Hook Research Final Draft: Gentically Modified Crops:The Future Of Food

Imagine biting into a nice big piece of corn on the cob. While it may taste good and look normal, there is much more to this piece of food than meets the eye. This particular corncob has been modified genetically to resist pesticides. Furthermore, the adverse effects of these modifications have not been examined for any long-term adverse health effects. There is also not enough concrete evidence that shows the corn being consumed will have no harm on the environment it is grown in. Genetically modified crops are becoming an increasingly popular way to grow food and are already being sold to consumers (Han and Harrison 1). Genetically modified crops are made by the modification of genes in the plant in order to give the plant new more desirable attributes. With increased popularity among farmers and corporations, the implications of genetically modifying food should be examined further and more tenaciously, especially if genetically modified crops become the preferred choice of product for farmers. Although genetically modified crops may have their benefits, they are still questionable because there are potential health risks, potential environmental risks, and ethical issues that must be addressed.

One of the most important aspects to consider concerning genetically modified crops is the possibility of negative health effects in humans that consume them. While studies have been conducted on the short term potential health risks of genetically modified crops, the possible long term effects of eating these types of foods have not yet been determined (Schmidt 6). It is necessary to do further research into the possibility of long term health effects before genetically modified food products become more widely consumed. In an article by Tom Horlick-Jones, John Walls, and Jenny Kitzinger, the health risks of genetically modified foods are compared to the way people viewed the health risks of smoking cigarettes before scientists found out that cigarette smoking was linked to the development of lung and heart disease, including cancer (13). It is never good to find out that something that is being consumed on a mass scale has adverse health effects after it has already been consumed extensively. What is more disturbing is that these products are already being sold and consumed without consumer knowledge (Han and Harrison 1).

Another health related problem is that genetically modified crops may actually mutate the nutritional structure of the crops themselves and could decrease or change the nutritional value to humans (Cook 133). Also, there is the risk that genes that cause human allergies in one plant may be inserted into another plant, unbeknownst to the consumer and this could end in a dangerous allergic reaction (McLean). Many people are affected by food allergies and in some cases these reactions can be fatal.

The potential health risks of genetically modified crops should be further examined before these products are made more available for mass consumption then they already are. An alternative to eating genetically modified crops includes eating traditionally grown crops that are not genetically modified like the crops that existed on the market before genetically modified crops were introduced. Another option includes eating organically grown crops to avoid the potential health risks of genetically modified crops. A seemingly better alternative for those who like the benefits of genetically modified crops, but do not necessarily trust crops that are genetically modified, is what is known as nuclear food. Nuclear food involves exposing plants to levels of radiation that cause natural mutations which can then be bred into plants without the need for any type of genetic modification (Williams 2). By using radiation to mutate plants, there is nothing changed within the plants genetics that could not occur naturally (Williams 3).

Not only is it unclear how genetically modified crops will affect the health of humans, environmental risks are also present. Dr. Harry Kuiper sums up the environmental concerns by stating that “There are a number of issues to consider, including development of resistance in insects against certain crop pesticides, transformation of crops into weeds, harmful effects on non-target organisms, gene flow, and altered uses of agrochemicals on transgenic crops” (1). Even Gregory Pence, who wrote a book supporting the use of genetically modified crops, agrees that the environmental effects are possibly the biggest concern and that the arguments about adverse environmental effects “carry the most weight” (189). A common practice is to create herbicide resistant crops through genetic modification. One issue of concern is the possibility of herbicide resistant modified genes in a plant crossing into a weed, making the weed resistant to the herbicide as well (McLean). Having a species of herbicide resistant weeds would obviously be a problem for farmers trying to grow these crops and would be an even bigger problem if these weeds were to spread to surrounding areas, choking out the natural plant life while resisting herbicides.

Another one of the practices used in genetically modifying food involves modifying crops with a bacteria gene making the plant more readily resistant to pests (National Research Council 145) This practice has led to leaf stripping in some of the crops (National Research council 146). Also, the effects of this type of modification on human health have not been closely examined (Wesseler 90). Another mutation related environmental risk factor includes the mutation of pests near the genetically modified crops, as well as indirect effects on insects and wildlife (Cerdeira et Al. 5). With the potential of mutation in non-target organisms, scientists need to be sure that mutations will be little to none, or at least not problematic as a result of growing genetically modified crops.

