Elimination of medical mercury

Do you prefer elimination of mercury-containing devices or using them in hospitals? Do you support programs that work to eliminate medical mercury equipment? Mercury emissions and waste is one of the sources that cause health problems. For example, mercury may affect the kidneys, brain, liver, spinal cord, and many other diseases. And the diseases, which can be caused by this element, are distorted vision, problems in breathing, nausea, memory loss, hallucination, personality disorder and many more. In other words, mercury is very harmful to the humans, living organisms and environment. Indeed, hospitals and health care facilities are considered one of the biggest sources of mercury emissions and waste. They have many devices, incinerators, and chemicals that contain or emit mercury. However, most hospitals and health care facilities have planned to reduce medical mercury emissions and waste since a few years ago. According to Christina Orlovsky, “In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported another surprising source of mercury pollution: hospitals. A new study, however, shows that health care facilities have significantly cleaned up their act” (2005, para.1). So, hospitals should pay more attention to eliminate or reduce medical mercury emissions.

Since a few years ago, some programs that target eliminating medical mercury-containing devices have started their work in hospitals. There are many benefits when the hospitals apply these programs’ ideas. Indeed, these programs contribute to reducing the waste of mercury, to protecting the health of medical staff, and to prevention spills of mercury.

First of all, programs that work to eliminate mercury-containing devices in hospitals and health care facilities contribute to making the environment without mercury emissions. We know that one source of mercury emissions is medical devices, which contains mercury. There are many mercury-containing devices in hospitals such as thermometers, fluorescent light bulbs and sphygmomanometers, or blood pressure cuffs. In addition, hospitals and health care facilities use this equipment every day, and they have many of these devices. Actually, these devices release mercury emissions, and that causes many environmental problems and health diseases. “Mercury-containing devices can release toxic fumes into the environment for years,” Renee Gryzkewicz said (2004, para.1).

There are medical waste incinerators which are considered one of the biggest sources of mercury emissions. These incinerators, especially old incinerators, emit a lot of toxic elements lead and mercury emissions. Barbara Sibbald says that more than 10% of mercury emissions are released by old incinerators which burn some metals and paper, and so on (2001). Thus, using these incinerators will increase mercury pollution in the environment.

Most hospitals have recently implemented programs’ plans to eliminate or reduce these devices and incinerators. Thus, elimination of these devices assists disposal from one source of pollution. And elimination of these devices protects our environment and planet. All hospitals have tried to rid these devices. So, they have begun to use alternative devices that don’t contain mercury. Of course, medical free-mercury devices have many advantages. The important thing in this equipment is that it contributes to decreasing the medical pollution. Christina Orolvsky says that 72% of health care facilities have started to replace all mercury equipment, and they have accomplished 80% of the pollution reduction plan. In addition, most hospitals have replaced old incinerators with modern incinerators. Because modern incinerators have flue-gas cleaning systems which are very reliable, they are able to remove almost all mercury emissions. “The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has recently proposed new incinerator emission standards that will reduce current dioxin and mercury emissions by 80%,” Erica Weir said (2002, para.7).

Most hospitals staff workers know that the first step to making mercury-elimination programs succeed is elimination of mercury-containing devices and old incinerators. So, they should work hard to achieve that, and also they should just use free-mercury devices and modern incinerators in all hospitals around the world.

Second, elimination of mercury-devices programs in hospitals protects the health of hospitals’ staff. Doctors, nurses, laboratory officers, and pharmacists usually use these devices every day. Therefore, these devices affect the wellness, and they are considered the biggest problem because they may be exposed to mercury radiation. Moreover, exposure to mercury adversely affects the brain, kidney, and fetus. In fact, using mercury-containing devices threaten the health of all hospitals staff, and they also threaten a patient. Ratna Singh says that, “It is very important that healthcare workers are aware of how to handle mercury in case of spills” (2004, para.4). Therefore, mercury exists anywhere in hospitals, even in vaccines. That means not only do we need to eliminate mercury devices but also we need to cut off the flow of mercury to the hospitals.

