Tobacco Use and Lung Cancer Essay -- essays research papers

Lung Cancer   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer among both men and women. There are two different types of lung cancer: nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. There are also many different things that can cause lung cancer, but the number one cause for lung cancer is tobacco use.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  What is lung cancer? This is a question that a lot of people are still asking. Lung cancer is definitely something to want to be educated about so that it can be recognizable. There are healthy cells that grow and divide throughout the body to keep it functioning properly, but sometimes this growth gets out of control when the cells continue to produce even though cells aren’t needed. These abnormal cells in the lungs originate when the lungs are exposed to carcinogens for instance those found in cigarette smoke. At first, only a small number of abnormal cells might appear, but as these cells are increasingly exposed to carcinogens they will definitely progress and eventually these cells become cancerous. Once these cancerous cells have reached the lungs, they have easy access to a large number of blood and lymph vessels. (MFMER 1998-2001)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cancer that begins in the lungs is divided into two major types, small cell lung cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer. Nonsmall cell lung cancer is more common than small cell lung cancer and it generally grows and spreads more slowly. There are three main types of nonsmall cell lung cancer that are named for the type of cells in which the cancer develops. These three types are: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and large cell carcinoma. Squamous cell carcinoma is a cancer that forms in cells that are lining the airways. It’s the most common type of lung cancer in men. Adenocarcinoma is the most common type of lung cancer in women and people who have never smoked, it is a cancer that usually begins in the mucus-producing cells of the lung. The last type of nonsmall cell lung cancer is large cell carcinoma; this type of cancer originates in the peripheral part of the lungs. The other major type of lung cancer is small cell lung cancer which sometimes i s called oat cell cancer, it is less common than nonsmall cell lung cancer. This particular type of lung cancer grows more quickly and is more likely to spread to other organs in the... ...compressing against other organs of the body. The final treatment mentioned is clinical trials to evaluate new ways to treat cancer. This is an option for many lung cancer patients, with some doctors all patients receive the new treatment but with others they test it out with one group of patients and give the usual to another group. (United States 1997-1998)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As stated in this paper before, the number one leading cancer killer among both men and women is lung cancer and approximately ninety percent of lung cancer is caused by tobacco use. People just do not realize how serious of an issue this really is, which is due to the fact that they are not near educated enough about lung cancer and the use of tobacco. Although millions of people have died as a result of this, it is still a very preventable cause. Granted there are some cases that might not be as obvious to the person such as radon, or asbestos, which in that case they should be more aware of their environment and surroundings. As for the number one cause of cancer, there is a number one prevention and that is to never start smoking or to quit smoking and live a longer more enjoyable lifestyle.

