Current event to American Politicis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Current event to American Politicis - Essay Example At this current point in American history where the nation, for the first time ever, has a female speaker of the house and will probable witness Hilary Rodham Clinton as a serious contender for the 2008 Democratic Party's presidential nomination, the status of women in politics needs to be examined more closely. Engaging in precisely such an examination, Robin Toner suggests that, insofar as public political life is concerned, femininity is both an advantage and a disadvantage; an advantage because of its appeal to a wider political base and a disadvantage because of the persistency of gender stereotypes. Within the context of political life, women are advantaged by their gender. As Toner (2007) asserts, many female politicians promote a tough image even as they project a maternal one. The implication here is that they are capable of being as strong and as tough on the issues as are the male politicians but, have a better understanding of familial and societal values. Accordingly, they have it within them to both protect the country and look towards the future of its children.

Cultural Competence Essay -- essays research papers

The American Academy of Family Physicians website defines cultural competence as: â€Å"A set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies that come together as a system, agency or among professionals and enable that system, agency or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. The word "culture" is used because it implies the integrated pattern of human thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group. The word competence is used because it implies having a capacity to function effectively.† Campinha-Bacote constructed a model that depicts cultural competence into five different areas: cultural awareness, cultural knowledge, cultural skill, cultural encounter, and cultural desire. When working as a healthcare professional, one needs to strive for cultural competence by mastering each of these areas. To begin my journey on mastering each area of cultural competence, I need to first assess my placement in each of the five categories. A very important area is cultural awareness. This involves conducting self-examination of any biases that I may have towards a certain culture. I am guilty of having such biases. While I do not have many biases, it is important that I work through each one and realize that biases are not facts. I am a Caucasian female who grew up in the suburbs of Detroit. I attended a private school from kindergarten until my sophomore year of college. My school was not very diverse. Once I started working, I was able to meet a few more people of different cultures. All of my professions have been in the suburbs, and the majority of people have been Caucasian. Eastern Michigan University is very diverse. I am glad that I am finally able to experience such an environment. Cultural knowledge is when a health care professional seeks information regarding different cultures and ethnic groups. They look at the differences that one culture/ethnic group may have regarding treatment of an illness, health conditions, and biological variations. I have yet to do any personal research in this area. I have learned about some of these differences in a few of the nursing classes this past year and a half. I know that this is a detrimental area of nursing, especially since our country is becom... ...nts who have been of a different culture and I am willing to care for many more. By reviewing my position in each of the areas in the model, I realize that I do not yet fit into the expectations. I believe that I am on my way to achieving cultural competence. I still need to work on cultural awareness. I need to conduct a further self-examination to be sure I understand each of my biases. I need to start researching to improve my cultural knowledge. My cultural skill needs to improve in the aspect of becoming more comfortable in conducting a cultural assessment. I engage in conversations, and in friendships with people of other culture (cultural encounter) and enjoy becoming culturally aware and knowledgeable (cultural desire). This guide is very appropriate for the nursing field. I believe that I am culturally competent enough to work in a health care profession. I will continue to improve in each category. Everyday is a new day. I will be exposed to people of many backgrounds. I need to be ready and willing to adapt so that each person will feel equally comfortable and will receive equivalent healthcare. http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20001000/58cult.html#2 October 6, 2004

The Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland

Lecturer: Aisling O’Gorman Waste Process Management Lecturer: Aisling O’Gorman Waste Process Management 08 Fall 08 Fall Submission Date: 11/10/2012 Word Count: 2387 Submission Date: 11/10/2012 Word Count: 2387 The Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland: Maria McShaneThe Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland: Maria McShane Introduction Based on the evaluation of various reports, papers, documents, regulations and legislation from numerous agencies, departments, directives and bodies it can be seen that although â€Å"on paper† major changes have been made so as to improve the quality of water in Ireland, realistically the amendments do not match up.This being that progress has been slow and minimal when compared to the reform of regulations and legislation and the introduction of the Water Framework Directive. Considering the key importance of water as a natural resource both to society and habitats alike it will be argued that although the intention is there to improve the quality of water in Ireland (and there have been some improvements) as an overall, actual major physical improvements to the water quality has yet to be seen.Report Firstly the Water Framework Directive will be examined to highlight its purpose, current status and goals for the future and how it fits