Medical mercury disposal helps to minimize the exposure of workers and patients in a hospital to toxic metal. In fact, one of the important goals of most hospitals that have applied to eliminate mercury-containing programs is protecting the health care of hospital staff from mercury waste danger. Using alternative medical devices protects the healthcare workers from mercury emissions. Jean Ritter says that “There are very safe, and thorough methods to remove mercury fillings that are used by a knowledgeable office such as ours. To prevent additional mercury exposure, find a biocompatible dentist properly trained in mercury filling removal” (2007, para.6).

Most hospitals have tried to provide their workers the protection from mercury problems. To achieve that, they must apply three important steps. These steps include using free-mercury devices, disposal with medical waste incinerators, and cutting off the flow of mercury into the hospitals. If a hospital applies these steps, they might provide the environmental health for its workers. So, it is necessary that all hospitals pay more attention to protecting their healthcare workers and patients from mercury and exposure to the mercury emissions or waste.

Finally, programs that eliminate mercury-containing devices in hospitals help to reduce the spills of mercury. The biggest danger of these devices is if there are spills of mercury from these devices. Spills of liquid mercury from these devices may increase the levels of mercury in the air or wastewater of health care facilities. In particular, if these devices break, they release toxic mercury. And that increases the air pollution, which causes health problems. Also, hospitals have suffered the spills of mercury on floors, beds, machines, or anywhere in the hospitals. When the spill of mercury happens, it increases quickly in the air. A quick response to any mercury spill is very important. Jan Hefler says that if we don’t clean well when small amounts of mercury spill, mercury is still in the air over many days (2009).

Elimination of mercury devices avoids spills of mercury. Indeed, this is one of the wonderful results of these programs, which target eliminating of mercury in the hospitals. Because mercury exists in many devices and in labs, the possibility of spills of mercury is high. Thus, prevention of letting mercury enter the health care facilities is the best method to avoid mercury spill. That means that it is important to make a hospital free from mercury, so the hospital should replace mercury-containing devices by mercury-free devices. Also, it must cut off mercury chemicals, and it must use mercury-free chemicals. In sum, using modern devices that don’t contain mercury contributes to eliminating the healthy and environmental problems that are caused by spills of mercury. 

Many medical staff people think that programs of mercury-elimination in hospitals don’t succeed because we can’t dispose of some medical mercury devices such as mercury barometers. However, these people are forgetting something important:  mercury elimination programs at least try to reduce the amount of use of these devices. For example, we can eliminate many of these devices that we don’t need, and we may keep a few important mercury devices until we get alternative devices. That will contribute to decreasing the mercury-containing devices, and therefore, mercury emissions. So, I believe that these programs will succeed.

In conclusion, there are many benefits of programs that work to eliminate medical mercury devices in the hospitals and health care facilities. So, these programs assist to protect our environment from medical mercury pollution, to helping medical staff to use healthy devices, and to stop the potential of spilling mercury from these devices. Thus, I hope that these programs spread to including all hospitals around the world, so we should encourage these programs.

  

References:

Gryzkewicz, R. (2004, December). Mercury, managed. Facilities News. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.facilitiesnet.com/healthcarefacilities/article/Mercury-Managed--2397

Hefler, J. (2009, March 9). Study outlines mercury dangers to children.

            P-com News Local. Retrieved Jun 07, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.

Orlovsky, C. (2005, April 15). Hospitals reduce levels of mercury, Waste. Nursing News. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.nursezone.com/nursing-news-events/more-news/Hospitals-Reduce-Levels-of-Mercury-Waste_25762.aspx

Ritter, J. (2007, May 7). Toxic mercury from old fillings can affect the health. Articlesbace. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/toxic-mercury-from-old-fillings-can-affect-the-health-of-unborn-and-nursing-children-143552.html

Sibbald, B. ( 2001, February 20 ). Crackdown on hospital incinerators coming soon. CMAJ Medical News. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/4/533-a.

Singh, R. (2004, Jan 1) Handling mercury spills. Toxics Free Health Care. Retrieved Jun 07, 2009, from http://www.toxicslink.org/art-view.php?id=17.

Weir, E. (2002, February 5). Hospitals and the environment. CMAJ Medical Practice Public Health. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.canadianmedicaljournal.ca/cgi/content/full/166/3/354.