One of the other concerns brought up by the use of genetically modified crops is the effect that broad-spectrum herbicides that are used on plants that are modified to resist this specific type of herbicide may have on the environment. Broad-spectrum herbicides are single herbicides that can be used on genetically modified crops that are modified to resist them as opposed to the traditional method of using several types of herbicide on non-genetically modified crops (Cook 136). The problem with using these broad-spectrum herbicides is the possible effect that they would have on non-target organisms, such as birds and other plants that are sprayed or around the chemicals that are sprayed on the genetically modified crops themselves (Cook 146). Scientists need to take a closer look at how these herbicides may affect surrounding organisms in the long run to ensure that negative long term and short-term ecological effects do not take place. One good alternative to genetically modifying crops would be to put more money into developing safer more effective pesticides and herbicides. With more research funding put towards creating safer herbicides and pesticides, a solution could be found for reducing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides without the need for genetically modifying crops that resist these elements.

The new era of biotechnology has raised new and important debate over the ethics of man manipulating the genes of living organisms including plants used for crops. One of the issues is that these products are being sold without being labeled in the United States and other countries (“Genetically Modified Food and Organisms”). Consumers should at least be given a choice of what kind of food product they are buying by the proper labeling of products as genetically modified (Han and Harrison 4). This is already being done so that consumers can distinguish between organic and regularly grown crops.

The idea of man redesigning plant and animal DNA has been subject to debate since it first came about. Religious groups especially have had problems with the idea of scientists “playing God” with crops and food, as well as the moral implications of the scientist performing these modifications (PBS). While religious groups are making a moral argument based on their beliefs, they still raise an interesting point. Even groups outside of the religious viewpoint have had objections to tampering with the natural gene structure of crops (“Genetically Modified Food and Organisms”). When scientists begin modifying nature, important ethical questions need to be addressed before science goes too far and something negative is done that cannot be undone.

Another ethical problem is the way large companies who own the rights to genetically modified crops would treat farmers that operate on a much smaller scale (McLean) These businesses could potentially cut out these farmers by selling to larger agro-businesses that would generate higher sales for the companies in question. It is important to allow small-scale farmers to have access to these technologies if these technologies become the norm, and not to allow large companies to take a firm hold on the agricultural market. Competition is the backbone of a capitalist economy, and by limiting competition the consumer loses. Genetically modified foods certainly raise new ethical questions that should be addressed if genetically modified crops are going to become a staple in the agriculture market.

Food is a necessity for human life. Genetically modified food is really just beginning to become a realistic option as the dominant food source choice for farmers and consumers. Based on current trends, it is most likely a reality that genetically modified food will eventually become a more prevalent source of food and a more desirable crop for farmers. Researchers need to be sure that genetically modified crops will not have any long term health effects on people, especially if genetically modified crops step up from being a minority food source to a majority food sources. Research should also be continued to ensure that irreversible environmental effects wouldn’t become a problem. The ethical implications of growing genetically modified crops must also be closely examined and measures must be taken to ensure that food will remain available for all people in the world and not be negatively impacted through the science of genetic modification. Genetically modified foods must be examined closer before they take a place as a reasonable source of food.

Works Cited:
Cerdeira, A.L., et al. "Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil [electronic resource]." Journal of environmental science and health. Part B: Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes 42, (June 2007): 539-549. Agricola. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Kuiper, Harry. "Biotechnology, the Environment, and Sustainability." Nutrition Reviews 61.6 (15 June 2003): s106. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Schmidt, Charles W. "Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty." Environmental Health Perspectives 113.8 (Aug. 2005): A526-A533. Health Source - Consumer Edition. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Williams, Stephen. "Rather than GM, here comes nuclear food." New African (Jan. 2009): 20-22. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 30 Apr. 2009 .

Han, Jae-Hwan, and R. Wes Harrison.. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods [electronic resource]." Review of agricultural economics 29, (Dec. 2007): 700-719. Agricola. EBSCO. Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 30 Apr. 2009 .

