Cancer Terms Vocab

Cancer Terms #1

Animal Rights and Diet Success Criteria I can explain key terms which describe the type of diets people have I can explain the advantages and disadvantages of different types of diet Animal Rights and Diet Match up the terms with the meaning Term Meaning Omnivore - eats fish but no other type of meat Vegetarian - eats most types of meat and vegetables Pescetarian - doesn’t eat any products that come from animals Vegan - doesn’t eat meat but will eat dairy products like milk Place the different diets on a spectrum All meat No animal products at all Vegetarian Vegan Omnivore Pescetarian Omnivore Omnivore Most people in the UK are omnivores Match the countries with the amount of meat eaten per person per year Country Meat per person per year India 9.9 kg USA 4.4 kg Bangladesh 120 kg UK 111.5kg Nepal 84.2 kg Australia 4 kg Numeracy How much meat is consumed in the UK per year? (Amount of meat eaten X the UK population) 2. How much meat is consumed in Bangladesh per year? (Amount of meat eaten X the Bangladesh population) Country Meat per person per year USA 120 kg Australia 111.5kg UK 84.2 kg Nepal 9.9 kg India 4.4 kg Bangladesh 4 kg UK – 64 million Bangladesh – 165 million http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/world-according-to-meat-consumption/ 7 Why do people eat meat? Discuss Tradition (their family has always done it) Culture (celebrations) Taste Convenience Nutrients such as B12, protein and iron Consumption of meat is rising across developing countries because higher incomes generally mean more meat eating. Pescetarian "Yeah, I'm a vegetarian." "But that looks like fish you're eating." "Oh yeah, I eat fish.“ An estimated 5% - 6% of people in the UK are pescetarians. How many people is this? Approx. 3.6 million Calculation – 66,000,000 /100 x 5.5 = 3,630,000 9 Which group is cuter? Animals Fish 10 People often don’t feel as much love for fish as they do for fluffy, cute mammals. The may think fish don’t feel pain. They may be fussy. They think fish isn’t meat. Not farmed as much as mammals; can be wild. To get nutrients they wouldn’t get from just vegetables and grains. (Omega 3 is in plants but in higher concentrations in oily fish) Why are people pescetarians? https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=753 http://articles.mercola.com/omega-3.aspx Fish – In a perfect world, fish can provide you all the omega-3s you need. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the fish supply is now heavily tainted with industrial toxins and pollutants, such as heavy metals which include mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium, PCBs, and radioactive poisons. These toxins make eating fish no longer recommended. 11 Vegetarianism Vegetarians will not eat any meat or product that comes from the slaughter of animals e.g. gelatine. About 3% of the UK population are vegetarian. How many people is this? 1.9 million 12 Why are people vegetarian? They don’t like the idea that animals are killed so they can eat Health reasons Don’t like meat Brought up vegetarian Environmental reasons Religious reasons (e.g. some Buddhist, Hindus) Watch the following clip twice. The second time, write down the fact which surprises you the most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW6wfpHFdaI The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, sausages and hot dogs – as a Group 1 carcinogen (same as smoking/alcohol) which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a 'probable' cause of cancer. 13 Veganism Not just a diet Around 1% of the population of UK are vegans. A vegan is described by the Vegan Society as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals” Why are people vegan? Why are people vegan? James Aspey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a22XxXP3nU8 Warning: some of the content in this video clip may upset some viewers from 7:14 – 8:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqXeym7H8A Why are people vegan? “Don’t want bad karma” Feel healthier Reduce chances of diseases. Example heart disease. Don’t want to exploit animals Believe in animal rights Sustainability Environment Create a Table of Pros & Cons of Veganism Pros √ Cons - Create a Table of Pros & Cons of Veganism Pros Cons No animals have died for you to eat Some people think it is healthier Help the environment Fewer antibiotics/chemicals that are given to some animals Makes you feel good No vitamin B12 so have to supplement Harder to find food at shops or restaurants May be harder to get enough iron May be more expensive to get substitute meats Judged by family and friends Could put farmers out of business Group Work Source 1 Summarise it in your jotter Explain what the source is/what it says What does it suggest? What is your opinion? Feedback to rest of class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYyjel5VuHg Farmer’s Poem

