An Essay by Ayşe Yavuz

Do you think Ilısu Dam should be built on Hasankeyf?

NO DAM

Hasankeyf is an ancient city which is perched on rock. This place has spectacular monuments and great nature such as caves, valeys, etc. Nowadays, there is a project about Hasankeyf. This project is a dam, called Ilısu, which will be on the river Tigris. This dam will ruin everything in this ancient city. Therefore, as far as I am concerned the dam should not be built due to several reasons.

Everybody knows that if the dam is built, some problems will occur. For instance; cultural heritage which belongs to multiple civilizations will disappear. 3000-year old history will be destroyed. It is very bad for all people. People, especially the government should endeavor to protect this beautiful historical place. People ought to consider that they can transport the dam plans to wherever suitable, but they can not carry nature and the archeological heritage from there. The other significant point is settlement; people who support to construct the dam want inhabitants to change their lives. They say that local people will have to move from the region, because their habitats will be flooded by the dam’s water. I think, it is not a good idea and it is really difficult for people who have lived there for years; we know that migration means changing life areas, and getting used to all these are impossible for them, particularly for children. Their psychologies are affected very badly owing to this situation. On the other hand, dam supporters say that this dam will be built because of unemployment. We know that a dam can be used for about 50 years. They will destroy the history of 3000 years only for the benefit of 50 years and also, the problems about unemployment will not be entirely solved, because few people will be able to find job, but not all of them. In brief, there are several problems about building this dam.

All in all, Ilısu dam is not a solution and it must not be built owing to important points such as settlement, destruction of cultural heritage etc. Hasankefy and its wonderful nature should be protected. Some alternative solutions should be found by the government.

written by Ayşe YAVUZ, C 16

Discussion Subject of the Week 24th - 28th of March

The subject of this week is the difference of being parents of a disabled child from those who have non-disabled children.


“It was the silence that told me,” reports one young mother. “We were in the delivery room in the final stage. My husband was holding me and I was pushing and everyone was so excited because the baby was crowning. And then I pushed him out and suddenly everyone was quiet.” Then the nurses whisked the baby to the other side of the room and everyone was swinging into some kind of action and I was asking, What’s wrong? What’s wrong? And finally my husband came over to me with tears in his eyes and kissed me and said, “Honey, the baby looks wrong and they’re trying to figure it out but it’s going to be okay,” And it has been okay but it sure wasn’t what we had in mind.”

If you want to read the rest of this part, click: http://www.parentadvisor.net/babyneeds.htm

Parents or carers?
First and foremost parents regarded themselves as parents. Fundamentally, feelings of love and responsibility motivated parents to continue to care for their child.
"She was our baby. She was our first. To us, whether there was something wrong or not, she was still a baby. She still needed us, and so we just got on with it."
Equally important were the pleasures and joys their child had brought them. These differed little from those experienced with non-disabled children, though achievements and signs of progress were even more precious.
"As soon as you see her smile everything that you felt you were going to give up all just goes out of the window. As soon as she smiles you know she's happy.
As parents you've committed yourself to care for your children for as long as they need it really."
The study suggests, however, that as the child grows older, parents do feel they assume the dual role of parent and carer.
I see myself as a carer as well as a parent. I think Lisa goes beyond the role of just parent. I think basically that you're changing her bum for her at this age now and having to put nappies on her end, and it is past just being a parent.
Sources of stress
The most stressful aspect for many was the lack of respite from problems which are likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
"Nothing stops does it? You just carry on because they're there ... so you have to. There's nothing else to do."
However, for some parents, not having enough money, marital conflict, recent bereavement or simply having two or more very young children were greater sources of stress than the child's disability.