Horlick-Jones, Tom, John Walls, and Jenny Kitzinger. "Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food." Health, Risk & Society 9.1 (Mar. 2007): 83-103. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries. 30 Apr. 2009 .

"Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms." Human Genome Project Information. 25
Apr. 2009 gmfood.shtml>.

McLean, Margaret R. "The Future of Food: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues
in Genetically Modified Foods." Santa Clara University. Santa Clara
University. 24 Apr. 2009 focusareas/medical/conference/presentations/genetically-modified-foods.html>.

National Research Council. Envrironmental Effects of Transgenic Plants.
Washington, D.C.: National Acadamy , 2002.

Pence, Gregory E. Designer Food. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.

Wesseler, Justes ed. H.H. Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops.
Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.

Cook, Guy. Genetically Modified Language. New York: Routledge, 2005.

PBS. "Genetically Modified Foods." PBS.com. 25 Apr. 2009 wnet/religionandethics/week434/cover.html>.

Essay 3: Getting The Trash Out

The state of Alaska is well known for its majestic beauty. The city of Fairbanks is the largest city in Alaska's interior and is one of the best examples of Alaska's natural beauty. The summers are amazing and the winters although cold and dark have their own beauty. Springtime on the other hand is a mess of melting snow and mud. Another unfortunate side effect of spring in Fairbanks is that all of the litter that was once hidden by snow during the winter begins to appear as the snow melts. Springtime litter is a major problem in Fairbanks and takes away from the natural beauty of the city. Some cleanup efforts do exist, but litter is still strewn about the city after these clean up efforts take effect. Winter litter can be noticed weeks into summer. Another problem with clean up efforts done by the city is that they do not focus on individual neighborhoods in Fairbanks but mainly the main areas of the city and alongside the freeways. Although springtime cleaning efforts in Fairbanks are common, neighborhoods in the community should organize neighborhood cleaning groups after the snow melts because litter is unsightly, these groups would benefit the community as a whole, and it is an easy way to perform community service.

It is a fact that whenever the snow melts in Fairbanks the winter litter appears. No one wants to visit a city that is riddled with litter. Litter does nothing to increase the natural beauty of Fairbanks. The worst part about all of the litter is when it finally starts warming up enough to want to go outside, the amount of visible litter takes away from what should a beautiful and welcome experience after the long dark winter. For the most part people enjoy going outside and walking in their neighborhoods or around town when it begins to get warm outside. People also want to enjoy the beauty of springtime and the beginning of summer when Fairbanks warms up. By getting in contact with a few neighbors, the amount of litter in local neighborhoods could be reduced dramatically by the efforts of a few people in one afternoon. Because of their close proximity, it would be easy to create flyers about a cleanup effort for the neighborhood and post them around the area as well as slipping them into mailboxes and doorways. By picking a neutral time and meeting place, a lot could be accomplished by a few volunteers and one weekend afternoon. Through these cleanup efforts, the beauty of late spring and early summer as well as the overall aesthetic of Fairbanks would be greatly increased.

Fairbanks has a strong sense of community that can be seen year round. People who live here organize events that benefit the community as a whole. Many things can be done to benefit the community, and cleaning it up is one that is fairly simple to organize and easy to do. Organizing clean up groups not only benefit the individual neighborhoods that are being cleaned, but if the majority of neighborhoods in Fairbanks adopted this practice it would serve the community greatly as a whole. By beautifying the community and cleaning all the unsightly trash, the community benefits. The organization of neighborhood cleanup groups not only benefit the community as a whole but they would be a great way to clean up and benefit the local neighborhoods.

A lot of people talk about performing community service, but never participate for several reasons. Some say they simply don't have enough time. Others say that the opportunity never arises. By organizing or participating in a neighborhood clean effort is that it would take minimal take organization, planning, time , or even very much effort. It would also be an easy once a year way to commit some time to performing an act a community service. With a few actions and a little bit of organization, a neighborhood could be in tip top shape after one or two afternoons or days of cleaning. Another benefit is any little bit helps, whether it is just a few friends, or if the whole neighborhood pitches in, the community service would be beneficial. By organizing a neighborhood cleanup effort, people can perform the community service they always wanted to with very little effort. All it takes is a few people and a little initiative.