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Of the 7 billion people on Earth roughly 0:02 6 billion own a cell phone which is 0:05 pretty shocking given that only 4 and2 0:07 billion have access to a working toilet 0:09 so how are these popular gadgets 0:11 changing your body and brain If you're 0:13 looking down at your phone right now 0:15 your spine angle is equivalent to that 0:17 of an 8-year-old child sitting on your 0:19 neck which is fairly significant 0:21 considering people spend an average of 0:23 4.7 hours a day looking at their phone 0:26 this combined with the length of time 0:28 spent in front of computers has led to 0:30 an increase in the prevalence of myopia 0:32 or nearsightedness in North America in 0:34 the 1970s about one quar of the 0:36 population had myopia where today nearly 0:39 half do and in some parts of Asia 80 to 0:41 90% of the population is now nearsighted 0:44 and it can be hard to put your phone 0:46 down take for example the game Candy 0:48 Crush as you play the game you achieve 0:50 small goals causing your brain to be 0:52 rewarded with little bursts of dopamine 0:54 and eventually you're rewarded in the 0:56 game with new content this novelty also 0:58 gives little bursts of dopamine and 1:00 together create what is known as a 1:01 compulsion Loop which just happens to be 1:04 the same Loop responsible for the 1:05 behaviors associated with nicotine or 1:07 cocaine our brains are hardwired to make 1:10 us novelty seeking and this is why apps 1:12 on our phones are designed to constantly 1:14 provide us with new content making them 1:16 hard to put down as a result 93% of 1:19 young people aged 18 to 29 report using 1:21 their smartphone as a tool to avoid 1:23 boredom as opposed to other activities 1:26 like reading a book or engaging with 1:27 people around them this has created a 1:29 new term nomophobia the fear or anxiety 1:32 of being without your phone we also see 1:35 a change in brain patterns Alpha rhythms 1:37 are commonly associated with wakeful 1:39 relaxation like when your mind wanders 1:41 off whereas gamma waves are associated 1:44 with conscious attentiveness and 1:46 experiments have shown that when a cell 1:47 phone is transmitting say during a phone 1:49 call the power of these Alpha Waves is 1:52 significantly boosted meaning phone 1:54 Transmissions can literally change the 1:56 way your brain functions your smartphone 1:58 can also disrupt your sleep the screen 2:00 emits a blue light which has been shown 2:02 to alter our circadian rhythms 2:03 diminishing the time spent in deep Sleep 2:06 which is linked to the development of 2:07 diabetes cancer and obesity Studies have 2:10 shown that people who read on their 2:11 smartphone at night have a harder time 2:13 falling asleep and produce less 2:15 melatonin a hormone responsible for the 2:17 regulation of sleep wake Cycles Harvard 2:20 medical school advises the last 2 to 3 2:22 hours before bed be technology free so 2:24 pick up a book before bed instead of 2:26 course smartphones also completely 2:28 change our ability to access information 2:30 most notably in poor and minority 2:32 populations 7% of Americans are entirely 2:35 dependent on smartphones for their 2:37 access to the internet a 2014 study 2:40 found that the majority of smartphone 2:41 owners use their phone for online 2:43 banking to look up medical information 2:45 and searching for jobs so while phones 2:47 are in no way exclusively bad and have 2:50 been part of a positive change in the 2:51 world there's no denying that they are 2:53 changing us but many successful people 2:56 have now decided to take smartphone 2:58 vacations in order to increase 3:00 productivity in our new ASAP thought 3:01 video we break down the top six reasons 3:04 you should take a smartphone vacation 3:06 and how it could benefit your life right 3:08 now and subscribe for more weekly 3:09 science videos

Cancer

Related quizzes

Related quizzes