Research- managing small business Research Paper

- managing small business - Research Paper Example RAYZ is small company in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, having business interests in digital marketing and social media. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the behaviour of small business with respect to established theories and principles, taking RAYZ as an example. In most of the developed countries such as the United States and United Kingdom, big companies or corporates contribute heavily to economic development whereas in developing countries such as India and China, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play a vital role in streamlining economic progress. Small business or SME has different definitions in different countries. As the name indicates, small business or SME is nothing but a business in which the revenue generated and the number of employees working is below certain standards. These standards will be different in different countries. While the United States has not set any criteria for defining SMEs, the European Union defines Small enterprise as a company with fewer than 50 employees, and medium-sized enterprise as a company with fewer than 250 employees (Investopedia, 2015). Saudi Arabia is one of the most rapidly developing states in the Middle East at present. As in the case of India and China, SMEs contribute heavily to the development of the KSA. A lot of small business operates in the Kingdom by the locals as well as foreigners. RAYZ is one such small company, started in Riyadh 2012 by a young group of creative and ambitious individuals. Bandar Alwabil and Yazeed AlGhuraibi are the founders of RAYZ which is specialized in digital marketing and social media business. Rayan Alwabil is the Chief Executive Officer of the company while Yazeed AlGhuraibi is working as the Chief Operating Officer of the company at present. Around 30 employees work in various departments of RAYZ now (RAYZ, 2015). The

Principles and Contemporary of Mental Health Essay

Principles and Contemporary of Mental Health - Essay Example In this area, nurses receive specialized training in psychological therapies that builds on therapeutic alliance in dealing with challenging behavior which leads to administration of psychiatric medicine. In summary, mental health is a psychological state of well being in which one has an achievement of a satisfying amalgamation of one’s instinctual motivations tolerable to both oneself and one’s social locale; an apposite balance of leisure pursuits, love and work (Wilkin, 2003, p. 139). The Patient: Barker’s model In one of his theories, Barker wrote that a mental patient care should encompass a Meta theoretical approach. This is to say that several theories are necessary while dealing with mental patients. The application of this theory helped in taking care of the patients. First, there was demonstration of the nursing knowledge, the grand theory, where there was stating the empirical terms and hypotheses to demonstrate understanding of the theory of nursing. To demonstrate a clear understanding of the situation, I applied the Barker’s tidal model, which is philosophical in nature. With this model, I had to understand the fact that I knew little about the experiences of my patient. I took my patient as a mystery to be learnt and explored in developing a nurse-patient relationship and identify the needs. This characteristic of curiosity helps to understand more about the patient (Barker & Barker, 2005, p. 108). Secondly, the key to understanding my patient was taking them in with their resourcefulness in acknowledging the reality of my patient’s problems as the resources towards proper therapy. Other resources were within their social and interpersonal network, which I had to explore to help in proper therapy. Another important aspect that I had to consider was to understand the personal wishes of the patient. This laid emphasis on the importance of collaboration with the patient. This helped in identification of the needs of the patient. Respect to the needs also helped to ease therapy towards quick recovery. Mental health is more psychological and therapy has to be more collaborative through identification of what the patient deems important. However, this did not mean ignoring professional knowledge about the patient’s condition, but the wishes of the patient remained at the heart throughout the therapy session. Then there was viewing the patient’s condition as an opportunity, a natural signal indicating the need for services, my services. It was an opportunity for change and a chance for the patient to take a new opportunity in life. In mental health care, there are goals that professional nurses set to achieve. They are to be the end point of the nursing care process. I had to consider the fact that there are small steps which I needed to take in order to move away from the circumstances that brought my patient to the care setting. Finally, Barker’s model in practice helped m e to understand the fact that I had to identify the simplest possible action that helped to bring about the help necessary for the patient to get well from their condition. Basing On Evidence Because I had to administer psychotherapy basing on evidence, I had to employ several techniques that had to base on empirical relationship building, communication, dialogue and behavior change with a designation to improve mental

Kant & Hume, Comparative Study Essay Example for Free

