User:Greifaq/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Effects of Global Warming on Humans

1. Several topics are addressed in the article, however many of them are short, sparsely cited, or include irrelevant information to the topic. It was distracting to read a subtopic with the assumption that it was singled out due to its importance, but never be told why it is significant. The grammar and redundancy, in certain areas, made it more difficult to read.

2. The article is neutral and simply reports the information without being overly biased toward a position.

3. There is a section on climate security that could be expanded or explained more. The health section could be expanded to cover diseases other than just malaria.

4. The citations seem to be credible and support the information.

5. There are a few places that should probably be cited, but there is no source listed. The majority of the sources are neutral.

6. All of the sources are up to date.

7. Most of the talk page is discussions about using the correct information and organization of the article.

8. The project is rated C-class and is part of the following WikiProjects: Environment/Climate Change, Medicine, Anthropology, Sociology, and Future Studies.

9. This article touches on more topics than we have in class, but does not go as in depth in conversation about each topic. In class we have discussed the effects of climate change from more of an anthropological perspective than Wikipedia.

Article Plans
Climate Change and Poverty

What's missing or could use improvement? Effects of Global Warming on Humans
 * sparsely sourced-look for additional supporting sources and confirm validity of current sources in the human health section
 * expand physical health section to address health conditions of the poor
 * create new section 'psychological health'-focusing on psychological impact of climate change on humans and the disproportionately affected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greifaq (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * look for more supporting sources
 * expand environmental impacts section to include more than temperature and water
 * add environmental changes and the impact on humans

Climate Change and Poverty Changes
See also: Social determinants of health in poverty

Human Health
The effects of climate change on human health can be organized into two categories: direct (physical health, trauma, illness etc.) and indirect (environmental changes, resource stress, psychological). Exposure to multiple climate threats, in any given population, can lead to a myriad of health consequences. Climate change affects the essential components of maintaining good health: clean air, clean water, sufficient food, and adequate shelter. The effects of a changing climate will be widespread and vary through different populations. The report of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health points out that disadvantaged communities are likely to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change because of their increased exposure and vulnerability to health threats.[24] Vulnerable populations, such as the poor, are at a higher risk of poor health. Agriculture is a major source of income in poorer countries, however, it is also the most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change. Other health risks include an increase in vector borne illnesses, diarrheal diseases, malnutrition, and psychological consequences. Environmental consequences will result in extreme weather conditions, which could lead to a decrease in labor productivity and an increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that overall human health will be influenced more heavily as time goes on; this is due to a chain of events that start at environmental and social well-being and ends at population health of individuals at the top of the food chain.

Temperature Related Death and Disease
The second highest health risk is an increase in temperature-related illnesses and deaths related to prolonged heat waves and humidity. These effects will disproportionately affect children, the elderly, and those living in poverty. Rising global temperatures will extend seasons and increase the geographic range of vectors, specifically mosquito-borne disease such as malaria and dengue fever exposing new populations to disease.[9] Due to increased carbon dioxide emissions, the temperature of the lower troposphere rise with elevation. This means that geographic ranges of disease carrying insects will spread vertically and horizontally. Over 90 percent of malaria and diarrhea deaths are children 5 years and younger, mostly in developing countries.[6] Other severely affected population groups include women, the elderly, and people living in small island developing states and other coastal regions, mega-cities or mountainous areas.[6] According to researchers from the University College Institute for Global Health, health effects of climate change are likely to deepen in both low- and middle-income communities (1). Perhaps the most detrimental health impacts, especially for poorer communities, are illness that debilitate, but don't cause death. These diseases will cause a decrease in labor productivity, resulting in less income. This cyclical chain of events is why those living in poverty are at a higher risk.

Psychological Impacts
Psychological impacts are considered an indirect cost of climate change as a result of physical injury and community stress. There are also both direct and indirect types of psychological effects: direct would be considered physical ailments, displacement, and disruptions to food supplies and indirect includes poverty related stress, community well-being, and isolation/alienation. An increase in climate and weather related disasters could lead to a higher rate of mental health issues. Studies have shown that flooding and extended droughts lead to an escalation in the amount of anxiety, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder cases.