into impacting Irelands water quality. The WFD was set up by the EU â€Å"in response to the increasing threat of pollution and the increasing demand from the public for cleaner rivers, lakes and beaches† (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]). According to the Water Framework Directives’ website, their aims are to â€Å"protect/enhance all waters (surface, ground and coastal waters), achieve â€Å"good status† for all waters by December 2015, manage water bodies based on river basins (or catchments), involve the public and streamline legislationâ € 1 (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]).In order to achieve these goals a timetable for implementation of the directive was created, starting from its transposition into Irish Legislation by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722) on 22nd December 2003 (European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722). (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]). From the 22nd December 2003 to the 22nd June 2009 no Programmes of Measures were actually implemented in order to beneficially impact Irelands water quality by the WFD.Instead the WFD established (June 2004) and characterised (December 2004) Irelands River Basin Districts, submitted a National Summary Report on the characterisation of the RBDs to the European Commission (March 2005), developed classification systems for surface water and groundwater (June 2006), established and m aintained appropriate Monitoring Programmes (June 2006), prepared and published a work programme and timetable for the production of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) (June 2006), identified the significant water management issues in each river basin (June 2007), drafted RBMPs and allowed six months for written comment (June 2008), and finally established environmental objectives and final Programmes of Measures and developed RBMPs for implementation (June 2009), (Water Framework Directive, [2005]). Although this research and reporting is a vital function of improving Irelands water quality, the timeframe in which this has been done means that physical progress has been hindered. The actual recovery progress made to Irelands water quality can be seen in various Environmental Protection Agency reports. According to the EPA’s Water Quality in Ireland Report of 2007-2009, between 1987 and 1990, 77. 3, 12. 0, 9. 7 and 0. % surveyed river channel length were unpolluted, slightly polluted, moderately polluted and seriously polluted respectively. By the 2001-2003 report the percentage of unpolluted rivers had dropped from 77. 3% to 69. 3% which is significant, in addition to this the percentage surveyed of seriously polluted rivers had risen from 0. 4% to 0. 6%, slight and moderate pollution had also risen by 5. 9 and 2. 6 percent respectively. By the 2007-2009 report the percentage of surveyed river that remained unpolluted had dropped again to 68. 9%, slight pollution had also risen to 20. 7%. Fortunately moderate and seriously polluted waters had seen a drop from 12. 3 and 0. 6 to 10. 0 and 0. 4 percent respectively (M. McGarrigle et al. [2009).Considering that the water quality of rivers for the 2001-2003 recording period was healthier than the 2007-2009 recording period, even though the 2001-2003 period coincides with the implementation of the WFD, highlights that for a period of six years that the WFD was in effect Irelands river water quality declined . This corroborates to the argument that yes the WFD has carried out reports, monitoring programs and drafted plans all well and good, but without any actual meaningful actions taken, what good is the WFD at all? This is not to say that the WFD has not done anything positive, for example since its introduction â€Å"the percentage of channel surveyed classified as seriously polluted has decreased to 0. 4 percent compared with the previous period when 0. 5 percent was seriously polluted† (M. McGarrigle et al. [2009]).It cannot be stressed enough that in order to improve the quality of water in Ireland research and reporting is fundamental, however the point being made is that pencil pushing and fiddling around writing reports and documents will not recuperate Irelands water systems. Six years is a very long timeframe for an EU commissioned directive to take no feasible action other than talk about and plan what it’s going to do and then expect to reach its target of ret urning all waters to â€Å"good status† by December 2015. To emphasise the case that without acting and merely focusing on the bureaucratic side of things the WFD has impeded its own progress, citing’s from the South Western River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) report will be looked at.It states, â€Å"municipal wastewater discharge is one of the two most important sources of pollution in Irish rivers, accounting for 38% of the number of polluted river sites recorded (the other source being agricultural activities)† (South Western River Basin District [2010]). This is not new news, this has been known for quite some time and â€Å"the two top sectors responsible for the pollution of Irish rivers are municipal and agriculture† has even been quoted in the 1991-1993 EPA water quality in Ireland report. To add to this the Nitrates Directive was set up in 1991 for the â€Å"protection of waters against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. nviron. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed on 08/10/12]). This directive actually implemented legislation that â€Å"required the avoidance of practices by farmers which create a risk of causing pollution to water courses and provide for inspections by local authorities. They also provided for strengthened enforcement provisions and for better farmyard management. They included provisions relating to times of the year, weather and soil conditions when the application of fertilisers is permitted, the minimum setback distances from water sources for the application of fertilisers and minimum storage capacity for manures†. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed on 08/10/12]). Why then is the SWRBD reporting that agriculture is the second biggest cause of pollution to Irish rivers, number one when this has long been known and number two when measures have already been put in place a long time ago to address this problem? To add to this they also quoted â€Å"The main objective in relation to wastewater is to meet the requirements of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (2001-2010) in full† (South Western River Basin District [2010]). Not to be crude, but are they for real?This is common sense, these regulations have been in place since 2001, and yes they would have been modified over the years but how in 2010 when this report came out can meeting these regulations still be just an objective? To highlight further the WFDs failure to have a significant positive impact on the quality of Irish water a recent EPA report on the assessment of aquatic ecosystem responses to POM’s intended to improve water quality in Ireland was released. Acco rding to this report, â€Å"results presented suggest that many existing POMs have proven or are proving ineffective in raising BWQ (biological water quality) and restoring ecological functioning† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]). An example of this can be seen in the â€Å"strategic replacement of 10% of septic tank systems in part of the Blackwater catchment in CO. Armagh† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]).The report showed that overall, prior and subsequent to the replacement of the septic tank systems phosphorous loads remained largely the same. In conjunction with this result, â€Å"in other parts of the Blackwater, the replacement and upgrading of septic tank systems had no significant phosphorous concentration effects, despite the implementation of additional POMs aimed at reducing phosphorous inputs from point and diffuse sources† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]). The report goes on to say that some of the â€Å"potential reasons why the implementation of POMs have had limit ed success include the delayed, incomplete or uneven application of measures† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]).This only solidifies the argument that the WFD spent too much time thinking about what to do, and then what measures they did put in place, for the most part either took too long to do so or did not implement the measure properly in order to meet their 2015 deadline. Which follows now onto a report that was released in July 2010 on behalf of the WFD entitled â€Å"Final River Basin Management Plans Background Documentation, Alternative Objectives: Approach to Extended Deadlines†, its main purpose, to focus on certain cases that require an extension past the 2015 deadline (kind of defeats the purpose of the WFD if they are admitting defeat five years before the deadline). Under section 4. 0 ‘Agriculture’ of this report, one of the cases for exclusion is nitrate losses from agriculture to groundwaters. The reason for this, â€Å"Scientific data indicates s tatus recovery extends beyond 2015. â€Å"Recovery of elevated nitrate levels in groundwater bodies is expected to take place in approximately 20 years even with full implementation of the Good Agricultural Practice regulations (Fenton et al, in press). So yes, while it is known that the natural recovery of a water system takes substantial time, with technology today could the WFD not invest in developing nitrate removal techniques such as, layered double hydroxides which â€Å"are of interest because of the potential to use LDHs to remove agrochemicals from polluted water, reducing the likelihood of eutrophication† (Wikipedia. org, Layered Double Hydroxins. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). Another case looked at in this report is wastewater discharges from some treatment plants.The reason for the exemption, a technical/practical constraint, it states â€Å"The time required to plan and design upgrades to treatment plants and to achieve approvals and licen sing means it is not technically possible to achieve good status in 2015,† the action applied is to leave â€Å"Local Authorities to upgrade plants through the Water Services Investment Programme† meaning that funding is one of the reasons that there will be a delay in the overhaul of wastewater treatment plants in Ireland. Unsurprisingly, according to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government website â€Å"with the changed economic climate and the finalisation of the first cycle of River Basin Management Plans, the new programme aims to prioritise projects that target environmental compliance issues† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, Water Services Investment Programme. online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/WaterServicesInvestmentProgramme/ [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). This here shown lack of initiative by the Government and the WFD by not investing in technology that can help recover Irish waters allows the development of this last argument. In a very recent position paper entitled â€Å"Reform of the Water Sector in Ireland† carried out by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government it was highlighted that â€Å"water services cost over â‚ ¬1. 