Ethics in Intelligence Essay

On a clear, late summer day in September of 2001, the hectic yet peaceful lower portion of Manhattan, New York City was turned into the site of one of the largest mass murders in world history when terrorist attacks turned the once imposing World Trade Center complex to a smoking pile of debris and left thousands of Americans dead, physically and psychologically scarred for life. In the aftermath of this act of aggression, the United States, with the cooperation of allies around the world, launched intelligence collection efforts on a scale that had never before been seen. Some nations would be able to do so as they wished without regard for the privacy or rights of their people, but for a nation conceived in liberty and human rights as the US was, issues of ethics and the preservation of individual rights had to be balanced against the dire need to protect the masses from further violence. This research will focus on the ethics of intelligence collection in the US, Constitutional implications of these efforts for American citizens, and the consideration of how much liberty US citizens should be willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Ethics of Intel Collections, Means and Methods Intelligence gathering has always been an essential part of the preservation of American security, dating back to the days of the American colonies and beyond. In the late 1990s, for all of the violence brewing in other nations and the potential for domestic terrorism in the US, the intelligence gathering efforts of American officials consisted mostly of the analysis of data from the comfort of offices located in the US and some offices scattered across the globe. However, these efforts were initially proven to be weak by international terrorist acts against American military installations in other nations, and the original emergence of Osama Bin Laden as an international terrorist to be closely monitored. With such formidable enemies to consider, it became obvious that the old ways of gathering intelligence were badly in need of change, including the introduction of more field intelligence agents, enhancements to technology, better networking with other nations, and many clandestine activities. With the need to increase and improve all levels of intelligence gathering in the US, the question arises as to how far a nation like the US, which stands as a beacon of righteousness and safety in the world, will be willing to go to gain the level of security that is needed to protect American citizens at home and abroad? The child of this need emerged, known as the Department of Homeland Security, an organization which put on a public front of protection of the US in a manner that is illustrative of ethical behavior and forceful yet proper action. With the introduction of the Department, the public gained a higher level of confidence in the protection they would be receiving. However, many of the methods that were necessary, at least behind the scenes, were of the nature that the general public would frown upon at the very least, and rise up in heated protest against at worst if it were known the full extent of what the Department was forced to resort to in the interest of intelligence gathering. Among the steps that were taken, such actions as the monitoring of telephone and Internet communications, the detention of suspected terrorists and the like began to raise the issue of the appropriateness of such activities in line with the promises and obligations of the US Constitution. Constitutional Implications of United States Intel Collection on United States Citizens The war against terrorism is unlike any other war that the US has seen; fighting an enemy that does not wear a recognizable uniform or hails from any specific geographic location poses quite a challenge and makes the application of conventional warfare tactics all but impossible. Therefore, as with those conventional warfare methods, it is necessary for certain drastic measures to be taken. However, it is important to understand that there are Constitutional implications for such actions, especially in the areas of intelligence collection which require frequent intrusions into the privacy that Americans hold so dear and have fought and died to protect for hundreds of years. First, there are misconceptions about the Constitution that are necessary to point out. Specifically, there is a thin line between the investigation of criminal activity and suspected threats to national security, which of course are in and of themselves criminal but take on an added dimension when one realizes that the safety and future of the nation hangs in the balance. In the interest of national security, it is permissible for the surveillance of Americans, domestically and abroad without the obtaining of search warrants, which are usually the standard procedure when an American is being investigated as a possible criminal, under any ordinary circumstances. In this instance, permissible and acceptable are two entirely different things. While authorities may be allowed to basically spy on their fellow citizens so that the nation is protected, where does this leave those who are the target of the surveillance? The argument can fairly be made that if one is not doing anything wrong, if they are being monitored, they actually have nothing with which to be concerned. Further, if that surveillance yields information on other wrongdoers who are in fact a threat to America, the net result makes all of it worthwhile. The issue of habeas corpus also is a key element in the consideration of the rights the accused. In the past, this legal remedy, in place since the days of the Magna Carta, existed to protect the rights of the accused. Constitutionally speaking, it had been established in the early 1940s that habeas corpus would stand if: â€Å"(1) the conviction is void for lack o f personal or subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the statute defining the offense is unconstitutional, or the conviction was obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right; (3) the statute authorizing the sentence is unconstitutional, or the sentence was obtained in violation of a federal constitutional right; (4) the sentence is contrary to the applicable statute, in excess of the statutory maximum, or otherwise unauthorized by law; or (5) the conviction or the sentence is otherwise deemed subject to collateral attack. † In times of crisis, this right has been suspended in the interest of national security, and has been suspended in the age of terrorism due to the need to make terrorists who are evading capture by authorities accountable in courts of law for their crimes. This, also, however is one of those fine points of law that draw criticism and scrutiny in many cases because anytime a right is suspended, innocent people are affected and their rights are often sacrificed, albeit for the sake of the common good. A closer look at the underpinnings of the Constitution itself reveals some interesting powers that many do not realize exist. For example, the Constitution does in fact give Congress the right to make laws as necessary to allow the Constitution to function as it was intended. This right, however, is akin to a broad stroke of a paintbrush, when the finer details of the stroke are really where the beauty lies. In other words, on the surface, it is true that Congress possesses such power, but this is also a power that is open to interpretation and debate. Where one draws the line between permissible monitoring and the trampling of the rights of the majority is an issue with which the American people are currently wrestling and undoubtedly will continue to do so for many years to come. With this in mind, there surely must be a balance to be obtained between sacrificing for the common good and giving up everything that Americans are constitutionally guaranteed. How Much Liberty Should US Citizens Give Up Under the Notion of National Security? It has been said that liberty is something which can be gained all at once, but often is stripped away one small piece at a time, like the gradual erosion of a mighty mountain. If this is true, the question of how many small pieces the citizens of the US can give away before a landslide consumes them? After the horrible events of September 11, 2001, it became readily apparent that there was a need for American governmental agencies to gather additional power if they were to properly mount an offensive against terrorism and to avert a repeat of the horrible events of that tragic day. This need to gather additional power was viewed by many as a feeble excuse for those within the government who craved power to grab as much as they wished, regardless of the inevitable fallout. Still others saw the sacrifice of a small amount of liberty as the necessary toll that needed to be paid for a much larger amount of overall protection and the long-term survival of the US while others around the world plotted to destroy the most powerful nation on earth. Again, however, as was mentioned at the beginning of this passage, small surrenders can sometimes lead to large damage over a period of time.

Was Hannibal, Enemy of Ancient Rome, Black

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who was considered to be one of the great military leaders in history. Hannibal was born in 183 BCE and lived during a time of great political and military strife. Carthage was a large and important Phoenician city-state in northern Africa, which was often at odds with the Greek and Roman empires. Because Hannibal came from Africa, the question is sometimes asked, was Hannibal black? What Is Meant by the Terms Black and Africa? The term Black in modern usage in the U.S. means something different from what the common Latin adjective for black (niger) would mean. Frank M. Snowden explains this in his article Misconceptions about African Blacks in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Specialists and Afrocentrists. Compared with a Mediterranean person, someone from Scythia or Ireland was noticeably white and someone from Africa was noticeably black. In Egypt, as in other areas of northern Africa, there were other colors that could be used to describe complexions. There was also a good deal of intermarriage between the lighter-skinned people in northern Africa and the darker-skinned people called Ethiopians or Nubians. Hannibal may have been darker-skinned than a Roman, but he would not have been described as Ethiopian. Hannibal came from an area referred to as northern Africa, from a Carthaginian family. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, which means that they would conventionally be described as a Semitic people. The term Semitic refers to a variety of people from the ancient Near East (e.g., Assyrians, Arabs, and Hebrews), which included parts of northern Africa. Why We Dont Know What Hannibal Looked Like Hannibals personal appearance is not described or shown in any indisputable form, so it is difficult to simply point to any direct evidence. Coins minted during the period of his leadership could depict Hannibal, but could also depict his father or other relatives. In addition, according to an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica based on the work of historian Patrick Hunt, while it is possible that Hannibal had ancestors from the interior of Africa, we have no clear evidence for or against: Regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. ...[so] his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia... almost 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa....we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage. Sources Encyclopedia Britannica.Snowden Jr., Frank M. Misconceptions about African Blacks in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Specialists and Afrocentrists. Arion. Third Series, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter, 1997, pp. 28-50.