Populations living in poverty and those who already have chronic mental health illnesses are particularly vulnerable to the psychological risks resulting from a changing climate. Although children are more susceptible to natural disasters, in the long term they are more resilient and the effects may fade. First responders and emergency personnel are also at a higher risk of psychological consequences.

Greifaq (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Temperature
A sustained wet-bulb temperature of or 35° Celsius (95° F) or greater, lasting longer than six hours, is the threshold at which humans can no longer adequately cool the skin. A study by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labor capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios.[26] An increasing global climate will impair task productivity at different magnitudes across the world. There is evidence to show that high temperatures can increase mortality rates among fetuses, children, and the elderly.[27] Although the main focus is often on the health impacts and risks of higher temperatures, many sources such as NOAA and the WHO report impaired learning and labor productivity with increasing temperatures. These consequences will have direct affects on a community/country's economy and development. Reduced labor productivity will have higher consequences in poorer countries that depend on physical labor to support their economy.

Greifaq (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Profiling
The United States Secret Service published the results from a study of 37 school shooting incidents, involving 41 individuals, in the United States from December1974 through May 2000. In a previous report of 18 school shootings by the FBI, they released a profile that described shooters as middle-class, lonely/alienated, awkward, caucasian males who had access to guns. The most recent report cautioned against the '''assumption that a perpetrator can be identified by a certain 'type' or profile. The results from the study indicated that perpetrators came from varying backgrounds, making a singular profile difficult when identifying possible assailants. For example, some perpetrators were children of divorce, lived in foster homes, or came from intact nuclear''' families. The majority of individuals had rarely or never gotten into trouble at school and had a healthy social life. Some experts, such as Alan Lipman, have warned against the dearth of empirical validity of profiling methods.

'The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released "The School Shooter: A Quick Reference Guide," which is a compilation of information from the Safe School Initiative, School Violence Threat Management, and The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective''. The document includes risk assessments, statistics about attacker background, and warning signs about which investigators should be vigilant. The report lists the 11 Key Questions created by the US Secret Service for threat assessment. The top reported motives of an attack were bullying/persecution/threatened (75%) and revenge (61%), while 54% reported having numerous reasons. The remaining motives included an attempt to solve a problem (34%), suicide or depression (27%), and seeking attention or recognition (24%). Some basic statistics are provided from the Safe School Initiative: 59% of attacks occurred during school hours, in 68% of the incidents the weapon used was obtained from the attacker's home, 93% of the attacks were premeditated, and 95% of shooters were current students.  The FBI suggest observing behavioral warning signs and mostly encouraging others to report concerning behavior. In 80% of cases, at least one person was aware the assailant was thinking/planning an attack and in almost 2/3, at least two individuals were aware of the attack before it happened. The information included in the document is not meant to be used as a profile, but rather a guide of possible behaviors that an individual might exhibit.'''

'''Table 1 displays data reported in the Safe School Initiative program by the US Secret Service and the US Department of Education. The Secret Service and Department of Education began examining pre-attack behaviors after the 1999 Columbine High School attack. The table demonstrates the varying backgrounds of school shooters. More than 3/4 of attackers (76%) were caucasian and 100% (41 individuals) were male. The report documented five types of household environments: 44% of attackers lived with two biological parents, 19% lived with one biological and one step-parent, 19% had one biological parent, 2% had two biological parents in separate households, and 5% lived in foster care or had a legal guardian. The academic performance was available for 83% (34) of the individuals, which ranged from straight As to failing. Almost half of attackers were getting As and Bs (41%) and few attackers were failing. The percentage of attackers recorded for the mental health variable exceeds 100 because individuals were recorded for every profile that applied to them. The largest reported profiles include previous suicidal thoughts/actions (78%), self documentation of depression (61%), and on 1/3 (34%) of attackers had received previous psychological treatment (THIS LAST PART IS AWKWARDLY WORDED). More than half (59%) of attackers expressed violent behavior, but there was not one common violent outlet among attackers. The most common violent expression was through personal media (journal, videos, essays, poems etc.) with 37% of attackers exhibiting this behavior. These data were collected from 37 school shootings, committed by 41 individuals, in the US between 1997 and 2000.'''