Morgan Drake

It’s prom season once again and selfies of people in tanning beds are popping up all over Instagram. What may seem like an easy way to look sunkissed for your dress is actually deadly. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that tanning bed radiation is one of the most dangerous forms of cancer-causing radiation. Think that’s not too bad? Tanning beds have joined others on the list such as plutonium and certain types of radium.

The IARC report cited research showing that tanning is especially hazardous to young people; those who use sunbeds before age 30 increase their lifetime risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, by 75 percent. The authors also pointed to studies showing a link between UV radiation from indoor tanning devices and melanomas of the skin and eyes. Melanoma will kill an estimated 8,650 people in the US this year alone. And melanoma isn't the only problem: people who use tanning beds are 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma. Squamous cell carcinoma kills an estimated 2,500 Americans a year.

The report received widespread publicity from news organizations, and brought attention to a lack of laws and oversight limiting minors' access to UV tanning devices. This lack of controls affects millions of teenagers: A 2003 study found that almost 37 percent of white females and over 11 percent of white males between 13 and 19 years old in the US have used tanning beds. Some states permit children under 14 to tan if they are simply accompanied by a parent or guardian.

In June, Texas drew attention from all over the country when it enacted the strictest tanning law in the nation, banning children under age 16 from indoor tanning and requiring in-person parental consent for everyone under 18. In Delaware, a recently passed law prohibits those under 14 from tanning facilities unless they have a doctor's prescription and requires those under 18 to have a parent or guardian sign a consent form in the presence of a tanning facility operator. Bills pending in Georgia, Hawaii, and Kansas would require the written, in-person consent of a parent or guardian for those under 18. And Minnesota is considering a law that would ban those under 16 from using tanning facilities; this is already the law in Wisconsin.

KiaLynne Bland

    Last Friday, Biology I and F.F.A. students took a trip to the Toledo Zoo to walk around freely and view animals. There were, as always, several different animals to gawk at and enjoy, but if you looked closely, you’d notice many of them laying lifeless in their cages, or pacing back and forth in their “environment”. This is mostly a result of distress from the animals, as they feel anxious and uneasy residing in a small cage with hundreds of people around them everyday.

At the end of the trip, Biology I students were to answer a number of questions regarding to zoos and how they treat their animals. This brought up a discussion in my class period on whether zoos are more harmful and hurtful than helpful and entertaining. Many were indifferent or torn between the two options, as it is very easy to view both sides of the controversial topic.

I decided to look into the pros and cons of zoos with myself being wishy-washy on the issue. Here is a list of all the possible pros and cons of zoos that I could think of/find.

• Endangered species

Pros: Many of the animals held in zoos are endangered, and keeping their species in zoos could potentially prevent the species from dying off faster if it were to be living in its natural habitat. Zoos could offer protection from its predators such as other animals and humans.

Cons: While it may seem that this could help the endangered species grow, it might not. With many of the endangered species being held in zoos, the animals of the same species who are not residing with them in the zoo could die off quickly, as there are less and less of their own species living with them. It could make it harder to reproduce in its original environment, which could result in the population of the species to drop.

• Educational/research purposes

Pros: The main purpose for my field trip to the zoo was to inform us about the type of organisms and species that roam around on our planet. Zoos are a great way to get an upclose look at the animals that we don’t see in our backyards, concluding in getting a better understanding of how their habitat is suppose to be, what they eat, and how they react with one another. They could possibly interest someone in animals, which could spread awareness for the species. And for those who are trying to research the species, it is easier to do so in a zoo, as zoos provide a limited amounted space for the animal, making it easier to view and study the animal with getting a closer look to it.

Cons: As horrible as it sounds, many people don’t think about how the animal is doing in captivity as they are viewing it. Most people don’t go to the zoo for educational purposes, even if the reason why they are there is to learn about animals. They go for entertainment, and it’s hard to care about the animal’s well-being if you are seeking for entertainment from it. The animal is often provoked by teasing from its viewers, which could cause some psychological damage to it. Researchers also don’t get accurate results or information while studying in the zoo. Zoos don’t provide 100 percent of the animal’s natural environment, and because of that, researchers don’t truly get to see how the animal reacts within its habitat or with its species.