Litter is a problem all over the United States. From Alaska all the way down to Florida, neighborhood clean up efforts would be a simple way to benefit the community. While the problem of littering is very difficult to eradicate, the act of picking litter up and putting it out of sight is quite easy and depending on the volume, not incredibly time consuming.. Fairbanks' problem with litter is that it is covered by snow in the winter and the build up makes an unsightly mess during the spring and early months of summer. By organizing neighborhood cleanup efforts, this unsightly mess can be taken care of. Neighborhood clean up groups help to beautify the city. Neighborhood clean up efforts benefit the community as a whole. Neighborhood cleanup groups would also provide an easy way for people to perform community service. While it is as of now impossible to eliminate the problem of littering, neighborhood clean up groups would be a good way of getting rid of the litter.

Research Project Rough Draft 2:Futuristic Food

Picture biting into a nice big piece of corn on the cob. While it may taste good, there is much more to this piece of food then meets the eye. This particular corn cob has been modified genetically to resist pesticides. Furthermore, the adverse effects of these modifications have not been examined for any long term adverse effects. There is not enough concrete evidence that shows the corn being consumed will have no harm on the environment it is grown in either. Genetically modified crops are becoming an increasingly popular way to grow food and are already being sold to consumers. By modifying the DNA of certain crops, the crops are granted new attributes such as the ability to resist pesticides or to grow bigger and faster. With increased popularity among farmers and corporations, the implications of genetically modifying food should be examined further and more tenaciously, especially if genetically modified crops become the preferred choice of product for farmers. Although genetically modified crops have their upside, they are still questionable because there are potential health risks, potential environmental risks, and potential ethical risks.

When scientists change the DNA of a food product they are not only changing the plant's DNA, but they are also changing what is going into the consumers body. While studies have been done on the short term potential health risks of genetically modified crops, the possible long term effects of eating these types of foods has not been determined. “Consumers are eating these foods without any apparent health effects, although some stakeholders caution that greater postmarket surveilence is needed to confirm this” (Schmidt). The Food and Drug administration is required to do extensive testing to make sure that foods are safe for consumption but so far there is not substantial evidence that there is no possibility for adverse health effects resulting from the consumption of genetically modified crops. What is more disturbing is that these products are already being sold and consumed without consumer knowledge. “In 2002, The Royal Society itself concluded that GM technology might 'lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional nature of food'” (Cook 133). Consumers should at least have a choice of what kind of food product they are buying like that which is done between organic and regurlarly grown crops This distinction should be made obvious to the consumer. Other potential health risks include the possibility that by eating genetically modified crops, the modifications could affect our own cells in unpredictable ways.The potential health risks of genetically modified crops should be examined before these products are consumed. Alternatives to eating genetically modified crops include eating regualr old fashioned crops. Other options include the eating of all organic crops to avoid these potential health risks.

Not only is it unclear how genetically modified crops will affect the health of people, enrivonmental risks are also present. “There are a number of issues to consider, including development of resistance in insects against certain crop pesticides, transformation of crops into weeds, harmful effects on non-target organisms, gene flow, and altered uses of agrochemicals on transgenic crops” (Kupier). Proponents of genetically modified food crops state that one of the advantages of using them is that they reduce the use of pesticides. In reality, the reduction of pesticide use is negligable and may actually result in more pesticide getting on the pesticide resistant crops. Other envriornmental risk factors include the mutation of pests and weeds around the genetically modified crops. “indirect effects of glyphosphate in GRS could have effects on insects and wildlife” (Cerdeira et Al.). The problems that result from each are the following. Weeds may become cross polinized with the modified crops and develop a resistance to the pesticides themselves. The result of this could have disastorous envrionmental effects. With the mutation these superweeds could choke out not only genetically modified crops, but could also affect non genetically modified crops in the area as well. The effect of this would result in the need for stronger possibly more dangerous pesticides to kill off the new super weeds. Another possible adverse affect of genetically modified crops is the mutation of pests that eat the crops. Like the new superweeds, pests may evolve to not be affected by the genically modified crops gene manipulation that makes them naturally immune to pests. With this mutation, once again, an increase in strength or use of pesticides would be necessary to kill of the mutated pests. Unfortuneatly, geneetically modified crops may create more of the problems that they were desgined to prevent. Good alternatives to genetically modifying crops would be to put more money into developing safer more effective pedticides and herbacides. With modern technology chemical engineers may be able to invent pesticides and herbicides that have no impact on the environment at all while still efficiently doing their job.