If you want to read the rest of this part, click:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/SC54.asp

Around 55% of families of disabled children live in poverty; they have been described as "the poorest of the poor." It is within these constrained financial circumstances that families have to meet costs associated with bringing up a disabled child, which are estimated to be three times those of bringing up a non-disabled child. Unlike in other families, paid work is not the potential solution. The child's care needs, multiple appointments with healthcare professionals, and lack of child care affect parents' ability to work. Mothers with disabled children are much less likely to have paid employment than other mothers. This means that many families are, to a greater or lesser extent, reliant on benefits. Indeed, state benefits are the sole source of income for 90% of lone parent families with a disabled child. Current disability benefits do not meet the additional outgoings associated with having a disabled child.
Parents with disabled children have higher levels of stress and lower levels of wellbeing than parents with non-disabled children. Factors influencing levels of stress include the child's sleep and behaviour problems, families' material resources, parents' employment situation, social support, unmet service needs, and parents' coping strategies. Some interventions have improved children's sleep and behaviour problems and parental stress. However, many parents report that they want but do not receive help in these areas.
Living in suitable housing and having appropriate equipment to assist with activities of daily living are also key factors promoting families' wellbeing. Yet most families report problems with their housing and unmet needs for equipment.
Disabled children and their families often lack suitable local leisure facilities and accessible transport, and they often face hostile attitudes of staff and members of the public. These factors prevent them from taking part in activities as a whole family.
Parents frequently report the need for a break from caring. Such a break can provide time for themselves and their partners, and time to spend with their other children. Services that provide short term breaks can reduce mothers' stress, but many families have problems obtaining appropriate services.

If you want to read the rest of this part, click:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7575/928

Test-tube revolution:
Having disabled babies will be 'sin', says scientist
by Lois Rogers Medical Correspondent
THE scientist who created Britain's first test-tube baby has said it will soon be a "sin" for parents to give birth to disabled children.
Bob Edwards, the world-renowned embryologist, said the increasing availability of pre-natal screening for genetic disease gave parents a moral responsibility not to give birth to disabled children.
Edwards said that he welcomed the dawn of an age in which every child would be wanted and genetically acceptable.
"Soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children."

If you want to read the rest of this part, click:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a377efb252a28.htm

Discussion Subject of the Week 17th - 21st of March

Please read and study, then answer the survey question of the week on the right.

Public transport vs. private cars

While your are reading the below post, please think about the similarities and differences between the public transport and a private car.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprise all transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. While the above terms are generally taken to include rail and bus services, wider definitions might include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that transports members of the general public. A further restriction that is sometimes applied is that transit should occur in continuously shared vehicles, which would exclude taxis that are not shared-ride taxis.

In many parts of the western world the private car currently dominates; however, in major western urban areas with good public transport systems and where the private car ownership and use is discouraged, and also in the developing world, where private car ownership is prohibitively expensive, then walking, (motor)cycling, and public transport offer well-used alternatives. Many modern cities even in the Eastern world, are investing in public transport initiatives to increase the attractiveness and usage of public transport.
Public transport can offer significant advantages in areas with higher population densities, due to its smaller physical and environmental footprint per rider and the problems associated with mass private car ownership and use (high parking charges and high levels of traffic congestion).
However, road-based public transport risks being considerably very slower than private vehicles if it gets held up in general traffic congestion and to compound this scheduled transport vehicles have to make frequent stops to board additional passengers and an individual trip may require one or more transfers.

In the Western world, public transport and car advocates have been debating which mode of transport is the best with considerable differences between Europe, Asia and the United States for both historical and cultural reasons.

Europe

European cities experienced their fastest periods of growth before cars were invented and/or widespread, so they are designed for walking, cycling and tram or bus usage and a tradition of public transport and light transport culture remains even today, even while living standards have escalated in Europe and other Western countries.
Following a period in the 1960's and 1970's during which attempts were made to accommodate the car, many countries and cities are now making sustained efforts to encourage people to use public transport. Train services are in good working order and popular in many countries in Europe with investment in high speed trains and night trains crossing many countries to compete with air travel.
United Kingdom bus usage has been rising nationally since about 1990 (although it has actually fallen by 30% in Scotland, 28% in Wales, and 22% in non-metropolitan areas in England).[2] In England, the number of bus journeys in 2006/07 was 12% less than it was in 1985/86, although London has seen bus journeys increase by 75% over the same period. Rail journeys increased by 53% between 1980 and 2006/007 in England, whilst London underground journeys increased by 86% over that period.
France has built an extensive TGV network, built light rail, reassigned road lanes from cars to light transport in city centres and car usage and its social status has decreased there.
Germany's AIRail Service has even replaced some airline routes.