• Environment

Pros: A species’ natural environment may not be the safest place for it to live in; there are several dangerous things among their habitat that could cause a threat to it and its species. With that being said, zoos protect its animals from living in deadly environments, which ties in with the protection of endangered species.

Cons: Zoo animals are kept within a cage or fenced in area. Their space and freedom is limited, and the environment in which it is living in is truly not its environment. Zoo animals are put under stress with not being able to run around like it normally would, and with several people being around it daily. Animals being captured from its original environment and taken to an “off-version” of it is cruel, and those being born into a zoo will never get a real taste of what it could be living in; if they were to be set free for some reason, it would struggle immensely.

With many sides and debates being brought up of zoos, it is hard to pick a solid side, which is why I, along with many others, may never have a clear opinion on zoos and their purpose.

Morgan Drake

On April 7, 2015, Michael Slager, a white South Carolina police officer, was charged with murder after a video surfaced of him shooting Walter Scott, a supposedly unarmed black man multiple times in the back.

Slager said he feared for his life because Scott had taken his taser in a fight after a traffic stop for a broken taillight. However, the video clearly shows Scott running away from Slager without anything in his hands, followed by eight shots fired at Scott’s back. Slager then proceeded to yell at and handcuff Scott’s dead body, then drop something by him (said to be the taser Scott “stole” from him).

With previous police shootings occurring in Ferguson, Cleveland, and New York, this only made previously calmed issues heat up again. These deaths, along with Walter Scott’s have sparked a national debate on whether police are too quick to use force, particularly on black men. Despite this, Scott’s family have called for peace, asking that “justice run its course.”

The FBI has opened a civil rights investigation into the incident and Scott’s family said they will be filing a civil lawsuit against the police. Slager has not commented on the incident since his arrest, but before the video surfaced, he said he fired because he feared for his life when he and Scott fought over his taser.

So is Slager innocent or guilty? When can police legitimately shoot at a convict? Police are only allowed to shoot if:

1. they are protecting their life or the life of someone else;

2. they are preventing a suspect from escaping when there is a probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

While the immediate response would be that the officer is guilty, unfortunately there is more to the case than just this video evidence. For both circumstances, it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when deadly force is used. All that matters is the officer’s “objectively reasonable” belief that in that moment, there was a threat.

Therefore, what this case ultimately comes down to is whether or not Slager had a good reason to believe 50 year old Scott posed a threat to him or others when he fired the eight shots. Although some argue that this gives law enforcement a license to kill, police officers say that it is essential to their safety. Slager has not yet been convicted  for this incident, as evidence is still being reviewed, and a verdict must be reached.

Morgan Drake

St. Patrick’s day, the day people pretend to be Irish, is a beloved holiday to many, but what’s the story behind all the green?

Did you know St. Patrick wasn’t even Irish? Although he wasn’t born Irish, St. Patrick was considered the patron saint of Ireland. He became a huge part of Irish heritage due to his services throughout Ireland in the 5th century.

Born in the later half of the 4th century, Patrick had a normal childhood. That is, until he was kidnapped by pirates and sold in slavery in Ireland. He was there for a total of six years and spent most of the time imprisoned. It was there that he is said to have experienced God, and legend states that because of this he was able to escape on a getaway ship.

After his escape, Patrick joined a monastery in France and studied there for 12 years. After becoming a bishop, he had a dream that he needed to go back to Ireland and tell people about God. Patrick was quite successful at winning converts. Through active preaching, he made important converts among the royal families. Patrick was arrested several times, as it upset the Celtic Druids, but escaped each time. For 20 years he had traveled throughout Ireland, establishing monasteries across the country. He also set up schools and churches which would aid him in his conversion. He developed a native clergy, fostered the growth of monasticism, established dioceses, and held church councils.