The new era of bio-technology has raised new and important debate over the ethics of man manipulating the genes of natural plants. Genetically modified crops certainly fall into this debate. The idea of man redesigning plant and animal DNA has been subject to debate since it firs came about. The real ethical argument shouldn't be whether or not it is allright for scientists to modify crops and other food in a controlled environment, but the ethical implications of corporations owning the rights to the specifically modified crops or livestock. When a corporation successfully modifies a crop, they then have the right to the patent of the genetically modified crop in question. When a corporation controls a patent, they control how much, when, where, and who can grow their product. They also have the right to take these privlages away. The implications of privately owned mutations of food could be devastating to global food sources. If corporations eventually control the majority of the food sources, then they ultimately control who can eat. This could be devasting to the safety of humanity and the soverignty of nations that depend on agriculture for food sources. Even if genetically modified crops become commonplace, measures must be set to limit the amount of control that corporate entities have to ensure the safety of the global food supply.

Food is a necessity for human life. Genetically modified food is still really just beginning to become a realistic option as the dominant food source option. More likely then not, genetically modified food will become a more prevalant source of food. Researchers need to be sure that genetically modified crops will not have any long term health effects on people, especially if genetically modified crops step up from being a minority food source to a majority food sources. Research should also be continued to be sure that irreversable environmental effects won't become a problem. The ethical implications of genetically modified crops must be closely examined and measures must be taken to ensure that food will remain available for all people in the world and not controlled by a select few. Genetically modified foods must be examined closer before they take a place a reasonable source of food.





Works Cited:
Cerdeira, A.L., et al. "Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil [electronic resource]." Journal of environmental science and health. Part B: Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes 42, (June 2007): 539-549. Agricola. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Kuiper, Harry. "Biotechnology, the Environment, and Sustainability." Nutrition Reviews 61.6 (15 June 2003): s106. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Schmidt, Charles W. "Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty." Environmental Health Perspectives 113.8 (Aug. 2005): A526-A533. Health Source - Consumer Edition. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Cook, Guy. Genetically Modified Language. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Airport Security Disaster : Essay 2 Final