The benefits of Wikipedia

Have you trusted Wikipedia when you needed resources about any topics? Do you think Wikipedia deserves to be one of the popular websites? I believe that Wikipedia is a web site that has become one of the most useful and biggest websites on the Internet because there are many causes. According to Jason Wolverton, “Launched Jan. 15, 2001, it is already the ninth most popular Web site in the United States, according to Alexa Internet, a company that monitors Web traffic” (2007, para.9). So, the causes are that Wikipedia helps researchers to get information very easily, contributes to spreading the information and knowledge, and allows everyone to write and discuss his opinions and subjects.

First of all, researchers might get information that they need in Wikipedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains a lot of information. Thus, it assists students, teachers, and professors to gain information. John Gapper says that the common way that people use to obtain information is Wikipedia (2008). Furthermore, Wikipedia contributes to increasing the background of researchers in their subjects which they search in. And they can find so much information on so many different subjects. So, Wikipedia is considered one of the biggest resources that researchers use. “It found that Americans aged 25 to 34 in the sample named Wikipedia as the second most credible source for business information, after business magazines,” John Gapper said (2008, para.9). Finally, most researchers can’t dispense about Wikipedia to find information in their research.

  Second, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it contributes to spreading new information and knowledge very quickly. We had found it difficult to spread new information to all world before Wikipedia is existed. However, Wikipedia facilitates this problem, and all people around the world have immediately received new information. Furthermore, we can get information in different languages such as Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, and Arabic. That has made Wikipedia has become an international phenomenon. In short, Wikipedia is the biggest site to spread any information to many people around the world.

Finally, everyone can participate in Wikipedia either by writing or discussing any information or article. Of course, that contributes to disseminating many ideas for many people around the world, even a simple person who can’t spread his ideas to the world in traditional ways. In fact, Wikipedia assists to raise methods of civilized dialogue that many people around the world can share in. Jim Lengel says that all people are able to compose, eliminate or alter an article in Wikipedia, so it is a modern and extensive encyclopedia (2006). In addition, Wikipedia assists students and researchers to exercise out the writing and research articles. In the end, Wikipedia allows us to write our ideas where many people can comment on these ideas.

Many professors and academics believe that Wikipedia is not a trusted source because anyone can write articles and edit information anytime. However, these people are forgetting something important: researchers can extract information from Wikipedia, and then they should verify if the information is true. This procedure is easier against the search about information. Also, Wikipedia assists to give us general perception about the topic that we research in, especially when we don’t have any ideas about the topic. So, Wikipedia can help a person to find and discover many ideas about a topic that he needs to write about.

In conclusion, Wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia that contains a lot of information and has many benefits. Indeed, this site in the Internet helps students, teachers, researchers, workers, and academics to find a lot of information and many articles about their subjects that they need. Also, it contributes to spreading new information and knowledge around the world in different languages. And also it allows us to share our ideas, and many people can discuss them. Thus, I think that Wikipedia is one of the best sites in the Internet where many people can benefit from it. 

 

 References:

 Gapper, J. (2008, January 23). Wikipedia is popular but scary. Ft.com/gapperblog. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://blogs.ft.come/gapperblog/2008/01/wikipedia-is-pohtml/.

Lengel, J. (2006, February 07). Authority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/n5clt2

Wolverton, J. (2007, January 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141

The benefits of Wikipedia

Have you trusted Wikipedia when you needed resources about any topics? Do you think Wikipedia deserves to be one of the popular websites? I believe that Wikipedia is a web site that has become one of the most useful and biggest websites on the Internet because there are many causes. According to Jason Wolverton, “Launched Jan. 15, 2001, it is already the ninth most popular Web site in the United States, according to Alexa Internet, a company that monitors Web traffic” (2007, para.9). So, the causes are that Wikipedia helps researchers to get information very easily, contributes to spreading the information and knowledge, and allows everyone to write and discuss his opinions and subjects.

    First of all, researchers might get information that they need in Wikipedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains a lot of information. Thus, it assists students, teachers, and professors to gain information. John Gapper says that the common way that people use to obtain information is Wikipedia (2008). Furthermore, Wikipedia contributes to increasing the background of researchers in their subjects which they search in. And they can find so much information on so many different subjects. So, Wikipedia is considered one of the biggest resources that researchers use. “It found that Americans aged 25 to 34 in the sample named Wikipedia as the second most credible source for business information, after business magazines,” John Gapper said (2008, para.9). Finally, most researchers can’t dispense about Wikipedia to find information in their research.