By the end of the 7th century Patrick had become a legendary figure and the legends continue today. Ever wonder why shamrocks are a symbol of St. Patrick’s day? It is said that he used the three-leafed shamrock to explain the concept of the Trinity; which refers to the combination of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence its strong association with his day and name. There also is a legend that Patrick put the curse of God on venomous snakes in Ireland, forcing them into the sea where they drowned. 

True, these are mostly legends. But, after some 1500 years, these legends have been inseparably combined with the facts, and together they have helped us know much about the Saint and the spirit behind celebration of the day.

Although it was originally a Catholic holiday, it has become a much more secular holiday. The St. Patrick’s day that we know today has become a day filled with leprechauns, shamrocks, pots of gold, and lots and lots of green!

Morgan Drake

For nearly a century, bacteria-fighting drugs known as antibiotics have helped to control and destroy many of the harmful bacteria that can make us sick. But in recent decades, antibiotics have been losing their punch against some types of bacteria. In fact, certain bacteria are now unbeatable with today’s medicines. Sadly, the way we’ve been using antibiotics is helping to create new drug-resistant “superbugs.”

Superbugs are strains of bacteria that are resistant to several types of antibiotics. Each year these drug-resistant bacteria infect more than 2 million people nationwide and kill at least 23,000, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and staph infections are just a few of the dangers we now face.

Antibiotics are among the most commonly prescribed drugs for people. They’re also given to livestock to prevent disease and promote growth. Antibiotics are effective against bacterial infections, such as strep throat and some types of pneumonia, diarrheal diseases, and ear infections. But these drugs don’t work at all against viruses, such as those that cause colds or flu.

Unfortunately, many antibiotics prescribed to people and to animals are unnecessary. And the overuse and misuse of antibiotics helps to create drug-resistant bacteria.

Over time, if more and more people take antibiotics when not necessary, drug-resistant bacteria can continue to thrive and spread. They may even share their drug-resistant traits with other bacteria. Drugs may become less effective or not work at all against certain disease-causing bacteria.

You can help slow the spread of drug-resistant bacteria by taking antibiotics properly and only when needed. Don’t insist on an antibiotic if your healthcare provider advises otherwise.While scientists search for ways to beat back these stubborn bacteria, you can help by preventing the spread of germs so we depend less on antibiotics in the first place.

Although many television shows and movies depict Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, as a comedic disease, it is far from that. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a common anxiety disorder that causes one to be obsessed with a number of different things, such as organizing or keeping up a routine. OCD also causes unnecessary fears like the fear of contamination or fear of death. This disorder is often very dangerous to one’s health, both physically, emotionally, and socially.

Everyone has habits. You might have to organize your room or else it drives you insane. You might be a clean freak, therefore you’re always washing your hands. These common habits don’t even come close to the obsession and compulsion those with OCD struggle with. They have intrusive, disturbing thoughts or fears that cannot be ignored and compel the sufferer to engage in ritualistic, irrational behaviors to relieve the resulting anxiety.

An excessive fear of germs may prompt repetitive hand-washing or a refusal to touch doorknobs or use objects handled by another person. But the rituals they perform may be unrelated to the anxieties that trigger them: opening and closing doors an exact number of times, for example, or stepping over every crack or line, or counting to a certain number before performing an activity.

People with OCD know that their thoughts and actions are not realistic, but they cannot stop themselves from behaving this way. Performing compulsive rituals only temporarily relieves their anxiety, resulting in a need to re-enact them again and again.

All of these rituals take up a great deal of time, making it next to impossible for one to live a normal life. Compulsions such as hoarding can make it hard to have people over, and cleanliness can cause people to become isolated in fear of becoming contaminated by friends and family.

Without the correct treatment, OCD will not be resolved on its own. Therapy is the number one method of treatment, forcing patients to push themselves beyond their limits. Many have to come face to face with their fears and overcome them. Certain anxiety medications may be used as well.

One in three people have some form of OCD, and it is a serious problem. The best thing to do when dealing with someone with OCD is to just be patient. They want the problem to be gone as much as anyone else.