COMM 1312: Writing and Research/ Learning Disabilities

Introduction

The Hook

Do you know what is Learning disabilities? Learning disabilities are disorders that affect the ability to understand spoken or written language, to solve mathematical calculations, or to be able to connect two things together.

Subject/Problem

Learning disabilities are a kind of disability that affect the mental fortitude of a person, unlike other conventional disabilities which have an effect on a physical aspect of a person. Learning disabilities can be caused by a wide variety of factor, including genetic and/or neurobiological factors. Whatever the cause, the effect is the same; brain functioning is altered which affects various cognitive processes. (LDA)

Since learning disabilities are caused by something affecting the development of the brain adversely, it’s not necessary that people are always born with them. The negative affect on the development of the brain can happen before birth, during birth, or even during early childhood. Learning disabilities cause much stress and problems for people who suffer through them, and they affect not just academics but can also throw a wrench in relationships, or cause problems in jobs.

Symptoms of learning disabilities include:

• Reversing letters, words, or numbers, after first or second grade
• Difficulties recognizing patterns or sorting items by size or shape
• Difficulty understanding and following instructions or staying organized
• Difficulty remembering what was just said or what was just read
• Lacking coordination when moving around

(“Learning Disorders in Children”, CDC USA, 2021).

Learning disabilities are a lifelong challenge, and people with learning disabilities not only have trouble with reading, writing, math, and other academic endeavors, but also with a wide plethora of social and communication issues.
These children and teenagers have trouble picking up on social cues, interacting with their peers, colleagues, and elders, forming long lasting relationships, and effectively communicating. Academic issues, therefore, are not the only problems faced by people with learning disabilities.

Background Information:

The history of learning disabilities is vast, however it was not always known as such and it was not always given the status of a legitimate disability as it is today.
The first kind of disability to be coined and studied is also the most obvious one, the inability to read, also known as Dyslexia. In 1887, a German neurologist by the name of Adolf Kussamaul coined the term “word blindless”, which he described as “a complete text blindness…although the power of sight, the intellect and the powers of speech are intact” (Timeline of Learning Disabilities, LD Online, 2006, para.2).
Starting from then, advocates for learning disabilities faced an upwards challenge, with problems like ADHD and other behavioural issues not even being recognised by the medical community. It took until the late 1960s before ADHD was finally recognised as a valid disability.
With the term “learning disability” being coined in 1963 at an education conference by the psychologist Samuel A. Kirk, this pressing and important issue finally started getting the attention it deserved (Amanda & Sheldon, 2018, para.10).
Different organisations started being formed, like the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities in 1964 (now known as Learning Disabilities Association of America, LDA), organisations with missions such as raising awareness and fighting for the full recognition and rights of people with learning disabilities.
As our knowledge of learning disabilities improved over time, public perception and social stigmas surrounding the topic started to be challenged. Awareness was raised so that the general public would understand what learning disabilities, how they can spot telltale signs of these disabilities in their own children, and what resources they can utilize to help deal with it.
To protect the rights of people with learning disabilities and to ensure they are not discriminated against or treated unfairly, and to make sure that they are given access to the best quality of education, resources, and help, multiple laws were passed in the US by Congress, with the rest of the world following suit.
Even though the plight of people who are suffering through learning disabilities is well documented, there are still stigmas and misinformation attached to this topic that we need to strive to fight. We have come a long way from the time when kids with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) were only considered to be “little rascals” who needed to be disciplined and beaten, but we still have a long way to go.

Thesis statement:

Some students overcame the issue by switching to a special dedicated learning disability schools. Unfortunately, due to lack of awareness or fear of social stigmas or many more issues, some people stay in conventional schools where they struggle learning, communicating, forming relationships, and getting good marks. This causes a feeling of isolation along with getting ostracized from various social groups, and can also result in bullying. Most parents underestimate this topic or do not have enough information about what learning disabilities are and the disastrous result from not switching schools. This research will be going into an in depth analysis of the affects of learning disabilities on students, the adverse effects and consequences that students and people with learning disabilities face in the outside world, and will analyze and evaluate the different ways for people to overcome their learning disabilities.