     Second, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it contributes to spreading new information and knowledge very quickly. We had found it difficult to spread new information to all world before Wikipedia is existed. However, Wikipedia facilitates this problem, and all people around the world have immediately received new information. Furthermore, we can get information in different languages such as Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, and Arabic. That has made Wikipedia has become an international phenomenon. In short, Wikipedia is the biggest site to spread any information to many people around the world.

    Finally, everyone can participate in Wikipedia either by writing or discussing any information or article. Of course, that contributes to disseminating many ideas for many people around the world, even a simple person who can’t spread his ideas to the world in traditional ways. In fact, Wikipedia assists to raise methods of civilized dialogue that many people around the world can share in. Jim Lengel says that all people are able to compose, eliminate or alter an article in Wikipedia, so it is a modern and extensive encyclopedia (2006). In addition, Wikipedia assists students and researchers to exercise out the writing and research articles. In the end, Wikipedia allows us to write our ideas where many people can comment on these ideas.

    Many professors and academics believe that Wikipedia is not a trusted source because anyone can write articles and edit information anytime. However, these people are forgetting something important: researchers can extract information from Wikipedia, and then they should verify if the information is true. This procedure is easier against the search about information. Also, Wikipedia assists to give us general perception about the topic that we research in, especially when we don’t have any ideas about the topic. So, Wikipedia can help a person to find and discover many ideas about a topic that he needs to write about.

    In conclusion, Wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia that contains a lot of information and has many benefits. Indeed, this site in the Internet helps students, teachers, researchers, workers, and academics to find a lot of information and many articles about their subjects that they need. Also, it contributes to spreading new information and knowledge around the world in different languages. And also it allows us to share our ideas, and many people can discuss them. Thus, I think that Wikipedia is one of the best sites in the Internet where many people can benefit from it.

References:

Gapper, J. (2008, January 23). Wikipedia is popular but scary. Ft.com/gapperblog. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://blogs.ft.come/gapperblog/2008/01/wikibedia-is-pohtml/.

Lengel, J. (2006, February 07). Authority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/n5clt2

Wolverton, J. (2007, January 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard. Retrieved on June 5, 2009, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141

Hospital mercury emissions

        In C. Orlovsky article “Hospitals Reduce Levels of Mercury, Waste,” she states that hospitals have tried with some healthy organizations to decrease medical mercury emissions that cause environmental pollution.  First, mercury and its emissions cause many problems for the environment and for the human. Some medical devices have the amount of mercury, and others emit a large amount of mercury emissions. However, she shows that hospitals with some environmental organizations have started to apply some plans that have contributed to decreasing the rate of mercury emissions and to decline the pollution that is produced by mercury radiation. And they have achieved advanced  reducing of the emissions of mercury in hospitals and medical health care facilities. Moreover, she explains that hospitals have worked together to stop mercury’s influence and to make the hospitals free from mercury. In conclusion, hospitals have worked to rid the environment of their mercury emissions and of medical mercury pollution.

         Health care facilities have become the cause of some environmental problems. One of these problems is medical mercury pollution. Moreover, there are different resources of medical mercury pollution in the environment, and one of biggest resources is the hospital. Medical waste incinerators, most medical equipment, and hospitals’ laboratories contribute to increasing the rate of the mercury problem in the environment.

          First of all, medical waste incinerators are considered the biggest sources of medical mercury emissions which cause the environmental pollution. Therefore, these incinerators emit a lot of mercury emissions into the atmosphere. Barbara Sibbald said “Many of the country's 120 hospital incinerators now burn PVC plastic, paper, batteries and discarded equipment, and this leads to emissions of dioxins, mercury and other toxins”. Also, most hospitals have started to stop using old hospital incinerators, and these hospitals have started to use modern incinerators. “The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has recently proposed new incinerator emission standards that will reduce current dioxin and mercury emissions by 80%,” Erica Weir said. Finally, one of the main sources of mercury emission is an old hospital incinerator.

