Industrialized Farming

Many of the unfortunate negative health effects of industrialized farming can be linked to the watersheds around the farms. The most apparent problem that I could find was the way that many farmers utilize chemicals in the way they farm. Farmers are now using toxic chemicals and pesticides in the fertilizers or insect repellants that they then spread around their farms. Upon any amount of rain that occurs over the area, these chemicals run in to the watersheds and poison not only lakes streams and rivers, but also underground well water. This toxic water not only is deadly to many forms of plant and animal life, but has been known to cause mutations as well. By industrializing farming and speading these toxic pesticides and biohazardus material across America and into our water supply. Chemical hazards aren't the only problem with farming these days. Now with the recent outbreaks of salmonella and rumors of mad cow disease we have to look more carefully into the realm of industrialized farming. All of these factors are making farming the target of many health organizations and are taking the trust out of farmers.

Conflict Resolution

After searching many websites, I found an interesting model that I think works better than our Anti-bullying thing. This is not a step by step model as much as it is an outline for dealing with the situation in different ways. This model was first pruposed in the 1970s by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann.

Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.

Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.

Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.

Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.

Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.

This model can both be used to judge what type of response to use when confornted with a tough situation. Our anti-bullying model just dosen't do that. Our model will not tell you how to work out a situation wheras it just telss us to deal with a situation.

My first model that I looked at was the The Vroom-Jago decision model, this model was first proposed by Vroom and Yetton in 1973 and was later modified by Vroom and Jago in 1988. This is a very simple 5 step model that gives ways to make important decisions as an individual or as a group. This differs from our model because ourG.R.E.A.T model only discuses individual decision making that really only pertains to the reader. This model distinguishes five different situations and outlines an algorithm for determining which one to use. These steps are outlined using very adaptable situations that could be used in many business situations. The second decision making model that I found is the 9 step process that is taught in many colleges. These steps are:
Recognize that a problem exists and set a solution objective.
Analyze the situation.
Identify key uncertainties.
Determine workable solutions and perhaps brainstorm for alternatives.
Gather data, perhaps using "expert" help. Analyze which alternative might work best given the specific problem and your particular environment.
Select the best (most workable) alternative.
Develop a plan for implementation and action.
Implement the plan.
Follow up to see how the decision worked out and to evaluate its effectiveness in solving the problem.
This model is much more similar to our G.R.E.A.T model because it is geared to making life decisions whereas many other models are geared to business. These two models are vastly used and all (including G.R.E.A.T) have the same basic use, making important decisions.

First Health Post

I really want to learn about how the environment impacts our heath, specifically how pollution over the Olympics in Beijing. Pollution in China these days is everywhere and impacts every aspect of many people's lives. For example, last year in 2008, the Olympic Games were nearly cancelled or delayed due to the massive amount of smog and chemical pollution inside the city. Many of the athletes from other countries refused to train within the city for fear of a drop in performance as a result of the smog. When the athletes were not competing, most coaches had their competitors wear face masks or respirators. In March 2008, Belgian tennis champion Justine Henin said she probably would skip Beijing entirely because of fears the air would aggravate her asthma. Other athletes were also worried that they could suffer a severe asthma attack and not be able to get medical attention on the field. American athletes trained offshore on South Korea’s Cheju island in an effort to avoid harmful air pollution. In March the IOC (International Olympic Committee) worried that the Chinese air quality could reduce the potential for world records and peak performances in all sports. Unfortunately, there's little that the Chinese government can do to improve the vast amounts of pollution that still hovers over the city, according to a new study. Unfortunately, many athletes did boycott the 2008 Olympic games due to the poor air quality, as well as the intense heat and humidity. This proves that while industry is good for a countries economy, pollution is an awful side effect that not only effects the people living there, it also effects visitors as well.

This is my Health Blog, Mr. Corbin, everyone else, feel free to blog.