Fall semester 2018/2019
COMM 1312: Writing and Research
Instructor: Dr. Carmen Winkel
Section: 202
Name: Marah Hassan AlRashed
ID: 201301806
Topic: Fracking in USA
Assignment 6: Final Paper (10 points)
1
FRACKING IN USA
Introduction
Hook
United States is the world’s largest natural gas producer. With the increasing demand for energy sources, the United States resorted to a solution which is hydraulic fracturing or fracking (Chen, Al-Wadei, Kennedy, &Terry, 2015). Within the last decade, fracking has become one of the most controversial topics in America, there are major concerns about the safety and morality of using this source for energy production.
Subject/Problem
Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a technique involves drilling vertically from surface and then horizontally through the deep underground to extract the shale gas trapped inside. A fracking fluid is pumped to release the natural gas. The pressure fluid usually consists of water, sand, and chemicals. As soon as the fluid is injected, the pressure from the fluid creates fracturs which eventually causes the natural gas to flow smoothly and get extracted. When all the gas is exhausted, the well is sealed with the pressure fluid (Phillips, 2012). Fracking has been used excessively in the United States specially in the past 10 years and has powered the country’s economy. However, this technology can be dangerous, any leak or breakage in the drilling hole can lead to devastating consequences. Many documented cases of water contamination and release of greenhouse gasses in the United States have proved that fracking can be dangerous for the environment and human health (EPA, 2016).
Background Information
Hydraulic fracturing started back in the 1860s in America when Col. Edward A.L. Robert received a patent for his invention “the exploding torpedo”, which is an explosive device that fracture rocks deep underground to stimulate oil flow. Fracking had a slow development in the beginning due to the lack of technology, until 1949 when Halliburton Company successfully
2
FRACKING IN USA
performed the first commercial fracking method. After 1949 oil and gas industry started to develop and apply fracking. Over the years, technological progress enhanced the fracking method. In the 1980s modern shale boom began when an American businessman named George P. Mitchel changed oil and gas industry. He came up with a technique that combines hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling. His innovation improved fracking and made it more efficient making it the main method of oil and gas extraction used all over the United States today. (American oil & gas historical society, 2018)
Thesis Statement
Some support fracking and claim that this method is environmentally friendly, reliable, and cost effective. On the other hand, many oppose it because of the potential problems associated with it. The immense use of fracking has proved to be beneficial; it enhanced the economy of the United States and opened many job opportunities (Maniloff & Mastromonaco, 2017). Nonetheless, this method of extracting natural gas contributes to many environment and health risks. This research covers the following: the benefits fracking provides, potential earthquake risks, water contamination, and health risks.
3
FRACKING IN USA
Body 1
Benefits of fracking
Hydraulic fracturing changed oil and gas industry in the US. It has provided the country with multiple benefits and one these benefits is securing jobs. Hydraulic fracturing secures 1.7 million jobs in the US, and the number is expected to rise to 3 million by 2020. Though some states in the U.S. banned fracking, they still benefit from it. For example, New York city has 44,000 jobs and Illinois state has 39,000 jobs from the unconventional gas industry (Nunez, 2015). it also provides wide variety of employments and well-paid jobs for people in different educational levels which improves the standard living conditions (API, 2017).
Additionally, fracking has a positive impact on the economy in the United States. Several studies are conducted to show how fracking changed the economy in different states. For instance, Texas state is expected to gain $89 billion by 2022. The projection in other states such as Ohio, California, and West Virginia demonstrate positive values as well. The estimated numbers for the annual benefit of fracking for these studies are different due to the difference in regional cover. However, this is not always the case. For example, in 2011 a study on the impact of fracking on the economy in Pennsylvania was estimated to be $14.5 billion. On the other hand, another study estimated the number to be $3 billion annually. Even though, $3 billion is far less than $14.5 billion, it can make an enormous impact by providing approximately 23,000 jobs which means it will lower the unemployment rate to almost half with the fracking jobs it provides (Rousu, Ramsaran, & Furlano, 2015, p. 216).
Moreover, this method has altered America’s energy system by lowering energy prices and securing energy (Greenstone, 2018). Fracking boom increased natural gas production by 25% between 2007 and 2013, as a result, the cost of natural gas dropped by 40%. Between 2005 and 2014 electricity produced from coal decreased by 13% and the energy produced from natural gas increased by 7% . A study conducted by Ames et al. (2012) found that the reduction
4
FRACKING IN USA