         Second, many medical devices and equipment which are used in health care facilities such as thermometers, sphygmomanometers, gastrointestinal tubes and so on contain an amount of mercury. Mercury may be released from these devices if there is a spill. Also, this equipment is considered very dangerous for the environment, especially if the hospitals throw it away or burn it. Renee Gryzkewicz said, “Breaking or improperly disposing of mercury-containing devices can release toxic fumes into the environment for years”. Indeed, all mercury-containing devices in the clinical areas have been replaced with mercury-free alternatives. “Development and implementation of plans to reduce the use of mercury equipment and replace it with alternatives, increase efforts to reduce the risk of unnecessary mercury equipment in hospitals and a ban of mercury-containing devices and promotion of alternatives”, according to “Health care agency urges gov't for non-use of mercury  . That contributes to reducing the mercury pollution in the environment. Finally, medical devices that contain mercury affect our environment.

         Finally, hospitals’ laboratories cause environmental mercury pollution where they contain some chemical substances that have mercury. Some of the chemicals may contain added mercury, and others may contain mercury as a contaminant in a feedstock. For example, these chemicals include Acetic acid, Chloride, Ethanol and so on. Thus, health care facilities must be correct in handling and disposal of mercury-containing laboratory. Erin Durkin says it is necessary “to move waste such as mercury and formaldehyde between hospitals and labs and out of state disposal facilities. Waste could be stored at the site for as long as 10 days”. In the end, many chemical substances that exist in laboratories contribute to increase mercury emission and medical pollution.

         In conclusion, all hospitals around the world cause an increase in the rate of mercury emissions in the environment. So, these hospitals use some devices that contain mercury, use incinerators that emit mercury emissions, and use chemical substances in their laboratories that contain mercury. Thus, hospitals should reduce using anything, which contributes to increasing medical mercury pollution in the environment. 

Reference:

Durkin, E. (2009, March 30). Sick over med waste plane. Canarsie station would be hazard, residents say. Daily News. p. 33. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.

 

 Gryzkewicz. R. (2004, December). Mercury, managed. Facilities News. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.facilitiesnet.com/healthcarefacilities/article/Mercury-Managed--2397

Health care agency urges gov't for non-use of mercury. (2008, August 20). Business World. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database. 

Orlovsky, C. (2005, Apr 15). Hospitals reduce levels of mercury, Waste. Nursing News. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.nursezone.com/nursing-news-events/more-news/Hospitals-Reduce-Levels-of-Mercury-Waste_25762.aspx. 

Sibbald, B. (2001, February 20). Crackdown on hospital incinerators coming soon. CMAJ Medical News. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/4/533-a. 

Weir, E. (2002, February 5). Hospitals and the environment. CMAJ Medical Practice Public Health. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.canadianmedicaljournal.ca/cgi/content/full/166/3/354.

reducing hospital emissions

In Bindley Madeleine’s article ”Hospitals go green but can do more to ward off threat of global warming,” the author states that NHS hospitals in Wales have tried to decrease their radiation which affects the environment, and these hospitals have applied some ways that contribute to succeeding in their targets. First, most of these hospitals have used green energy, and that contributes to decreasing the trail of some their dangerous emissions and to pushing off global warming. Also, most people think that NSH has to pay more attention to decreasing its dangerous emission and consider this assignment in primacy. Moreover, the author explains that NHS hospitals have started by using green power, because this power contributes to decreasing the rates of emissions and gases in air. Therefore, the author points out that there are other ways that some hospitals have used to reduce their radiation. Some of these ways include using solar energy and encouraging staff to come to their work by walking or riding a bike. Thus, hospitals in Wales have reduced the amount of garbage every week because they have sent it for re-manufacturing. Finally, in Wales the staff in NHS hospitals has worked to decrease the rates of these hospital’s radiations, which damage environment and atmosphere.

Why should hospitals use another kind of energy as fuel? Hospitals should stop using fuel energy. We know fuel energy has caused many problems to our environments, atmosphere, and planets. Thus, NHS hospitals have tried by using other solutions that reduce the rates of their emissions. Some of these solutions include using green energy, reducing the use of vehicles that work by oil, and reducing the amount of waste.