Kant Hume, Comparative Study Essay Two of the modern world’s most followed and known, yet opposing philosophers. Immanuel Kant and David Hume both assert that all knowledge comes from experience, yet disagree on whether or not experience determines all knowledge, disagree on the causality of the universe as organized or unorganized, and disagree on God’s existence (or non-existence) within the world. Despite these vast differences, however, both philosophies have managed to co-exist in the modern world. Kant proclaims that all knowledge comes from experience, and that people are intelligent and rational enough to synthesize previous experiences into predictions (or fore-knowledge) of the future. On the other hand, Hume proclaims that all knowledge comes from experience and that just because something has occurred in the past does not mean that it will occur in the future. In regard to causality of the universe, Kant puts forth the notion that the universe was created in a way so that the nature of all things lays uniform and perfect despite the passing of time. Hume, however, puts forth the notion that the universe was created in a way so that all things change over time. In Kant’s eyes God’s existence or non-existence could never be proven or disproven, and because of this doubt God therefore exists. For Hume, the idea of God can exist, but the being most know as God cannot because the idea of god is specific and unique to every individual and therefore there cannot be one God for all—rather everyone has a unique and personal God. Kant and Hume pit each other down in philosophical battle after philosophical only to realize that they never agree on compromises to their ideas, and stay forever at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Kant and Hume both asserted that all knowledge comes from experience. Kant states that there â€Å"can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience† (Pure). By this Kant asserts that all knowledge initiates from experience. However, Kant goes further by also stating that â€Å"we have no knowledge antecedent to experience† (Pure), which means that in order to understand something, one has to have experienced the happening/ occurrence at one point in time. Hume states that â€Å"causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience† (Enquiry). By this Hume asserts that all knowledge and any knowledge must come from experience and nothing else. Hume also states that real existence can come only from â€Å"either from the causes which produced it, or the effectswhich will arise from it† (Enquiry), which means that experience provides not only knowledge but the justification for existence that experiences define the essence/ being of an individual. Kant and Hume agree that all knowledge stems from experiences attained in the material world. By asserting that to have knowledge of something one has to experience that thing only once Kant sparks the disagreement between himself and Hume on whether or not the future can be known based on past experiences. Kant theorizes that although â€Å"knowledge begins with experience† it does not mean that all which follows â€Å"arises out of experience† (Pure). By this Kant states that experiences are building blocks the house of knowledge but not the house itself. Kant claims that people can know what happens in the future because reason allows for them to extend their experiences beyond what has happened to events that have not occurred yet. Kant justifies this by saying that people’s â€Å"conclusions from experience† stand enough to justify that the future will resemble the past (Pure). Hume theorizes that past experience â€Å"can be allowed to give direct and certain information† but only in relation to the â€Å"precise objects † to which past experience refers, and that â€Å"precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance† (Enquiry). Hume clearly states that the only pure knowledge people can have is knowledge of the past, which means that there can be no real knowledge of the future because it has not been experienced yet. Furthermore, Hume articulates that it is impossible to show that the â€Å"ultimate cause of any natural operation† can be found in â€Å"any single effect in the universe† (Enquiry). In this statement Hume tries to elucidate his point that just because something has existed before does not mean that it will exist again in the same form, that there is no â€Å"ultimate cause† but rather many causes that go into the producing of different effects. To capstone his point Hume says that one cannot have a golden rule that what â€Å"happens sometimes†¦ happens always†¦ with regard to some objects† for all things in existence because there is no †logic† or â€Å"process of argument† that â€Å"secures oneâ€Å" into this assumption (Enquiry). Hume explains that it stands impossible to predict the future because the future has not yet been experienced and therefore has no security of knowledge. For Kant, by a rational extension of logic, it can be determined that what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future are one in the same— yet or Hume, knowledge can come only from experience because If the future cannot be experienced then people have no bounds to determine what will happen in it. These suppositions then lead to the question of causality of the universe, to which Kant puts forth the notion that the universe was created in a way so that the nature of all things lays uniform and perfect— despite the passing of time— whereas Hume puts forth the notion that the universe was created in a way so that all things change over time. Kant presents that â€Å"nature is a being acting according to purpose† and creates a â€Å"natural purpose† that everything in the universe must adhere to (Judgment), which supports the notion that the universe was created in a way so that the nature of all things lays uniform and perfect because everything has its natural place in the universe and therefore maintains a natural purpose and a static order. Kant additionally expounds that â€Å"causality involves that of laws† and that these laws create a cause that has a specific effect that â€Å"must be produced† (Fundamentals). Due to this â€Å"law† that Kant references he insinuates that, despite time passing, what has happened will have to happen again based on the consistency