The events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 have led to great change in the way that American's view security. After the initial panic, drastic measure were put into place to provide better airport security. More checkpoints, random searches, and the need for identification at nearly every checkpoint and many other new rules made travel very annoying especially in regard to security. Now that several years have passed since September 11, security measures have been scaled back drastically, but still offer their annoyances. Although airport security is a necessity for safe travel, it causes unnecessary travel related problems because it limits what can be carried on a plane, it is often inefficient, and is unreliable.
It is obvious that certain items should not be carried onto an airplane such as guns, explosives, knives, dangerous chemicals, and other things that may potentially be dangerous to travelers. Unfortunately, other measures that are still in place seem to be unnecessary and limit greatly what cannot be carried on to an airplane. For example, it does not seem dangerous to allow people to carry their own water onto a plane yet people are still required to carry liquids in 4 ounce containers excluded a few exceptions, water not being one of them. The list of items that are allowed or prohibited to be carried on a plane is in constant flux and seems to be changing all of the time. The effect of this security measure makes it very difficult and annoying for passengers to figure out what they are allowed to take with them on the airplane and slows security lines down when passengers must remove certain items from their carry on and either have them checked with their luggage or have them thrown away. This can be very frustrating for travelers. Other interesting problems with limiting carry on items is the banning of certain items while other similar items are permitted, making what can be carried on even more confusing for travelers. For example, according the Transportation Security Administration's website, items such as knives, razors, box cutters, and other sharp objects are prohibited, but on the same list it clearly states “Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches” (TSA) are permissible. Metal scissors with pointed tips regardless of their size could easily be used as an offensive weapon in the right hands. If scissors are allowed are allowed, then why not allow knitting needles? The TSA ought to come with an easy to comprehend static set of rules that makes sense and allows passengers more freedom in what they can carry on while limiting items that are truly dangerous.
Some inefficiency is to be expected when dealing with any sort of business, but it should not be due to confusing rules and poorly or under trained security officials. For example, random checking is probably the most inefficient aspect of modern airport security. In no way should people be racially profiled or stereotyped, but pulling children, elderly, or even adults out of line randomly is probably the least efficient way to keep travelers secure. A middle-aged man traveling with his four children and wife is almost certainly not planning any sort of deadly action during a flight. People traveling one way with no luggage on the other hand might warrant more scrutiny. By pulling people aside for random security checks, the efficiency and movement of security lines drops drastically. Also, by making people take off jackets and shoes as well as hooded sweatshirts, the amount of time in line increases greatly. Also due to the ever changing rules of what can be carried on a plane, people have to pull out certain items and dig through their bags either by request of security officers or for fear of having certain items thrown away which also effects the efficiency of security at Airports. Once again, with better rules, people would have the ability to move through security lines more efficiently.
The worst part about airport security measures is that they do not actually achieve what they attempt to prevent. Independent studies have shown that although not all the time, the items that the security groups attempt to prevent from getting through do. These items include guns and knives. This is probably the most disturbing aspect of modern security protocol when flying. Many potentially dangerous items such as guns and sharp objects pass through security checks without being detected. According to an article by Mimi Hall “Guns and knives, along with box cutters like those used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, slipped past screeners in recent airport security tests by undercover agents”(Hall). If the screeners can't even keep guns out, reforms to the security systems must be made. Passengers are led to believe that with strict security measures, all is well, but in reality unreliable security screeners may be putting us into more danger by allowing dangerous items through checkpoints.
There will always be a need for airport security. People should be able to feel safe when they travel. That being said, security checkpoints need to be reformed. The TSA needs to come up with a practical list of what can and cannot be brought onto a plane to help with the confusion and limits of what you can or cannot carry on a plane. By doing so they would allow travel to be more comfortable and less confusing. Security checkpoints must become more efficient so that long waits in line or hassle by security agents can be avoided as much as possible. Finally, security checkpoints and screeners need to be more reliable in keeping items that are truly dangerous like knives and guns from getting past security and even better onto a plane. By solving these problems, going through security checkpoints at airports would be a lot more tolerable.



Works Cited
Mimi Hall. "Weapons still getting past airport screeners." USA Today (n.d.). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Univ of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 23 Mar. 2009 .

"TSA: Prohibited Items." Transportation Security Administration. 25 Mar. 2009
permitted-prohibited-items.shtm>.

Workshop for Ken's Paper

Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.

My favorite part about your paper is that it has a great local flavor to it. It also provides a good local perspective as it is obvious you enjoy fishing on the Kenai river. Your paper also does a good job of showing how important this issue is to you.

2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

I think that all of your paragraphs are good on content, I think it would be best to cut out some of the opinions and definately make sure to cite sources.

3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?

Your opinion is clear in your thesis statement.

4.What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?

People who believe that boat restrictions do not help control pollution on the Kenai River agree with this statement and people who do think boat restrictions work would disagree

5.Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?

Your paper does include an argumentative although because clause.

Content
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)

I would give this paper a seven on how interesting it is. It is a subject that I was not familiar with but I enjoy fishing so it is interesting to me.

7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).

Your ideas are there in what I think is one big second paragraph, but they could be organized a lot better. Maybe try splitting this paragraph into a second and third paragraph (this may just have been a formatting error because of the blog site) Also you use a lot of informal "I" and "you" language which should be removed.

8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.

The main objections people would make is that a lot of your claims appear to be opinions. Use more sources to defend your ideas. Also, many would argue that the environmental issues are important and so the regulations should remain in place.

9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
I would address these objections by supporting your theory that the regulations don't actually benefit the environment.

10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

The relationship between the thesis and the paragraphs could definately use more organizations. Try using my suggestion from number 7

Style
11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

Work on your transitions between the intro, body, and conclusions as they are a little jumpy.