First of all, hospitals should work to use less fuel of energy, and they should spend more on green energy because this energy contributes to reducing hospital’s emissions and CO2 gas. In fact, green energy resources are perceived to lower carbon emissions and create less pollution. When hospitals use green energy, this process makes our atmosphere have very low emissions or no emissions at all. In addition, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power are considered a green energy source. Most hospitals in some developed countries have started to use this energy because they are aware of the importance of this energy. Finally, green energy contributes to making our environment free from dangerous gases, and we must use it instead of fuel energy.

Second, one of NHS hospital’ projects to decrease the carbon footprint in some countries includes the idea that hospitals should encourage their staff to walk or ride a bike when they want to go their work. This procedure contributes to the decreasing use of vehicles, which emit dangerous emissions such as CO2, which damages the atmosphere. So, most hospitals must have housing units for staff, and they must be near hospitals. That makes staffs not need to use bus or their cars. And they may go to their job by foot or by bike. However, NHS hospitals in many countries started to apply this idea. Finally, reducing the use of vehicles, which work by fuel, helps to reduce the rates of emissions and CO2 gas in the air.

Finally, all hospitals have to work to decrease the amount of rubbish that affects the environment. We know that the waste is the biggest cause of pollution. So, NHS hospitals have worked to solve the rubbish problem. Most hospitals have got a solution to this problem by sending much of their waste for recycling. This idea contributes to decreasing the rate of waste that hospitals had sent to landfill before. And that assists to decrease the pollution in the planet. In the end, reducing hospital’s garbage where hospitals can send waste for recycling contributes to decreasing pollution and its dangerous emissions.

In conclusion, all hospitals have to pay more attention to getting the useful solutions that reduce their emissions and protect our environment. Indeed, using green energy instead of fuel energy, walking or riding a bike when a hospital‘s staff wants to go their work, and sending hospital’s rubbish for recycling to reduce the amount of waste are the great solutions that most hospitals have used. Thus, hospitals have the biggest role to protect our environment and to make our planet free from dangerous gases and emissions.      

 

Reference:

Bindley, M. (2007, June 25). Hospitals go green but can do more to ward off threat of global warming. The Western Mail. p. 10. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.

Reducing hospital emissions

In Bindley Madeleine’s article ”Hospitals go green but can do more to ward off threat of global warming,” the author states that NHS hospitals in Wales have tried to decrease their radiation which affects the environment, and these hospitals have applied some ways that contribute to succeeding in their targets. First, most of these hospitals have used green energy, and that contributes to decreasing the trail of some their dangerous emissions and to pushing off global warming. Also, most people think that NSH has to pay more attention to decreasing its dangerous emission and consider this assignment in primacy. Moreover, the author explains that NHS hospitals have started by using green power, because this power contributes to decreasing the rates of emissions and gases in air. Therefore, the author points out that there are other ways that some hospitals have used to reduce their radiation. Some of these ways include using solar energy and encouraging staff to come to their work by walking or riding a bike. Thus, hospitals in Wales have reduced the amount of garbage every week because they have sent it for re-manufacturing. Finally, in Wales the staff in NHS hospitals has worked to decrease the rates of these hospital’s radiations, which damage environment and atmosphere. 

Why should hospitals use another kind of energy as fuel? Hospitals should stop using fuel energy. We know fuel energy has caused many problems to our environments, atmosphere, and planets. Thus, NHS hospitals have tried by using other solutions that reduce the rates of their emissions. Some of these solutions include using green energy, reducing the use of vehicles that work by oil, and reducing the amount of waste. 

First of all, hospitals should work to use less fuel of energy, and they should spend more on green energy because this energy contributes to reducing hospital’s emissions and CO2 gas. In fact, green energy resources are perceived to lower carbon emissions and create less pollution. When hospitals use green energy, this process makes our atmosphere have very low emissions or no emissions at all. In addition, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power are considered a green energy source. Most hospitals in some developed countries have started to use this energy because they are aware of the importance of this energy. Finally, green energy contributes to making our environment free from dangerous gases, and we must use it instead of fuel energy.