of the laws of nature. To counter this, Hume presents his reasoning that â€Å"effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it† (Enquiry), which supports the notion that things change and no consistency stays in the universe because there is never a direct link between a cause, and the effect which results from it. Additionally, Hume goes on to dictate that effects fail to â€Å"be discovered in the cause† and that they â€Å"must be entirely arbitrary† (Enquiry). By this, Hume means that if an effect could be paired up with any old cause, that it would be completely random and therefore have no value in appraising cause and effect. By both these sentiments Hume conveys that a cause and effect have no solidified connection unless they are proven to be tied together, which leads to the assumption that the world shifts and changes over time because if the universe were static then everything would be the same and a golden rule for causality would exist but for Hume, it doesn’t. Kant and Hume stand at odds on whether the universe stays organized or frays at the ends because of their assertions that the universe was created perfectly, and in opposition the assertion that the universe was created imperfectly. After determining the organization of the universe, one question remains forthe philosophers: who or what, if anything, created the universe? To this Kant responds that God is unknowable and that this thought doesn’t disprove his existence or perfection while Hume responds everyone has their own unique God, and therefore one perfect and whole God cannot exist. Kant expounds that the â€Å"unavoidable problems set by pure reason itself are God, freedom, and immortality† and that for knowledge of God there is no â€Å"capacity or incapacity of reason for so great an undertaking† (Pure). Here Kant proclaims that because of reason’s inability to appraise the idea of God, that it is an unknowable topic and that everything stated about it can be marked as true because it cannot be disproven. Hume expounds that he â€Å"believe[s] [God] to be existent† and that Hume’s idea of â€Å"conception of the existence† dictates that the idea of God â€Å"lies not in the parts† or composition of the idea but in the â€Å"the manner in which we conceive it† (Treatise). Hume makes the point that he has his own idea of God, that his idea is unique to himself and the way in which he develops his idea. Hume also states that â€Å"God is existent† but only in the form in which â€Å"as he is represented to us† (Treatise). This statement definitively encompasses the idea that not everyone cannot know the same God because people can only conceive their notion of God from what they have experienced, and each person’s experience stays unique and separate. For Kant God exists by the pure reason that God can never be proven non-existent whereas for Hume, the idea of God can exist, but the being God that most people think of cannot because the idea of god is specific and unique to every individual. Kant and Hume pit each other down in philosophical battle after philosophical only to realize that they never agree on compromises to their ideas, and stay forever at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, which in a twisted way allows them to co-exist in the modern world. On philosophy itself, Kant states that one â€Å"cannot say how far the inferences from perception may extend†, which means that for as much as people can imagine, something can be real and by extension this means that there is security in being able to make up the reality that one wants (Pure). In adversion Hume states that philosophy may â€Å"prove useful† by â€Å"destroying implicit faith and security† and allowing only one answer to be proven correct and logical through skepticism (Enquiry). Kant and Hume can have no recourse from the dilemma that they face because at every turn Kant states that anything imaginable is possible and that skepticism, Hume’s philosophy, can never be reconciled with the idea that everything could be possible because they intrinsically contradict each other. Kant and Hume: two men divided by differing philosophies on the source of knowledge, the causality of the universe, and the definite existence of God who battled over answers to these question of life throughout their careers. While Kant asserted that by rational extension experience could unlock the key to all knowledge Hume countered that only experience could grant knowledge, and that anything beyond that bent the rules of the world and made all knowledge inconsequential. While Kant asserted that the universe was created in a perfect natural order that would exist forever Hume countered that the universe was created in an imperfect, unorganized fashion that would be ever changing. While Kant asserted that the existence of God could never be disproven and therefore had to exist Hume countered that it is inadequate to say that God has to exist as a result of doubt because every conception of God from every individual is different and people must therefore err on the side of skepticism and accept that God cannot exist as everyone wishes him to. While Kant and Hume tried to reconcile their differences on philosophy they never came to an agreement, and therefore co-existed in the denial that the others thoughts could possible hold any truth. Works Cited Hume, David. An enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter on Cause and Effect. -. A Treatise of Human Nature. Source found @ http://www. gutenberg. org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h. htm#2H_4_0027 Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment, Source material found @ http://www. marxists. org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/judgment/teleology. htm -. Critique of Pure Reason. -. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Book provided by http://www. gutenberg. org/cache/epub/5682/pg5682. html.