2 billion to run in 2010, of which operational costs amounted to some â‚ ¬715 million, with capital expenditure of over â‚ ¬500 million†.The paper goes on to tell of the impending establishment of the state company ‘Irish Water’ â€Å"that will take over the water investment and maintenance programmes of the 34 county and city councils with the key aim of supervising and accelerating the pace of delivery of planned investments needed to upgrade the State’s water and sewerage networks† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]). This state company intends on funding its investments and programmes via water charges paid for by Irish householders. Despite the fact that Ireland is in a recession and its people are struggling as it is financially, the fact remains that Ireland is the only country in the OECD that does not pay for its water use (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]).It states, â€Å"Our capacity to fund the future capital investment requirements from the exchequer is severally constrained. The Government’s plan for Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16 shows a decline in exchequer capital investment in water and waste water services from â‚ ¬435 million in 2011 to â‚ ¬371 million in 2012 and a further decline to â‚ ¬296 million by 2014† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]). This is one of the reasons why Irish Water is a good idea as it will actually fund the necessary wastewater treatment plant changes that need to be done in order to tackle some of Irelands water pollution issues while als o effectively reducing the amount of treated potable water wasted everyday by Irish households.So to sum up, yes, introducing the WFD has had a positive impact as it has lead to developments in implementations that will help to recover the quality of Irelands waters, however the main argument being made in this paper is that they failed on several points. Firstly they spent too much time on the bureaucratic side of things, six years to be exact figuring out what the problems were and where, when a lot of them were obvious, had been known about and reported on several years previously and many had already been addressed. Secondly, a lot of POMs that were implemented were done so either to late or not properly, meaning that a lot of them have not lead to any significant positive changes.Finally where the WFD failed was a lack of investment into developing technologies that might help accelerate the return of Irish waters to their natural state, and a huge time lag into implementing wa ter charges so as to invest into Irelands infrastructure regarding wastewater treatment. Overall time here is what has been wasted, as for every day that no action is taken is another day when Irelands water and habitats suffer. Nature does not and can not wait for the pencil pushers. References 1. The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12] 2. Water Framework Directive, [2005].The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts, National Summary Report. Ireland 3. Environmental Protection Agency, M. McGarrigle et al. [2009]. Water Quality in Ireland. Ireland 4. South Western River Basin District, [2010] South Western River Basin Management Plan. Ireland 5. Environmental Protection Agency, [1993] Water Quality in Ireland. Ireland 6. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed o n 08/10/12]). 7. Environmental Protection Agency, D. Taylor et al. [2012] Water Quality and the Aquatic Environment STRIVE Report 91. Ireland 8.Lag Time: A Methodology For The Estimation Of Vertical, Horizontal Travel & Flushing Timescales To Nitrate Threshold Concentrations In Irish Aquifers Fenton et al under review 9. Wikipedia. org, Layered Double Hydroxins. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/2012]. 10. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, Water Services Investment Programme. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/WaterServicesInvestmentProgramme/ [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). 11. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012] Reform of the Water Sector in Ireland. Ireland The Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland Lecturer: Aisling O’Gorman Waste Process Management Lecturer: Aisling O’Gorman Waste Process Management 08 Fall 08 Fall Submission Date: 11/10/2012 Word Count: 2387 Submission Date: 11/10/2012 Word Count: 2387 The Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland: Maria McShaneThe Impact of the Current Regulatory Framework on Water Quality in Ireland: Maria McShane Introduction Based on the evaluation of various reports, papers, documents, regulations and legislation from numerous agencies, departments, directives and bodies it can be seen that although â€Å"on paper† major changes have been made so as to improve the quality of water in Ireland, realistically the amendments do not match up.This being that progress has been slow and minimal when compared to the reform of regulations and legislation and the introduction of the Water Framework Directive. Considering the key importance of water as a natural resource both to society and habitats alike it will be argued that although the intention is there to improve the quality of water in Ireland (and there have been some improvements) as an overall, actual major physical improvements to the water quality has yet to be seen.Report Firstly the Water Framework Directive will be examined to highlight its purpose, current status and goals for the future and how it fits into impacting Irelands water quality. The WFD was set up by the EU â€Å"in response to the increasing threat of pollution and the increasing demand from the public for cleaner rivers, lakes and beaches† (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]). According to the Water Framework Directives’ website, their aims are to â€Å"protect/enhance all waters (surface, ground and coastal waters), achieve â€Å"good status† for all waters by December 2015, manage water bodies based on river basins (or catchments), involve the public and streamline legislationâ € 1 (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]).In order to achieve these goals a timetable for implementation of the directive was created, starting from its transposition into Irish Legislation by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722) on 22nd December 2003 (European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, (Statutory Instrument 722). (The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12]). From the 22nd December 2003 to the 22nd June 2009 no Programmes of Measures were actually implemented in order to beneficially impact Irelands water quality by the WFD.Instead the WFD established (June 2004) and characterised (December 2004) Irelands River Basin Districts, submitted a National Summary Report on the characterisation of the RBDs to the European Commission (March 2005), developed classification systems for surface water and groundwater (June 2006), established and m aintained appropriate Monitoring Programmes (June 2006), prepared and published a work programme and timetable for the production of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) (June 2006), identified the significant water management issues in each river basin (June 2007), drafted RBMPs and allowed six months for written comment (June 2008), and finally established environmental objectives and final Programmes of Measures and developed RBMPs for implementation (June 2009), (Water Framework Directive, [2005]). Although this research and reporting is a vital function of improving Irelands water quality, the timeframe in which this has been done means that physical progress has been hindered. The actual recovery progress made to Irelands water quality can be seen in various Environmental Protection Agency reports. According to the EPA’s Water Quality in Ireland Report of 2007-2009, between 1987 and 1990, 77. 3, 12. 0, 9. 7 and 0. % surveyed river channel length were unpolluted, slightly polluted, moderately polluted and seriously polluted respectively. By the 2001-2003 report the percentage of unpolluted rivers had dropped from 77. 3% to 69. 3% which is significant, in addition to this the percentage surveyed of seriously polluted rivers had risen from 0. 4% to 0. 6%, slight and moderate pollution had also risen by 5. 9 and 2. 6 percent respectively. By the 2007-2009 report the percentage of surveyed river that remained unpolluted had dropped again to 68. 9%, slight pollution had also risen to 20. 7%. Fortunately moderate and seriously polluted waters had seen a drop from 12. 3 and 0. 6 to 10. 0 and 0. 4 percent respectively (M. McGarrigle et al. [2009).Considering that the water quality of rivers for the 2001-2003 recording period was healthier than the 2007-2009 recording period, even though the 2001-2003 period coincides with the implementation of the WFD, highlights that for a period of six years that the WFD was in effect Irelands river water quality declined . This corroborates to the argument that yes the WFD has carried out reports, monitoring programs and drafted plans all well and good, but without any actual meaningful actions taken, what good is the WFD at all? This is not to say that the WFD has not done anything positive, for example since its introduction â€Å"the percentage of channel surveyed classified as seriously polluted has decreased to 0. 4 percent compared with the previous period when 0. 5 percent was seriously polluted† (M. McGarrigle et al. [2009]).It cannot be stressed enough that in order to improve the quality of water in Ireland research and reporting is fundamental, however the point being made is that pencil pushing and fiddling around writing reports and documents will not recuperate Irelands water systems. Six years is a very long timeframe for an EU commissioned directive to take no feasible action other than talk about and plan what it’s going to do and then expect to reach its target of ret urning all waters to â€Å"good status† by December 2015. To emphasise the case that without acting and merely focusing on the bureaucratic side of things the WFD has impeded its own progress, citing’s from the South Western River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) report will be looked at.It states, â€Å"municipal wastewater discharge is one of the two most important sources of pollution in Irish rivers, accounting for 38% of the number of polluted river sites recorded (the other source being agricultural activities)† (South Western River Basin District [2010]). This is not new news, this has been known for quite some time and â€Å"the two top sectors responsible for the pollution of Irish rivers are municipal and agriculture† has even been quoted in the 1991-1993 EPA water quality in Ireland report. To add to this the Nitrates Directive was set up in 1991 for the â€Å"protection of waters against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. nviron. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed on 08/10/12]). This directive actually implemented legislation that â€Å"required the avoidance of practices by farmers which create a risk of causing pollution to water courses and provide for inspections by local authorities. They also provided for strengthened enforcement provisions and for better farmyard management. They included provisions relating to times of the year, weather and soil conditions when the application of fertilisers is permitted, the minimum setback distances from water sources for the application of fertilisers and minimum storage capacity for manures†. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed on 08/10/12]). Why then is the SWRBD reporting that agriculture is the second biggest cause of pollution to Irish rivers, number one when this has long been known and number two when measures have already been put in place a long time ago to address this problem? To add to this they also quoted â€Å"The main objective in relation to wastewater is to meet the requirements of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (2001-2010) in full† (South Western River Basin District [2010]). Not to be crude, but are they for real?This is common sense, these regulations have been in place since 2001, and yes they would have been modified over the years but how in 2010 when this report came out can meeting these regulations still be just an objective? To highlight further the WFDs failure to have a significant positive impact on the quality of Irish water a recent EPA report on the assessment of aquatic ecosystem responses to POM’s intended to improve water quality in Ireland was released. Acco rding to this report, â€Å"results presented suggest that many existing POMs have proven or are proving ineffective in raising BWQ (biological water quality) and restoring ecological functioning† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]). An example of this can be seen in the â€Å"strategic replacement of 10% of septic tank systems in part of the Blackwater catchment in CO. Armagh† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]).The report