Second, one of NHS hospital’ projects to decrease the carbon footprint in some countries includes the idea that hospitals should encourage their staff to walk or ride a bike when they want to go their work. This procedure contributes to the decreasing use of vehicles, which emit dangerous emissions such as CO2, which damages the atmosphere. So, most hospitals must have housing units for staff, and they must be near hospitals. That makes staffs not need to use bus or their cars. And they may go to their job by foot or by bike. However, NHS hospitals in many countries started to apply this idea. Finally, reducing the use of vehicles, which work by fuel, helps to reduce the rates of emissions and CO2 gas in the air. 

Finally, all hospitals have to work to decrease the amount of rubbish that affects the environment. We know that the waste is the biggest cause of pollution. So, NHS hospitals have worked to solve the rubbish problem. Most hospitals have got a solution to this problem by sending much of their waste for recycling. This idea contributes to decreasing the rate of waste that hospitals had sent to landfill before. And that assists to decrease the pollution in the planet. In the end, reducing hospital’s garbage where hospitals can send waste for recycling contributes to decreasing pollution and its dangerous emissions. 

In conclusion, all hospitals have to pay more attention to getting the useful solutions that reduce their emissions and protect our environment. Indeed, using green energy instead of fuel energy, walking or riding a bike when a hospital‘s staff wants to go their work, and sending hospital’s rubbish for recycling to reduce the amount of waste are the great solutions that most hospitals have used. Thus, hospitals have the biggest role to protect our environment and to make our planet free from dangerous gases and emissions.       

Reference:

Bindley, M. (2007, June 25). Hospitals go green but can do more to ward off threat of global warming. The Western Mail. p. 10. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.

Protecting Ozone Layer

In Stephen Leahy’s article “Climate change: Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty,” the author states that chemicals still affect the Ozone level even though most countries signed a convention to protect it. First, the ozone gap has become enormous and is very big, so many people have skin diseases. For this reason, many countries signed the convention, which makes the environment free from some gases that affect the ozone. However, the author maintains that exudation of chemicals which cause damage to the ozone level has been continuing after this convention. The only way to protect the ozone layer is to use chemicals that have less effect on the ozone shape such as HCFCs and HFCs. Moreover, the author contends that to protect the ozone level we can use some devices that produce these chemicals. However, many corporations and producers refuse that, because of their financial goals. But many countries will convene to achieve some aims to decrease gases that affect the ozone. In conclusion, some dangerous chemicals and gases affect treatment of ozone hole, and that delays the solutions of this problem.

Why must we be interested in the ozone problem? Millions of people suffer from skin cancer and thousands of them will die because the ozone hole is increasing. So, the world must work together to solve this problem, and it must contribute by doing anything that protects the ozone layer and reduces gases that damage the ozone. Individuals, companies and factories, and governments around the world have to do this task.

First of all, every person has to feel more responsibility toward the global problems. And he must be aware that he is a part of this world. One of these problems is the ozone hole, which we contributed to increase by using machines that emit some gases, which cause damage to the ozone. Indeed, every person must try to reduce using these machines. When everyone around the world does that, the emissions of ozone-damaging chemicals will decrease. That will help to protect the ozone’s shape. Finally, everyone should contribute making the atmosphere free from dangerous chemical substances.

Second, most companies and factories cause the filling of the atmosphere with some gases that damage the ozone layer. These chemical gases are considered the first reason for the increase of the ozone hole. Therefore, these companies and factories must have sense about that. Most of them are interested in income more than the health of humans. Some of these companies refuse to use machines that emit some chemicals which don’t damage ozone, such as HFC, because of economic recession. Finally, companies and factories have to pay more attention to the ozone issue.

          Finally, all countries and their governments have the biggest role in rescuing the earth from the ozone problem. They have the authority that can be used on producers and manufacturers to reduce emissions of ozone-damaging chemicals. On the other hand, governments try to protect our environment. For example, they signed some conventions to reduce dangerous chemicals that damage the ozone. Countries must work together, exchange experience, and help each other to find the solution for the ozone problem. In the end, governments have the ability to solve the ozone problem.

          In conclusion, we must labor to reduce ozone- damaging chemicals in our atmosphere. And this assignment requires the participation of all individuals, producers and manufacturers, and governments. Thus, I think that ozone problem can be solved when we pay more attention to find solutions, and then we should apply these solutions in our life.

 

Reference:

Leahy, S.(2008). Climate change: Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty. Inter press service news agency Retrieved May 19, 2009, from  http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888.