Symbolic Mediation Internalization Learning Process And Zpd Education Essay

Symbolic Mediation Internalization Learning Process And Zpd Education Essay Second language acquisition (SLA) is a relatively new field, which was seen as an adjunct of language teaching pedagogy before 1960s (Myles, 2010). Ellis (1994) defined three aspects that are responsible for L2 acquisition: external factors (social factors, input and interactions); internal factors (learners existing knowledge and internal mechanisms) and individual learner factors (P. 193). The social factors was investigated under heavy influence from Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Developments (ZPD). In this paper, major focus would be around the notion and application of ZPD, including: defining ZPD and key concepts of Vygotskys theory relating to ZPD: symbolic mediation, internalization,learning process, the role of interlocutor and learner; comparing Vygotskys social cultural theory (SCT) with Piagets cognitive theory; comparing Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Developments with Krashens notion of i+1 hypothesis Symbolic mediation, internalization , learning process and ZPD The social-cultural theory, stemmed from Vygotskys thoughts claims that the language learning process is socially mediated (Lantolf, 2000). Lantolf (1994) stressed that from Vygotskian perspective, the higher forms of human mental activity are always, and everywhere, mediated by symbolic means (P. 418) The symbolic mediation refers to the external process via symbolic signs or tools in social context through which learner can control mental process after internalization (Lightbown Spada, 2006). Lantolf (2000) regards language, among all the symbolic tools, as the most powerful psychological tool (P. 81). Through the mediation of language, the child or learner learns how to perform a task or solve a problem with the help from a more skilled individual (Mitchell Myles, 2004). In other words, the learning process starts as an inter-mental activity, by the more skilled individual sharing through talk, and ends as an intra-mental activity, with the shared knowledge taken in by the unski lled individual. Thus, according to Vygotsky, learning includes two stages: shared understanding in social context through symbolic mediation (mainly in the form of dialogue) and internalization of the shared knowledge by individual. The learning process from a Vygotskyan perspective is described as new concepts continue to be acquired through social/interactional means (Mitchell Myles, 2004, P. 147). Vygotsky defines the concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD), as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In other words, the role of more advanced interlocutor is stressed by assisting individual crossing the gap between actual level (what the learner can do alone) and potential level (what the learner can achieve with help). The learner is cognitively prepared for solving more complex problems if supported by an interlocutor. More importance has been attached to social interaction between learner and interlocutor, which is regarded as a causative force in acquisition (Saville-Troike, 2006, P. 111). Vygotsky versus Piaget Zuengler and Miller (2006) reviewed the ongoing debates on whether a separation should be made between second language acquisition and second language use and the debates on the commensurability of theories from different schools. It may be interesting to notice that the differences between sociocultural theory and cognitive theory bear relationship with their origins -Vygotsky, the father of socioculture theory and Piaget, the father of cognitive theory. Piaget and Vygotsky are among the earliest proponents to link childrens language development with their cognitive development (Lightbown Spada, 2006). For Piaget, the cognitive development for children is realized through interaction with things around them and is presented by language which is not different from Vygotskys view. They share the view of learner as a social human being who are learning through interaction with environment and of learning and development as a contextually embedded process of interactions (Vianna Stetsenko, 2006, P. 85). However, the dissimilar emphasis that they place on social interaction leads to three major differences. For Piaget, children learn and develop in the environment. For Vygotsky, children not only learn and develop in the environment but also change it through interaction. Therefore, for Vygotsky, language is seen as a more powerful symbolic mediation (Lightbown Spada, 2006). The second difference is adaption versus transformation (Vianna Stetsenko, 2006, P. 87). For Piaget, human develop by assimilation and accommodation to adapt to the environment, whereas for Vygotsky, human develop by actively changing the environment. The third difference lies in their view of the priority between learning and cognitive development. For Piaget, children need to be cognitively prepared to a certain stage before learning, while for Vygotsky, precedence is given to learning instead of development. Therefore, Vygotsky argue for teaching or learning within ZPD, where learners could do more with scaf folding from interlocutors than their independent performance (Zuengler Miller, 2006). ZPD versus i+1 Second language scholars have suggested the feasibility of integrating Krashens i+1 with Vygotskys zone of proximal development (ZPD) based on their similarities. Dunn and Lantolf (1998) have stated the incommensurability of these two concepts not only because they are unrelated but also because they are based on incommensurable theoretical discourses (P. 411) In Krashens view, humans acquire language in only one way-by understanding messages, or by receiving comprehensible input . . . that contains structures at our next stage- structures that are a bit beyond our current level of competence (Krashen, 1985, p. 2). More specifically, three factors contribute to language learning learners internalized grammar,namely the i, input containing linguistic