showed that overall, prior and subsequent to the replacement of the septic tank systems phosphorous loads remained largely the same. In conjunction with this result, â€Å"in other parts of the Blackwater, the replacement and upgrading of septic tank systems had no significant phosphorous concentration effects, despite the implementation of additional POMs aimed at reducing phosphorous inputs from point and diffuse sources† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]). The report goes on to say that some of the â€Å"potential reasons why the implementation of POMs have had limit ed success include the delayed, incomplete or uneven application of measures† (D. Taylor et al. [2012]).This only solidifies the argument that the WFD spent too much time thinking about what to do, and then what measures they did put in place, for the most part either took too long to do so or did not implement the measure properly in order to meet their 2015 deadline. Which follows now onto a report that was released in July 2010 on behalf of the WFD entitled â€Å"Final River Basin Management Plans Background Documentation, Alternative Objectives: Approach to Extended Deadlines†, its main purpose, to focus on certain cases that require an extension past the 2015 deadline (kind of defeats the purpose of the WFD if they are admitting defeat five years before the deadline). Under section 4. 0 ‘Agriculture’ of this report, one of the cases for exclusion is nitrate losses from agriculture to groundwaters. The reason for this, â€Å"Scientific data indicates s tatus recovery extends beyond 2015. â€Å"Recovery of elevated nitrate levels in groundwater bodies is expected to take place in approximately 20 years even with full implementation of the Good Agricultural Practice regulations (Fenton et al, in press). So yes, while it is known that the natural recovery of a water system takes substantial time, with technology today could the WFD not invest in developing nitrate removal techniques such as, layered double hydroxides which â€Å"are of interest because of the potential to use LDHs to remove agrochemicals from polluted water, reducing the likelihood of eutrophication† (Wikipedia. org, Layered Double Hydroxins. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). Another case looked at in this report is wastewater discharges from some treatment plants.The reason for the exemption, a technical/practical constraint, it states â€Å"The time required to plan and design upgrades to treatment plants and to achieve approvals and licen sing means it is not technically possible to achieve good status in 2015,† the action applied is to leave â€Å"Local Authorities to upgrade plants through the Water Services Investment Programme† meaning that funding is one of the reasons that there will be a delay in the overhaul of wastewater treatment plants in Ireland. Unsurprisingly, according to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government website â€Å"with the changed economic climate and the finalisation of the first cycle of River Basin Management Plans, the new programme aims to prioritise projects that target environmental compliance issues† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, Water Services Investment Programme. online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/WaterServicesInvestmentProgramme/ [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). This here shown lack of initiative by the Government and the WFD by not investing in technology that can help recover Irish waters allows the development of this last argument. In a very recent position paper entitled â€Å"Reform of the Water Sector in Ireland† carried out by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government it was highlighted that â€Å"water services cost over â‚ ¬1. 2 billion to run in 2010, of which operational costs amounted to some â‚ ¬715 million, with capital expenditure of over â‚ ¬500 million†.The paper goes on to tell of the impending establishment of the state company ‘Irish Water’ â€Å"that will take over the water investment and maintenance programmes of the 34 county and city councils with the key aim of supervising and accelerating the pace of delivery of planned investments needed to upgrade the State’s water and sewerage networks† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]). This state company intends on funding its investments and programmes via water charges paid for by Irish householders. Despite the fact that Ireland is in a recession and its people are struggling as it is financially, the fact remains that Ireland is the only country in the OECD that does not pay for its water use (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]).It states, â€Å"Our capacity to fund the future capital investment requirements from the exchequer is severally constrained. The Government’s plan for Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16 shows a decline in exchequer capital investment in water and waste water services from â‚ ¬435 million in 2011 to â‚ ¬371 million in 2012 and a further decline to â‚ ¬296 million by 2014† (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012]). This is one of the reasons why Irish Water is a good idea as it will actually fund the necessary wastewater treatment plant changes that need to be done in order to tackle some of Irelands water pollution issues while als o effectively reducing the amount of treated potable water wasted everyday by Irish households.So to sum up, yes, introducing the WFD has had a positive impact as it has lead to developments in implementations that will help to recover the quality of Irelands waters, however the main argument being made in this paper is that they failed on several points. Firstly they spent too much time on the bureaucratic side of things, six years to be exact figuring out what the problems were and where, when a lot of them were obvious, had been known about and reported on several years previously and many had already been addressed. Secondly, a lot of POMs that were implemented were done so either to late or not properly, meaning that a lot of them have not lead to any significant positive changes.Finally where the WFD failed was a lack of investment into developing technologies that might help accelerate the return of Irish waters to their natural state, and a huge time lag into implementing wa ter charges so as to invest into Irelands infrastructure regarding wastewater treatment. Overall time here is what has been wasted, as for every day that no action is taken is another day when Irelands water and habitats suffer. Nature does not and can not wait for the pencil pushers. References 1. The Eu Water Framework Directive. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/12] 2. Water Framework Directive, [2005].The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts, National Summary Report. Ireland 3. Environmental Protection Agency, M. McGarrigle et al. [2009]. Water Quality in Ireland. Ireland 4. South Western River Basin District, [2010] South Western River Basin Management Plan. Ireland 5. Environmental Protection Agency, [1993] Water Quality in Ireland. Ireland 6. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, The Nitrates Directive. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/NitratesDirective/ [Accessed o n 08/10/12]). 7. Environmental Protection Agency, D. Taylor et al. [2012] Water Quality and the Aquatic Environment STRIVE Report 91. Ireland 8.Lag Time: A Methodology For The Estimation Of Vertical, Horizontal Travel & Flushing Timescales To Nitrate Threshold Concentrations In Irish Aquifers Fenton et al under review 9. Wikipedia. org, Layered Double Hydroxins. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 08/10/2012]. 10. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, Water Services Investment Programme. [online] Available at: http://www. environ. ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/WaterServicesInvestmentProgramme/ [Accessed on 08/10/2012]). 11. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, [2012] Reform of the Water Sector in Ireland. Ireland

Stable Isotope Analysis in Archaeology

Stable isotope analysis is a scientific technique which is used by archaeologists and other scholars to collect information from an animals bones to identify the photosynthesis process of the plants it consumed during its lifetime. That information is enormously useful in a wide number of applications, from determining the dietary habits of ancient hominid ancestors to tracing the agricultural origins of seized cocaine and illegally poached rhinoceros horn.   What are Stable Isotopes? All of the earth and its atmosphere is made up of atoms of different elements, such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Each of these elements has several forms, based on their atomic weight (the number of neutrons in each atom). For example, 99 percent of all carbon in our atmosphere exists in the form called Carbon-12; but the remaining one percent carbon is made up of two several slightly different forms of carbon, called Carbon-13 and Carbon-14. Carbon-12 (abbreviated 12C) has an atomic weight of 12, which is made up of 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons—the 6 electrons dont add anything to the atomic weight. Carbon-13 (13C) still has 6 protons and 6 electrons, but it has 7 neutrons. Carbon-14 (14C) has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, which is too heavy to hold together in a stable way, and it emits energy to get rid of the excess, which is why scientists call it radioactive. All three forms react the exact same way—if you combine carbon with oxygen you always get carbon dioxide, no matter how many neutrons there are. The 12C and 13C forms are stable—that is to say, they don’t change over time. Carbon-14, on the other hand, is not stable but instead decays at a known rate—because of that, we can use its remaining ratio to Carbon-13 to calculate radiocarbon dates, but that’s another issue entirely. Inheriting Constant Ratios The ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 is constant in the earth’s atmosphere. There are always one hundred 12C atoms to one 13C atom. During the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb the carbon atoms in the earth’s atmosphere, water, and soil, and store them in the cells of their leaves, fruits, nuts, and roots. But, the ratio of the forms of carbon gets altered as part of the photosynthesis process.   During photosynthesis, plants alter the 100 12C/1 13C chemical ratio differently in different climatic regions. Plants that live in regions with lots of sun and little water have relatively fewer 12C atoms in their cells (compared to 13C) than do plants that live in forests or wetlands. Scientists categorize plants by the version of photosynthesis they use into groups called C3, C4, and CAM.   Are You What You Have Eaten? The ratio of 12C/13C is hardwired into the plant’s cells, and—here’s the best part—as the cells get passed up the food chain (i.e., the roots, leaves, and fruit are eaten by animals and humans), the ratio of 12C to 13C remains virtually unchanged as it is in turn stored in the bones, teeth, and hair of the animals and humans. In other words, if you can determine the ratio of 12C to 13C that is stored in an animals bones, you can figure out whether the plants they ate used C4, C3, or CAM processes, and therefore, what the environment of the plants was like. In other words, assuming you eat locally, where you live is hardwired into your bones by what you eat. That measuring is accomplished by mass spectrometer analysis. Carbon is not by a long shot the only element used by stable isotope researchers. Currently, researchers are looking at measuring the ratios of stable isotopes of oxygen, nitrogen, strontium, hydrogen, sulfur, lead, and many other elements that are processed by plants and animals. That research has led to a simply incredible diversity of human and animal dietary information. Earliest Studies The very first archaeological application of stable isotope research was in the 1970s, by South African archaeologist Nikolaas van der Merwe, who was excavating at the African Iron Age site of Kgopolwe 3, one of several sites in the