United States
Most cities in the United States were built around the car, and in many places public transport is now almost non-existent, even in large cities, with only a few cities where public transport is in good condition, like New York City. Many public transport systems that existed prior to domination of the car were dismantled by the emergent car industry in a move came to be known as the Great American Streetcar Scandal; nevertheless, GM managed to "rip out" over 100 streetcar systems nationwide by 1950. In the 2000s, many US cities realized that widespread car usage caused serious problems, such as urban sprawl. In response to this, cities have begun to make their city centres more enticing, have canceled expressways projects and restored or improved public transport and commissioned new rail transit projects.

Asia
In Asia the population density is so high that widespread car usage is very hard to sustain. Japan, a very rich country, has known this for decades and its citizens use rail transit very heavily and it is very costly and difficult to use a car there. The same is true for Singapore, where a license is required to own a car. China has historically used a lot of bicycles and mopeds, but car usage is growing quickly and is causing a lot of problems like traffic jams and pollution, but there are numerous rail transit projects under construction in China today.

Africa
In most African nations, traffic tends to be less problematic. Due to low income levels, transport options may be limited to walking, animal transport, share taxi, and public transport where it exists. Where income levels are higher, traffic problems can arise. The most congested city in Africa is Cairo, where traffic jams can last many hours.

Economic impact
Emissions from road vehicles account for over 50% of U.S. air pollution. For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation uses less than one half of the fuel of private automobiles, producing 5% as much carbon monoxide and less than 8% as much as the other pollutants that create smog (such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides). Scientists estimate that public transportation already reduces emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global climate change, by over 7.4 million tons annually. If Americans were to use public transportation at equivalent rates as Europeans, scientists estimate that U.S. dependence on imported oil would decrease by more than 40% and that carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by more than 25%.
Household use of private vehicles accounted for 23% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (excluding international naviagation and aviation), up from 15% in 1990.

Social Inclusion
A important social role played by public transport is ensure that all members of society are able to travel, not just those with a driving licence and access to a vehicle.
Transit-for-all is the name given to a USA movement arguing greater investment in public transportation. Advocates of transit-for-all initiatives argue that the approximately 70 billion dollars currently assigned to subsidizing cheap oil should be reinvested in public transportation. Supporters of transit-for-all initiatives claim there are three main benefits to such a strategic realignment of resources: first, it will benefit the environment and, therefore, the nation’s health; second, it will increase the economic mobility of citizens currently marginalized because of their geographic isolation and revitalize neighborhoods by reconnecting them to their surroundings; third, it will decrease American dependence on foreign oil, thereby improving U.S. national security.
One reason many cities spend large sums on their public transport systems is that heavy automobile traffic congests city streets and causes air pollution. It is believed that public transport systems alleviate this, but reducing car traffic is not always assured.
Some city councils fund public transport infrastructure to promote business and economic growth, or to regenerate deprived ares of the city. Examples of public transport planned according to this philosophy are the Docklands Light Rail and Crossrail projects in London.
Some government officials believe that use of taxpayer capital to fund mass transit will ultimately save taxpayer money in other ways, and therefore, state-funded mass transit is a benefit to the taxpayer. Since lack of mass transit results in more traffic, pollution, and road construction to accommodate more vehicles, all costly to taxpayers, providing mass transit will therefore alleviate these costs.
Another reason for subsidies for public transit are the provision of mobility to those who reject its use on convenience, environmental or safety grounds and those who cannot afford or are physically or legally incapable of using an automobile.

Discussion Subject of the Week 10th - 14th of March

Please Read and Study, then answer the survey question of the week on the right.

Turkey launches nuclear energy project

Views For

From: http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/04/14/feature-03

14/04/2006
The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has officially decided on Sinop as the location for an ambitious nuclear energy project meant to meet rising demand and achieve energy independence.

By Allan Cove for Southeast European Times in Istanbul

The Black Sea province of Sinop was chosen from among eight possible locations for the proposed nuclear facility.

Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) President Oktay Cakiroglu confirmed on Wednesday (12 April) that the country's first nuclear plant will be built in the Black Sea province of Sinop. The facility is expected to help meet the country's energy demand over the next 15 years.
TAEK carefully studied the details about proposed locations, focusing on criteria such as sea temperature, climate, wind and general weather, Cakiroglu told a parliamentary commission. After eight possible locations were chosen, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan decided on Sinop, he said.
A100 MW pilot reactor will be constructed by 2009, followed by three power plants with a total capacity of 5,000 MW, expected to be in service by 2012. Turkey has uranium reserves totaling around 10,000 tonnes, according to the authorities -- enough to last 50 years.
Turks have been debating the pros and cons of building a nuclear power plant for almost 30 years. Previous governments tried to get such a project going three different times, but ended up shelving their plans in the face of opposition from environmental groups.
Environmentalists, as well as the opposition Republican Peoples' Party, have also objected to the Sinop project, citing its high price tag and security concerns. But Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Guler says authorities are determined to press ahead.
"The reactions concerning nuclear energy originate from the non-detailed examination of the issue. When the issue is explained in detail, the people will see that their reactions are baseless," Guler said.
The current commitment to build the plant stems from rising fuel prices and the desire for energy independence. According to Guler, Turkey must invest approximately $128 billion in energy infrastructure by 2020 to keep pace with rising demand and to move from dependence on foreign oil and natural gas.
He says Turkey's current energy needs amount to 88m tonnes of petrol, with 72 per cent of that amount currently being met by foreign suppliers.

From: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18239
Turkey needs a huge amount of energy investment to sustain its fast growing economy. Where this money come from is a big question. But the rising oil prices and dependency on foreign natural gas and oil has inflated the import numbers. In 2006, Turkey has paid 26 billion USDs for imported energy sources. In 2007, this number is expected to increase at least %5, around 1 billion USD.

So with basic math, one can easily deduct that in 5 years time, this money adds up to 5 billion dollars, which is more than enough to finance the cost of a 4500 MWs of nuclear plant construction.

Views Against

From: http://www.greenpeace.org/mediterranean/news/the-real-solutions-to-turkey-s

Greenpeace calls on government to act wisely and scrap nuclear plans
The real solutions to Turkey’s energy challenges are renewable energies like wind and solar, and prioritising energy efficiency.
February 17, 2006

Istanbul, Turkey — Energy Campaign Leader of Greenpeace Mediterranean, Paul Horsman, appealed today to the Turkish Government to learn from the mistakes and disasters of the West and scrap all plans to construct nuclear power plants.
Five years after former Prime Minister Ecevit announced he is ending the nuclear energy plans developed by former Energy Minister Cumhur Ersumer, the current Energy Minister Hilmi Guler appears once again to be caving in to the nuclear industry lobbies. Turkey plans for the fourth time in its history to construct three nuclear plants, this time by 2018.

“Industrialised nations are paying a bitter price for having set up hundreds of nuclear power plants, which pose a major threat to humankind. Western countries do not know what to do with their nuclear waste and they are wasting billions of dollars of tax payers’ money every year,” Horsman said, and added that “ Greenpeace has been working on nuclear issues since it was established in 1971, and nuclear tests have been banned in 1996. Existing nuclear reactors all over the world must be shut down. We believe that the end of the nuclear age heralds the beginning of peaceful energies like solar and wind”.

Hilal Atici, Energy and Climate Campaigner of Greenpeace Mediterranean, said that “The planned nuclear capacity will never cover more than 5% of the Turkish energy demand in the future. It’s only result will be leading the Turkish people to a dead-end of outdated, dangerous and expensive technologies. Nuclear power presents tremendous risks such as hazardous accidents, the routine releases of radioactive discharges and the creation of radioactive waste, for which there is no environmentally acceptable form of disposal. It is expensive and inflexible, and costs billions to build, decommission and clean-up even a single power station.”
“Should the investment go to renewable energy technologies such as Wind and Solar power, Turkey could deliver five times the employment and twice the energy generation that nuclear energy could provide. Moreover, these renewable technologies coupled with energy efficiency programmes, offer true energy independence, and for example cannot be threatened by terrorist attacks, nor do they have negative environmental impacts. While the most progressive countries invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and while abandoning nuclear, the nuclear lobby tries to take Turkey back to the ancient ages,” Atici said. “Nuclear power should be left in the dustbin of failed 20th century technologies; new modern renewable technologies are the vision of this 21st century. We are worried whether it would be the public to pay the billion dollars bills of an expensive technology such as nuclear. And how will they solve the waste problem since it has not been solved yet by any other countries. We require an explination from the Energy Minister.”