structure a bit beyond learners current level, namely the i+1 and learners internal language processing mechanism (LAD) For Vygotsky, as mentioned above, ZPD is defined as those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation (1978, p. 86). A more holistic picture has been drawn with respect to language learning learner, interlocutor, their social cultural backgrounds, their goals and motives and all the resources available (Dunn Lantolf, 1998). Learning and development occur in both situations, where learner will surpass their current level either with assistance from a more advanced interlocutor within learners ZPD or with acquisition of linguistic structure i+1, which may contribute largely to their seemingly similarities. However, it would be cautious to notice as well that the development occur with a comparison of learners current level, that is learner himself. Therefore, it would be less justifiable to view the development in Krashens term as an equivalent to that in Vygotskys theory. Also it would be more reasonable to notice that the construct of ZPD and i+1 cannot stand without considering the theocratical frame that they root in respectively. Therefore, a comparison would be made between theories that have incubated these two constructs with respect to the relationship between learning and development, the consequence of learning, the role of language, learner and interlocutor and the role of social interaction. The fundamental difference between Krashens theory with Vygotskys theory is their diverse view on the relationship between instruction learning and cognitive development. Krashen hold the view as a separatist, who perceive learning under instruction and cognitive development as two independent process (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 491). Therefore, Krashen intentionally draw a line between learning and acquisition, arguing that only though subconscious acquisition can comprehensible input be acquired, and learners cognition be developed. Conversely, Vygotsky presented a dualistic quality to development, that is whether learning consciously or not, a mutual influence exists between learning and development ( Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 491). Thus, learners are learning and developing at the same time, and the site where learning and development meet is called ZPD. Secondly, Krashen and Vygotsky differ in their view of the consequence of learning, based on their divergent view on learning and development. For Krashen, the outcome of learning is the linguistic structure that is a bit beyond learners current level, and with the acquisition of this feature, learner has developed cognitively, ready to obtain the next i +1. Whereas for Vygotsky, learners are developing along the whole learning process, which means that not only the immediate future, but also the maturing process account for development (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 422). Therefore, it is the variability between acquisition and Internalization (Kinginger, 2002, P. 418). Thirdly, the roles of language, learner and interlocutor are interpreted differently. From Krashens point, language is conceived as a container of linguistic features with comprehensible input and learner as a container with Language Acquisition Device (LAD), the individual process mechanism built inside minds, and the assistance from interlocutor is not necessary (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 418). In contrast, from Vygotskys perspective, language is one of the the most powerful psychological tool of semiotic mediation system (Lightbown Spada, 2006, P. 81), and thus representing the mediated forms of cognition (Dunn Lantolf, 1998, P. 426). Both learner and interlocutor are portrayed as a social human being, with motivation and social cultural identity, instead of a loner with an innate ability to process (Kinginger, 2001, P. 419). Moreover, unbalanced attention is given to social interaction in the frame developed by Krashen and Vygotsky. Krashen assigned relatively little importance to social interaction due to the existence of LAD, despite his support for a weak form of interaction: meaning negotiating proposed by Long (1996). In other words, Krashen argues that the strong form of interaction such as scaffolding or peer collaboration as well as learner output bear no direct relevance to SLA (Dunn Lantolf, 1998). In contrast, social interaction is viewed as the medium and the result of development by Vygotskian scholars (Kinginger, 2001, P. 422). Thus in order to maximize learners acquisition, interlocutor should scaffold the learner along ZPD and learners comprehensible output is as important as comprehensible input. Conclusion Over the past decade, there has been an increasing number of SLA researches conducted under the influence of socioculture theory (SCT) based on the work of Vygotsky (Ableeva Lantolf, 2011; Brooks Swain et al., 2010; Kinginger, 2002; Knouzi Swain et al., 2010; Lantolf, 2007; Foster Ohta, 2005; Swain Deters, 2007; Swain Lapkin et al, 2009). This theory differs from other theory describing the SLA in the stance that social environment is not only a learning context but rather a significant contributor to language acquisition (Swain Deters, 2007). Thus the concept built in SCT framework such as ZPD, cannot be viewed separately away from its origin, which implies that it would be best for any future comparison or commensuration of concepts from unlike theories be made with their roots considered. Also the incommensurability precisely add the value to the theory building in SLA field, not only for the sake of the this particular school itself but also for a helpful reflection for ot her schools.It is with this sharp comparison between different perspectives, a more holistic picture can be draw for L2 acquisition, despite the criticisms been made and the debates ongoing (Zuengler Miller, 2006). Lantolf (1996) have shown his welcome for a future of letting all the flowers bloom in SLA theory building and I simply cannot agree more with him (P.713-49).