in gas prices saves a massive amount of money annually. Lower gas prices are estimated to save $100 billion each year because of fracking which proves that this technology is better alternative to produce energy (Rousu, Ramsaran, & Furlano, 2015, p. 219).
Furthermore, global warming is one of the major concerns that has been associated with the release of carbon dioxide from power plants and coal. The U.S. environmental protection agency issued new standard regulations and delivered it to the U.S. government Climate Action Plan (CAP) in order to reduce the carbon emission from coal and power plants. Subsequently, The U.S. government climate Action Plan demanded the usage of methods that use cleaner energy such as natural gas by hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a better replacement for coal because it reduces the carbon footprint. Even though extracting natural gas releases carbon dioxide, compared to coal it emits far less carbon per unit of energy. In fact, natural gas produces seven times less carbon dioxide than coal (Macy, Kruse, & Stuart, 2014, p. 20).
Body 2
Environmental impacts
One of the concerning issues relating to fracking is earthquakes. Although there has not been evidence that directly links fracking to earthquakes. There are two phases of fracking that can potentially trigger earthquakes: when fracking fluid is injected and after the completion of fracking where the waste fluid is injected deep underground (Meegoda, Rudy, Zou, & Agbakpe, 2017). Hydraulic fracturing fluid creates small fractures causing small earthquakes that are only detected when using special instruments. There are documented cases where fracking played a role in stimulating earthquake in the U.S., for example, in July 2010 scientists noticed seismic activity after injecting wastewater in Arkansas, which led to earthquakes. In February 2011 an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.7 hit Arkansas. Afterwards Oil and Gas
5
FRACKING IN USA
Commission stopped wastewater injection, as a result, the occurrence of earthquakes decreased (Witman, 2018).
Another environmental issue related to fracking is air pollution. During fracking process completion, the wastewater is injected back into the underground, in this stage a flowback can escape and in which volatile organic compounds (VOC) and methane are released into the atmosphere (Jackson et al., 2014). Unprocessed natural gas is estimated to comprise 78.3% of methane gas, 17.8% nonmethane hydrocarbon, 1.8% nitrogen, 1.5% carbon dioxide, and 0.5% hydrogen sulphide. A study done to sample air near fracking sites showed a significant amount of chemicals such as methane, ethane, and other alkanes effecting air quality. Methane is one of the main greenhouse gasses that causes climate change. The study states that further research should focus on nonmethane hydrocarbons from hydraulic fracturing because of their indirect negative impacts on the environment (Colborn, Schultz, Herrick, & Kwiatkowski, 2013, p. 3, 9).
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, methane gas emissions can happen naturally. Nonetheless, over 60% of the gas emissions happen because of human activities, such as fracking. Methane is one of the main components of the natural gas and greenhouse gasses that contributes to global warming. Due to the complexity of fracking process any imperfection or loosening in pipes leads to methane gas release into the atmosphere. Fracking technology is less damaging than coal because it emits 53% less carbon dioxide. Nonetheless, methane gas traps far more heat than carbon dioxide because when it is released in the atmosphere it converts certain oxidants such as Hydroxyl which converts Sulphur dioxide to sulphate causing warmer climate. The effects of methane gas emissions on the climate is worse than carbon dioxide emissions (Meegoda, Rudy, Zou, & Agbakpe, 2017). Researchers at Harvard University made observations and collected data on methane gas
6
FRACKING IN USA
emissions in the United States. The published paper found that the U.S. is responsible for 30% to 60% of methane gas emission in the entire planet (Mckibben, 2016).
In addition to earthquakes and air pollution, hydraulic fracturing is a source of water pollution because of the poor well integrity. Fracking requires a massive amount of water, it is estimated to use up to 3950 truck trips in the early stages of hydraulic fracturing, which increases the risk of spill accidents in lakes, rivers and other water bodies. Data collected in Pennsylvania, revealed that failure in hydraulic fracturing wells is six times higher to occur than in conventional wells. Moreover, a study conducted in Marcellus and Barnett found leakage from wells that contributed to water contamination. Although, studies show no indication of chemicals from Hydraulic fracturing, high levels of chloride were found in surface water near fracking sites in Southwestern and Northeast of Pennsylvania which indicates surface water contamination from fracking (Mrdjen, & Lee, 2015, p. 368). Fracking also affects the availability of water, after examining Texas state the U.S. EPA found that fracking has caused a substantial reduce in water resources availability in 17 counties, and that is due to the high volume of water used in the process (Avery, Martin, & Brown, 2018).
