format.  This confusion can quickly turn into anger and frustration and create tension in the administration within the department.  This is not restricted to chemistry alone.  Other departments are up in arms as well.  Each department is contacting others asking how (frantically) to deal with the current chaos.

The result of this has been to empower the students to not accept the 'alternative' method offered by the faculty.  According to the letter by President Harrison, a school of 40,000 students would have at least 40,000 unique - alternative solutions for final exams.  Which is why departments have scrambled to come up with a uniform system which all department faculty agree upon and is accepted by the university officials.  That remains a daily challenge.

Solution?

Ultimately, there are two options for students who are not able to make the exam in person.  Either take the grade that they had prior (up to) the final exam or come to campus and take the exam.  This solution is currently being adopted by most departments.  Although, the following questions naturally arise:

1) What happens if the students are already traveling for the holidays?  i.e. their final exam was on Wednesday only.

2) What happens to the students who lost loved ones in either Las Vegas or Thousand Oaks who might have PTSD but would like to take the exam in person?

3) Why can't online or take home exams be offered?

4) Why are students not showing up for exams after the 12th of December?

The threat is real for some more than others.  If anyone has lost a loved one in either the Las Vegas shooting or the Thousand Oaks shooting, showing up to concentrate on an exam in a locked room might simply trigger PTSD and cause a breakdown -- i.e. trouble.  Furthermore, we live in a society where some of our students are here in the United States 'illegally' and have stress with showing up to school where there is a strong police presence for a shooting.  They might feel like the likelihood of unwanted questioning might increase and choose not to show up.  This is real.

Although, I would state that the university is giving each student a fair chance not to be penalized for not showing up to the final exam.  As a result, if you had a B or a C (or an A) in a class prior to the exam, then skip it and take the grade.  Get a head start on the Christmas Holiday vacation.

Right now, the students who seem to be complaining are the one who are not performing optimally (well - i.e. bad students) in the class up to the final exam.  These students might hold out hope of scoring an 'A' on the final even though the chance at doing so is very small.  Especially, based on their past performance.

Conclusion...

Regardless of the excuse (or explanation), the university has an obligation to have every student voice/concern heard and treat them accordingly like a respected person.  The conversation has only just begun amongst students, staff, and faculty along with university administrators.  Each university will have to develop a plan to deal with such threats during trying times such as 'finals week.' 


At the same time, the world we live in is changing all the time.  Our expectations will have to change too.  Events like this bring up the question regarding the overall purpose of academic testing (i.e. final exams).  Each side of the problem -- students and faculty members -- are standing their individual and collective ground to deal with a terrible event.  It will be exciting to see how this event is resolved.  Hopefully, any solution will involve a safe route without any further unnecessary violence.  The last problem that any society needs is more unnecessary violence spreading across various districts within it.  Help us be proactive on the issue.  Leave suggestions in the comment section below.

Related Bog Posts:

Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever

Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?

Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy


Ralph Nader Asks "Will the Federal Civil Service Defend Us?"


Activist Ralph Nader Gives Politicians Advice Post Hurricane Harvey


Activist Ralph Nader Calls To Each Pillar Of Society - A Call To Action.


Can One Community Organization Change Regional Transportation Habits?