Camping †My Only Refuge :: Personal Narrative Writing

Camping – My Only Refuge Every night when I lie down to sleep, I can hear the continuous, buzzing echo of the day's residue. The cacophony of sound that gets trapped in my head all day long begins its slow release: the ringing of phones like calculated screams, the falling of fingers on key boards like pelting leaden raindrops, people barking orders at me as if they were the only masters I am obliged to serve. The faces of these monsters I see in my mindwarped and twisted, still yelling, demanding, screeching. They circle around and taunt me. It is guilt that makes it so my eyes are wide and bloodshot while my mind throbs and my body aches for sleep. I should stay awake longer. . .there is more I can accomplish, more work to be done. I can push myself just a little bit moreand I should. A go-getter wants more from herself than others expect, and the monsters are an ample challenge; they're insatiable. There is a fun house in my mind and all I want to do is sleep. Every day my alarm sounds, my eyes crack open. I throw the covers off and feel the surge of frigid air, tired and grumpy and cursing the day for its fast arrival. It seems as if I never slept...all my days are like those before them, separated only by the nightmares that mirror them. My body craves a shower but the clock on the wall says "No." I gather together the assignments that kept me up well past the change of day and hope they are as good as they seemed at 3:45 a.m. My stomach rumbles with indigestion from the 2 a.m. pepperoni and olive pizza. I grab a stale but clammy slice from the card board box on the floor and head out the door. This is the start that propels me into my day. By 7:30 am I am roaming the streets, video camera in hand, searching for the latest news. It is my job to pry into miserable people's lives to disclose the boring facts about their boring lives. And they get frustrated and angry with me? Deadline is 11:30, but my six-hour class marathon begins at 10:00; at best I'm allotted two and a half hours to film, script, and edit a news package for the class that will make or break me as a broadcast journalism major.

Socratic Citizenship as Salve to the Antinomy of Rules and Values :: Plato Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Socratic Citizenship as Salve to the Antinomy of Rules and Values It is not inconceivable that Plato would view the enforcement of rigid laws as a â€Å"noble lie† (Rep112)—noble as a guarantor of order in a just city, but misleading in its pretense of infallibility. The Crito, the Apology, and the Republic capture the tension in Plato’s work between a commitment to substantive justice and to formalist legal justice. In a system of substantive justice, rules are flexible and act as â€Å"maxims of efficiency† (Unger 90), proxies of justice and virtue. The system of formalist legal justice secures order and stability with rigid rules while risking miscarriages of particularity. This paper, then, is about Plato’s noble lie. Roberto Unger’s Knowledge and Politics provides an invaluable lens for examining Plato’s discussion of law and justice in the Republic, the Apology and the Crito. In the Republic, Plato sketches the outlines of a just, ordered city-state. The Apology presents Socrates’ defense against an unjust accusation before the court of law. The Crito sees Socrates accept his unjust sentencing to death and defend the rule of law. Unger’s work helps distill from these Platonic works a coherent platform of substantive justice and a critique of a formalist theory of adjudication. Moreover, while Unger’s arguments arrive in the context of a critique of liberal political theory, Plato nevertheless offers a response to Unger’s main critique of substantive justice, the â€Å"antinomy of rules and values† (91). The idea of Socratic citizenship, gleaned from the Apology and the Crito, seeks to resolve this antinomy. Roberto Unger examines substantive justice in Knowledge and Politics in the context of legislation and adjudication. Unger defines substantive justice as a mode of ordering human relations which determines goals and, independently of rules, decides â€Å"particular cases by a judgment of what decision is most likely to contribute to the predetermined goals, a judgment of instrumental rationality† (89). In the Republic, Socrates evokes the principles of substantive justice in his verbal creation of the ideal Greek city-state. In book IV, Socrates locates the ends of the ideal city-state in the four virtues: courage, temperance, wisdom and justice. Books I and II of the Republic deliver a scathing indictment against a formalist theory of adjudication. Formalist legal justice assumes that it is â€Å"possible to deduce correct judgments from the laws by an automatic process† (92) without reference to the purpose or end of the law.

Uranium Mining in Australia

In the last forty years, Uranium has become one of the worlds most important energy minerals. Primarily, Uranium produced in Australia has used for the sole production of electricity. However a small proportion of the Uranium mined is for important medical isotopes. It is for this reason that Uranium mining is an ever-important and pressing point of discussion. Mining itself has been criticized for the massive effect it on the environment around it. Uranium mining is no different, and more often then not, the after effects of Uranium mining are more detrimental to the environment. Unlike other mining, Uranium mining has also caused a major stir in the actual use of the Uranium after it has been mined. The environmental problems of Uranium mining go further then the actual mining and by products. The uses of Uranium have been seen as risky and dangerous. Using Uranium as a source of energy has already shown the disastrous effects. The melt down at Chernobyl is still causing health problems in citizens after 30 years. On the upside, Uranium mining creates employment and boosts the Australian Economy. It is for these reasons that Uranium Mining is a process that needs to be looked at carefully before any judgements are made on it's future in Australia. Chemistry Of Uranium and Uranium Mining In the Earth's crust, mineral Uranium averages about two parts per million. Traces of Uranium occur just about everywhere on earth. In Australia, the existence of uranium has been noted since the 1890's. In 1930, ores were mined at Radium Hill in South Australia for minute deposits of Radium. The Radium was used for medical purposes. As a result of the Radium mining, a couple of hundred kilograms of uranium was obtained and used exclusively to produce colours in glass and ceramics. In 1954 the Government started up a major uranium producer in Run Jungle, known as Rum Jungle Mine. Because of this Australia began to emerge as a potential source of uranium for the world's nuclear electricity production. 