There are raised public concerns on accidental spills. Several incidents in the U.S. shows the danger of this process on water bodies. In 2015 a leakage in one of the fracking pipelines released over 40,000 gallons of crude oil into the river in Montana contaminating the water, nearby towns were advised not to consume or use water. Another similar incident happened in North Dakota the same year where 3 million gallons of brine from fracking leaked into creeks close to it. A study done by Kassotis et al. (2013) investigated areas that use fracking heavily, found that each area that has 43 to 136 fracking well within a mile had experienced water contamination. (Mrdjen, & Lee, 2015, pp. 373-374)
7
FRACKING IN USA
Body 3
Impact on human health
There are multiple health issues associated with fracking. One such issue is the increase risk of cancer. Large amounts of carcinogenic hydrocarbons such as xylene, benzene and naturally occurring radioactive materials are emitted into the air in the fracking process which rises the risks of cancer. Employees are at a high risk of being exposed to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) associated with fracking fluid. Moreover, NORM’s compounds can enter water supplies from accidental discharge, spills, or failure in well structure, thus posing threat to public safety because drinking contaminated water or inhaling NORM’s such as radium isotopes can cause alteration in the DNA and cancer. A study was conducted to examine 163 air samples from different distances in four different well pads. The study found that living within half a mile from fracking site increases the risk of cancer because of the emitted hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. Any contact with fracking fluid leads to dangerous health outcome (Mrdjen, & Lee, 2015, pp. 374-375).
In addition, hydraulic fracturing has negative health impact on infants. Infants born three kilometres within fracking sites have poor health. In Pennsylvania a data was collected over 9 years on 1.1 million infants born to mothers who live close to active wells to study the health impacts of fracking. The results show that babies born within one kilometre or less from a well pad are 25% more likely to have low birth weight with less than 5.5 pounds. The study also provides evidence showing that living between one and three kilometres increases the low birth weight. The study concludes that living in further distances show no impact on infant’s health. Although the study demonstrates the link between fracking and health, it doesn’t specify which aspect of fracking causes poor health. There are few possible explanations for this problem such as air pollution from traffic trucks (Greenstone, 2018).
8
FRACKING IN USA
Furthermore, a study conducted by John Hopkins Bloomberg School demonstrate the effect of gas wells on pregnant women. The study investigated records of 9,384 mothers who gave birth between 2009 and 2013 in north and central Pennsylvania in areas close to active fracking wells. Results of the study showed that living close to fracking sites increases the risk of giving birth to preterm babies by 40%. The U.S. Centres for Diseases Control and Prevention claims that preterm births cost the health system over $26 billion annually. Even though, no direct link has been proven, each phase of fracking poses hazards to the environment which increases the risks on human health (JH Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2015).
Another concerning health implication is respiratory diseases, fracking affects the air quality which influences human health. The increased production of natural gas in the U.S. has been associated with frequency of respiratory illnesses such as asthma. Moreover, in Pennsylvania data collected from electronic medical records of 400,000 patients found high percentage of patients with asthma as well as the possibility for patients with asthma to develop oral corticosteroid. Employees at fracking wells are also at risk of having lung diseases due to their exposure to airborne silica from sand which affects the immune system and leads to lung diseases. (Wilke & Freeman, 2017)
Besides respiratory diseases, fracking contributes to neurological diseases due to the exposure to chemicals and heavy metals. In hydraulic fracturing process heavy metals and acids are added to the fracking mixture and injected to help the natural gas flow smoothly. A substantial amount of fracking fluid flow back carrying toxic chemicals that contaminate water resources and cause air pollution leading to severe brain damage. Additionally, heavy metals are neurotoxic which means they affect the nervous system. For instance, manganese increases the risk of Parkinson disease because it affects a part of the brain called the basal ganglia that plays an important role in memory and balancing movement. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a report outlining the causes of the fracking flowback such as spills
9
FRACKING IN USA
and poor well integrity. The report suggested minimizing use of water in fracking in areas with scarce water supply (Wilke & Freeman, 2017). Between 2005 and 2009, 14 oil and gas corporations added more than 780 million gallons of chemicals in the fracking fluid, some chemicals are not harmful to human health. However, a great percentage of these chemical are not well examined and poses danger to human health (Chen, Al-Wadei, Kennedy, &Terry, 2015).
10
FRACKING IN USA
Conclusion