12.Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?

The opening of the essay does capture the attention of the reader by using a good attention getting question about the Kenai river.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?

The concluding paragraph is confusing and is fused with the body of the paper. The conclusion should summarize your main points and your thesis.
Research

14.How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited; look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)

There are no clearly cited sources in your paper which need to be addressed

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

More sources would be helpful and they should be quoted

16.Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?

There are a LOT of personal opinion in your paper

17.Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)

There are sources that are not cited but it is hard to tell because of the formatting of the works cited portion of the paper.

18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).

More citations are definately necessary for your final draft

19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

There are not any direct quotes which should definately be addressed

Essay 3: Rough Draft

The state of Alaska is well known for its majestic beauty. The city of Fairbanks is the largest city in the heart of Alaska is one of the best examples of Alaska's beauty. The summer are amazing and the winters enchanting. Springtime on the other hand is a melty mess of snow and mud. Another unfortunate side effect of spring in Fairbanks is all of the litter that was once hidden by snow during the winter begins to appear. Springtime litter is a major problem in Fairbanks and takes away from the natural beauty of the city. Some cleanup efforts do exist, but litter is still strewn about the city after these clean up efforts take effect. Winter litter can be noticed weeks into summer. Another problem with clean up efforts done by the city is that they do not focus on individual neighborhoods but mainly to the main areas of the city and alongside the freeways. Although springtime cleaning efforts in Fairbanks are common, neighborhoods in the community should organize neighborhood cleaning groups after the snow melts because litter is unsightly, these groups would benefit the community as a whole, and it is an easy way to perform community service.

When snow melts, trash appears every year in Fairbanks. No one wants to visit a city that is riddled with litter. Litter does nothing to increase the natural beauty of Fairbanks. The worst part about al the litter is when it finally starts warming up enough to want to go outside, the amount of litter outside takes away from the joy that the warmth and sunlight bring. For the most part people enjoy going outside and walking in their neighborhoods when it begins to get warm outside. People also want to enjoy the beauty of springtime and the beginning of summer when Fairbanks warms up. By getting in contact with a few neighbors, the amount of littler in local neighborhoods could be reduced dramatically by the efforts of a few people and one afternoon. Because of their close proximity, it would be easy to create flyers about a cleanup effort for the neighborhood and post them around the area as well as slipping them into mailboxes and doorways. By picking a neutral time and mewing place, a lot could be accomplished by a few volunteers and one weekend afternoon.

Fairbanks has always had a strong sense of community. People who live here tend to organize events that benefit the community as a whole. Many things can be done to benefit the community, and cleaning it up is one that is fairly simple to organize and easy to do. Organizing clean up groups not only benefit the individual neighborhoods that are being cleaned, but if the majority of neighborhoods in Fairbanks adopted this practice it would serve the community greatly as a whole. By beautifying the community and cleaning all the unsightly trash, the community benefits.

A lot of people talk about performing community service, but never participate for several reasons. Some say they simply don't have enough time. Others say that the opportunity never arises. The best part about a neighborhood clean effort is it doesn't take much organization, planning, time , or even very much effort. With a few actions and a little bit of organization, a neighborhood could be in tip top shape after one or two afternoons or days of cleaning. Another benefit is any little bit helps, whether it is just you and a few friends, or if the whole neighborhood pitches in. Bu organizing a neighborhood cleanup effort, people can perform the community service they always wanted o with very little effort. All it takes is a few people and a little initiative.

Litter is a problem all over the country from Alaska all the way down to Florida. While the problem of littering is very difficult to eradicate, the act of picking litter up and putting it out of sight is quite simple. Fairbanks problem with litter is that it is cover by snow in the winter and it builds up leaving an unsightly mess during the spring and early months of summer. By organizing neighborhood cleanup efforts, this unsightly mess can be taken care of. Other benefits of neighborhood clean up groups is that they benefit the community as a whole. Neighborhood cleanup groups would also provide an easy way for people to perform community service. While it is impossible to pick up all pieces of litter, neighborhood clean up groups would be a simple and effective way to achieve the removal of unsightly litter, benefit the Fairbanks community, and allow individuals to perform community service in their very own neighborhood.