1970's large amounts of Uranium deposits were found dotted around Australia. This signaled the start of mines in the Northern Territory such as Ranger and Jabiluka, and also in South Australia with Olympic Dam. Uranium is found rocks of the earth's crust, at 4 parts per million. The extraction (removal) or mining process varies from where the uranium ore deposits are found. Surface cut techniques are used where the uranium ore if found close to the surface. Surface cut mines involved the uranium being found close to the surface, so the uranium is removed from a shallow pit. Fig 1. 0 Ranger Mine found in the Northern Territory. The uranium ore is removed via the open cut mining method. Underground mining is used when the ore is found deep underground. In this process, the ore is removed in a similar fashion to copper; the mine is built in the ground. Olympic Damn Mine in South Australia, relies on the underground mining process. Another way to remove ore is called In-Situ Leaching. It is a popular way to mine Uranium, as it doesn't affect the landscape as much as open cut or underground mining. It is used to remove Uranium filled sand that is found in water in a porous rock, which itself confined in a non-porous rock. In situ leaching involves a leaching liquid (ammonium-carbonate or sulfuric acid) pumped through drill- holes into underground uranium deposits, with the uranium bearing liquid is pumped out from below. Ore mined in open pit or underground mines, unlike in situ leaching, has to be crushed and leached in a uranium mill. A Uranium mill is a chemical plant designed to extract uranium from ore. It is usually located near the mines to limit transportation. In the most cases, sulfuric acid is used as the leaching agent, but alkaline leaching can also used. As the leaching agent not only extracts uranium from the ore, but also several other constituents like molybdenum, vanadium, selenium, iron, lead and arsenic, the uranium must be separated out of the leaching solution. The final product produced from the mill, commonly referred to as â€Å"yellow cake† (U3O8 with impurities), is packed and shipped in casks. The reaction between the uranium ore and sulfuric acid. The UO2 is then oxidised. In some cases uranium has been removed from low-grade ore by a process called heap leaching. This may be done if the uranium contents are too low for the ore to be economically processed in a uranium mill. Heaping leaching is performed by using a leaching liquid (often sulfuric acid) being introduced to the top of the pile of ore. The acid or leaching liquid, percolates down until it reaches a liner below the pile or ore, where it is caught and pumped to a processing plant. This liquid contains the uranium. During leaching, the piles of ore present a hazard because of the risk of release of dust, radon gas and leaching liquid. (referenced from Hardy, C J, 1978, The Chemistry of Uranium Milling, Radiochimica Acta 25, 121-134) Nuclear Mining and Milling has a serious social relevance. The tailings from the Uranium mining have serious health risks and environmental hazards. There are many serious environmental arguments over the mining of Uranium. The mining process itself in Australia has strict guidelines, yet the waste products from the mining process still have an extremely detrimental effect on the environment. Uranium mill tailings (or waste products from the crushing and leaching of the ore) are normally dumped as sludge in special ponds or piles (heaps). These piles/ponds are then abandoned. The amount of sludge produced is roughly equal to that of the ore milled. Long-living decay products such as the radioactive elements Thorium-230 and Radium-226 are not removed from the sludge. This means that the sludge contains over half of the initial radioactivity of the ore. As well as this, unfortunately, due to mainly technical limitations not all of the Uranium present in the ore can be removed in the milling process. Therefore, the sludge (which is the waste product) still contains at least 5% of the uranium present in the ore to start off with. The sludge also contains a variety of heavy metals and other contaminants. These include arsenic, as well as the highly corrosive chemical reagents used during the milling process (such as the sulfuric acid used in leaching). The mining and milling process fundamentally removes the hazardous constitutes in the ore from their relatively safe underground location. Mined Uranium itself does not emit hazardous radiation. Radium-226 found in the tailings continuously decays to the radioactive gas Radon-222. Radon-222 has a decay product that has been thought to cause lung cancer. Radon releases are a major hazard that continues even after uranium mines are shut down. The Radon can escape from the interior of the tailing piles or sludge. Since radon spreads quickly with the wind, many people receive small additional radiation doses. However, in Australia the majority of mines are based away from residential or populated areas. It is a concern for workers though, but with safety apparatus, the risk factor is non-existent. Tailing deposits are also subject to many different kinds of erosion. During and after a heavy rainfall, erosion gullies can form where the tailing deposits are left. Floods can destroy the whole deposit, leaving it dispersed everywhere. Interestingly