Transvaal Lowveld of South Africa, called Phalaborwa. Van de Merwe found a human male skeleton in an ash heap that did not look like the other burials from the village. The skeleton was different, morphologically, from the other inhabitants of Phalaborwa, and he had been buried in a completely different manner than the typical villager. The man looked like a Khoisan; and Khoisans should not have been at Phalaborwa, who were ancestral Sotho tribesmen. Van der Merwe and his colleagues J. C. Vogel and Philip Rightmire decided to look at the chemical signature in his bones, and the initial results suggested that the man was a sorghum farmer from a Khoisan village who somehow had died at Kgopolwe 3. Applying Stable Isotopes in Archaeology The technique and results of the Phalaborwa study were discussed at a seminar at SUNY Binghamton where van der Merwe was teaching. At the time, SUNY was investigating Late Woodland burials, and together they decided it would be interesting to see if the addition of maize (American corn, a subtropical C4 domesticate) to the diet would be identifiable in people who formerly only had access to C3 plants: and it was.   That study became the first published archaeological study applying stable isotope analysis, in 1977. They compared the stable carbon isotope ratios (13C/12C) in the collagen of human ribs from an Archaic (2500-2000 BCE) and an Early Woodland (400–100 BCE) archaeological site in New York (i.e., before corn arrived in the region) with the 13C/12C ratios in ribs from a Late Woodland (ca. 1000–1300 CE) and a Historic Period site (after corn arrived) from the same area. They were able to show that the chemical signatures in the ribs were an indication that the maize was not present in the early periods, but had become a staple food by the time of the Late Woodland. Based on this demonstration and available evidence for the distribution of the stable carbon isotopes in nature, Vogel and van der Merwe suggested that the technique could be used to detect maize agriculture in the Woodlands and tropical forests of the Americas; determine the importance of marine foods in the diets of coastal communities; document changes in vegetation cover over time in savannas on the basis of browsing/grazing ratios of mixed-feeding herbivores; and possibly to determine origins in forensic investigations. New Applications of Stable Isotope Research Since 1977, applications of stable isotope analysis have exploded in number and breadth, using the stable isotope ratios of the light elements hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur in human and animal bone (collagen and apatite), tooth enamel and hair, as well as in pottery residues baked onto the surface or absorbed into the ceramic wall to determine diets and water sources. Light stable isotope ratios (usually of carbon and nitrogen) have been used to investigate such dietary components as marine creatures (e.g. seals, fish, and shellfish), various domesticated plants such as maize and millet; and cattle dairying (milk residues in pottery), and mother’s milk (age of weaning, detected in the tooth row). Dietary studies have been done on hominins from the present day to our ancient ancestors Homo habilis and the Australopithecines. Other isotopic research has focused on determining the geographic origins of things. Various stable isotope ratios in combination, sometimes including the isotopes of heavy elements like strontium and lead, have been used to determine whether the residents of ancient cities were immigrants or were born locally; to trace the origins of poached ivory and rhino horn to break up smuggling rings; and to determine the agricultural origins of cocaine, heroin, and the cotton fiber used to make fake $100 bills.   Another example of isotopic fractionation that has a useful application involves rain, which contains the stable hydrogen isotopes 1H and 2H (deuterium) and the oxygen isotopes 16O and 18O. Water evaporates in large quantities at the equator and the water vapor disperses to the north and south. As the H2O falls back to earth, the heavy isotopes rain out first. By the time it falls as snow at the poles, the moisture is severely depleted in the heavy isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. The global distribution of these isotopes in the rain (and in tap water) can be mapped and the origins of the consumers can be determined by isotopic analysis of hair.   Sources and Recent Studies Grant, Jennifer. Of Hunting and Herding: Isotopic Evidence in Wild and Domesticated Camelids from the Southern Argentine Puna (2120–420years BP). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017): 29–37. Print.Iglesias, Carlos, et al. Stable Isotope Analysis Confirms Substantial Differences between Subtropical and Temperate Shallow Lake Food Webs. Hydrobiologia 784.1 (2017): 111–23. Print.Katzenberg, M. Anne, and Andrea L. Waters-Rist. Stable Isotope Analysis: A Tool for Studying Past Diet, Demography, and Life History. Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. Eds. Katzenberg, M. Anne, and Anne L. Grauer. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc., 2019. 467–504. Print.Price, T. Douglas, et al. Isotopic Provenancing of the . Antiquity 90.352 (2016): 1022–37. Print.Salme Ship Burials in Pre-Viking Age EstoniaSealy, J. C., and N. J. van der Merwe. On Approaches to Dietary Reconstruction in the Western Cape: Are You What You Have Eaten?—a Reply to Parkington. Journal of Archaeological Science 19.4 (1992): 459–66. Print.Somerville, Andrew D., et al. Diet and Gender in the Tiwanaku Colonies: Stable Isotope Analysis of Human Bone Collagen and Apatite from Moquegua, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 158.3 (2015): 408–22. Print.Sugiyama, Nawa, Andrew D. Somerville, and Margaret J. Schoeninger. Stable Isotopes and Zooarchaeology at Teotihuacan, Mexico Reveal Earliest Evidence of Wild Carnivore Management in Mesoamerica. PLoS ONE 10.9 (2015): e0135635. Print.Vogel, J.C., and Nikolaas J. Van der Merwe. Isotopic Evidence for Early Maize Cultivation in New York State. American Antiquity 42.2 (1977): 238–42. Print.