While fracking dates back to the 1860s, only in the last few decades did the heavy utilization of this method begin. Ever since fracking boom started, the U.S. changed drastically due to the benefits this technology offers. Fracking provided the U.S. with the following benefits, it secured jobs, created independent economy and energy source, it also lowered the carbon emissions. Fracking revived the economy by obtaining a profit mounting to billions of dollars annually, not only did it enhance the economy, it also secured jobs which improved citizens standard living situation. Furthermore, the massive usage of this method decreased energy prices. Fracking’s positives in the U.S. are undeniable, yet the long-term negative impacts are rising public concerns on the true cost of this technology. Fracking poses several hazards to the environment, in particular: the leakage of methane gas, the stimulation of earthquakes, climate change and contamination of water sources. Moreover, there are four major health concerns related to fracking which are: the increasing risk of cancer, preterm births, respiratory diseases, and neurological diseases. As mentioned, these issues are alarming considering their effects on the environment and human health. Hydraulic fracturing problems are not easy to solve, especially in the US because of the country’s demanding energy consumption and the heavy reliance on it. However, some implementations shall be applied in order to avoid the adverse effects. The following are recommendations that could offset effectively the negative outcomes: more researches should be devoted to the problem of fracking by engineers in different field such as chemical, civil and electrical engineering, media should cover the fracking problem from different aspects to alert the public, also, regulatory agencies should apply regulations on oil and gas industry to diminish the health implications. The United States will continue using this technology because it is the key for the country’s independence. However, natural gas is a non-renewable source of energy which means in near future the country will ought to seek a more efficient method of extracting natural gas.
11
FRACKING IN USA
Reference: American oil & gas historical society. (2018, August 24). Shooters – A “Fracking” History. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/ American Petroleum Institute. (2015). Oil and Natural Gas Industry Employment. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Economic-Benefits/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Industry-Employment.pdf
Avery, C., Martin, B., & Brown, D. (2018). An examination of insurance coverage for hydraulic fracking operations. International Journal of & Public Administration, 15(1). Benham, B., & JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2015, October 08). Study: Fracking Industry Wells Associated With Premature Birth. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/study-fracking-industry-wells-associated-with-premature-birth.html
Chen, J., Al-Wadei, M., Kennedy, R., & Terry, P. (2015). Hydraulic Fracturing: Paving the Way for a Sustainable Future? Wastewater and Shale Formation Development,235-257. doi:10.1201/b18648-16
Colborn, T., Schultz, K., Herrick, L., & Kwiatkowski, C. (2013). An Exploratory Study of Air Quality Near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal,20(1), 86-105. doi:10.1080/10807039.2012.749447
EPA. (2018, January 26). The Process of Unconventional Natural Gas Production. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/uog/process-unconventional-natural-gas-production Greenstone, M. (2018, February 20). Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits — The Trick Is Balancing Them. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/02/20/fracking-has-its-costs-and-benefits-the-trick-is-balancing-them/ Macy, T. R., Kruse, N. A., & Stuart, B. J. (2014). Carbon Footprint Analysis of Source Water for Hydraulic Fracturing: A Case Study of Mine Water Versus Freshwater. Mine Water and the Environment,34(1), 20-30. doi:10.1007/s10230-014-0291-7 Maniloff, P., & Mastromonaco, R. (2017). The local employment impacts of fracking: A national study. Resource and Energy Economics,49, 62-85. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.04.005
McKibben, B. (2016, April 14). Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/ Meegoda, J. N., Rudy, S., Zou, Z., & Agbakpe, M. (2017). Can Fracking Be Environmentally Acceptable? Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste,21(2), 04016013. doi:10.1061/(asce)hz.2153-5515.0000330
12
FRACKING IN USA
Mrdjen, I., & Lee, J., (2015). High volume hydraulic fracturing operations: potential impacts on surface water and human health. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 26(4), 361-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2015.1111314 Nunez, C. (2015, September 02). How Has Fracking Changed Our Future? Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/big-energy-question/how-has-fracking-changed-our-future/ Rousu, M. C., Ramsaran, D., & Furlano, D. (2015). Guidelines for Conducting Economic Impact Studies on Fracking. International Advances in Economic Research,21(2), 213-225. doi:10.1007/s11294-015-9526-z
Wilke, R. A., & Freeman, J. W. (2017). Potential Health Implications Related to Fracking. Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(17), 1645–1646. https://doi.org.extoljp.kfupm.edu.sa/10.1001/jama.2017.14239 Witman, S. (2018). More Earthquakes May Be the Result of Fracking Than We Thought. Eos,99. doi:10.1029/2018eo091727