enough, plants and burrowing animals can penetrate into the deposit and disperse the material, which subsequently enhances the radon emanation and make the deposit more susceptible to erosion. When the surface of the pile dries out, the fine sands are blown by the wind over adjacent areas. Erosion leaves the tailing deposits at a risk of dispersion. Seepage from tailing piles is another major hazard. Seepage poses a risk of contamination to ground and surface water. This water can be transferred to fish that swim in the water, then to whoever consumes the fish. Tailings dams are more often then not, not of stable construction. In most cases, they were made from sedimentation of the tailing sludge. Some are even built on geologic faults. This means that they are at greater risk of an earthquake. Strong rain or snowstorms can also cause dam failures. It is of no surprise that time after time dam failures have occurred. It was thought that bringing the tailings back to where the ore was mined would be an acceptable solution for the tailing disposal. Even though most of the Uranium was removed from the material, it did not mean the material was less hazardous. Most of the contaminants are still present. It is because of the processes the materials have to go through to extract the uranium which leaves the material in a condition where the contaminants are much more mobile (sludge and sand), therefore the material susceptible to migration into the environment. In most cases, tailings have to be dumped on the surface for lack of other options. Here, the protection requirements can more easily be controlled by appropriate methods, but additional measures have to be performed to assure protection from erosion. Uranium mining has also caused some concerns because of where the ore deposits are located. Jabiluka mine is in the heart of Kakadu, a National Park, and also in the mines in the Arnhem region. Aboriginal communities are against the mine sites as they are on their cultural land and heritage. It can be argued however, that with strict regulations in the mining and milling of Uranium, the environmental effects and cultural disturbances can be minimal. The mine-tailing dam should for one not be built on a geological fault. This itself is an obvious way of minimizing the risk of contaminants being released. The site should not be located anywhere near or in the flood plain of rivers, and the level of the dam should be deep. If there is any seepage from the tailing dam, it shouldn't pose a risk to the ground water. During investigation of the site, ground water flow has to be monitored, to allow development of computer based three- dimensional ground water models. These models can be used for prediction of effects of supposed or real contaminant releases. This in itself can show the health and risk factor in the mine tailing. With this technology, we can work towards finding out ways in which to minimize the risks involved with the tailings. The deposits of the clay appropriate for lining and covering the deposit should not be located too far away, and the site should be remote from residential areas. It's these basic guidelines, that when followed, make Uranium mining and milling quite safe and not hazardous to the environment or people (taken from OECD NEA 1993, The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, ch 2) To increase the safety of a tailing deposit area, be it a damn or a pile, certain management are applied to reduce the risk of hazardous contaminants being released into the environment. Dewatering of the sludge, smoothing of the slopes, and installation of erosion protection. On top of the pile, an appropriate cover should be installed for protection against release of gamma radiation and radon gas, beginning of precipitation, intrusion of the plants and animals, and erosion. This cover in most cases consists of several different layers to meet all requirements. Moreover, the catchement collection and treatment of seepage water is necessary to release purified waters to the surface water only. In the long term however, water treatment should no longer be necessary. Uranium mining, despite the outcry against the environmental problems it can cause, is quite a positive and good thing for the Australian society. Through the mining and milling process, jobs are created and new skills gained. Unemployment is a big issue in Australia, and by boosting the employment rate, essentially boosting the economy. Uranium mining also brings Australia money through exports. In 1997-98 Australian Uranium accounted for 15 per cent of world production, worth about $288 million to Australia. (Lambert et al, 1996, Australia's Uranium Resources, BRS (expenditure, early resource) Fig 1. 1 Showing the amount of money Uranium export brings Australia Taken from: ‘Australia's Uranium and who owns It' Briefing Paper (Found at http://www. uic. com. au/nip01. htm) Advancements in mining technology will mean that hazardous contaminants in the Uranium tailings can be removed before the sludge is dumped in dams or piles. By doing so, the sludge piles/dams would be of no hazard to the environment and could be used to fill back up the mining sites. At the moment there are strict laws that govern Australian these laws and mine sites, are in place to minimize the risk of hazardous radiation being released from the waste piles (tailing dams, sludge piles etc). Only the future can tell what Uranium holds for us. Uranium mining at the present moment has a lot of controversy surrounding it, and the effects on the environment and cultural groups. It has to be realised that the laws governing Uranium Mining in Australia are strict and dictate how Uranium mining is undertaken. This means that there is little to no risk of the tailings being deposited on ‘risky' sites, and the risk of hazardous contaminants being released into the environment are small. By being sensitive to the views and culture of the Indigenous people, and involving them in decisions surrounding the mine, it won't be long until mining companies and these people come to an understanding or agreement.