Air pollution

Air pollution Abstract The health effects of air pollution have been subject to intense study in recent years. Exposure to pollutants such as airborne particulate matter and ozone has been associated with increases in mortality and hospital admissions due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. These effects have been found in short-term studies, which relate day-to-day variations in air pollution and health, and long-term studies, which have followed cohorts of exposed individuals over time. Effects have been seen at very low levels of exposure, and it is unclear whether a threshold concentration exists for particulate matter and ozone below which no effects on health are likely. In this review, we discuss the evidence for adverse effects on health of selected air pollutantsAbstract The health effects of air pollution have been subject to intense study in recent years. Exposure to pollutants such as airborne particulate matter and ozone has been associated with increases in mortality and hospital admissions due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. These effects have been found in short-term studies, which relate day-to-day variations in air pollution and health, and long-term studies, which have followed cohorts of exposed individuals over time. Effects have been seen at very low levels of exposure, and it is unclear whether a threshold concentration exists for particulate matter and ozone below which no effects on health are likely. In this review, we discuss the evidence for adverse effects on health of selected air pollutants

Motivation in Work Place Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Motivation in Work Place - Essay Example , cultural orientation of employees decides the value system of employees which directly influence their motivation level to perform a specific work in workplace. For example, employees in USA get motivated by recognition, financial reward, workplace challenge, success etc whereas employees of Taiwan emphasize more on work-life balance and interpersonal relationships (Su, 2006). It is evident from the theoretical argument of research scholars that managers of modern organization face challenge to motivate all the employees in equal magnitude to perform well, hence the study has decided to investigate contemporary management issues regarding employee motivation in the workplace and find how managers are responding to those issues. Identifying the management skills for managers which will help them to motivate employees in efficient manner will also be the key purpose of this report. Contemporary Management Issue Research scholars such as Kinicki and Kreitner (2007) and Chen and France sco (2003) have stated that linking employee satisfaction to employee motivation is one of the contemporary challenges that face modern managers. According to Koys (2001), diversified nature of the workforce has created challenge for managers to maintain a satisfied workforce who are motivated enough to perform in effective manner. Another contemporary challenges manager’s face is to develop an organizational culture which can keep employees motivated. Third contemporary issues manager to face is to link culture of innovation as a source for motivation for employees in the workplace. Three contemporary issues for managers can be summarized in the following manner. Contemporary Issue 1- Creating an organizational policy can help an employee to be satisfied and motivated in the workplace.... This report makes a good example of the organizational culture of Google. Fortunate magazine has referred Google as best organization to work for; there are reasons behind such ambitious claims. For example managers in Google have created a working environment which can help workers to get motivated automatically, there is a website named as "Google Ideas" where workers can submit their ideas and recommendation regarding product development or any issues pertinent to improvement of organizational culture. Managers carefully examine the potentiality of suggestions made by employees and use the potential ideas by actively engaging employees who gave the suggestion while developing new products. Products like Google News, Froogle, Gmail and Google+ were created in the above mentioned process. It is evident from the above example that managers of Google have emphasized on creating intrinsic motivation for workers by reshaping its work culture To end this discussion the study will cite the example of Bonaventure Agata, who has dedicated his life to healthcare. According to Bonaventure, managers and leaders need to be honest to their subordinates and make sure that subordinates actually believe that their leader truly understand their problems). Hence modern managers need to be engaged with their workers in order to motivate them. Managers need to communicate the career opportunity in the organization to an employee in clear and concise manner. In some cases, managers should act as mentor for young employees who have the potential to handle higher job responsibility in future.

Individual Rights and Social Order Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Individual Rights and Social Order - Assignment Example Additionally, it was necessary to safeguard the overall well-being of the community. The Commission also observed that in fulfilling this function, a system of justice tends to possess a divided role. Some of the roles were certain prevention of activities and the apprehension and formal processing of individuals, who have committed illegal acts in the society. According to Beames and Stonehouse (2007), a good society is one that nurtures both social values and the rights of an individual. A significant facet of good societies is that they find a healthy tension between individual needs and the needs of a group. Social order lies at the opposite end of the spectrum from individualism. Social conservatives are more interested in reinforcing the moral order. They prefer legislation use, rather than relying on normative means of impacting the behavior of an individual, to promote the values they hold. Examples of normative means that can influence individual behavior include leadership, moral voices within the society and education. Individual rights is the act of seeking to protect the personal freedoms of an individual within the criminal justice system, while social order is whereby the societys interest take precedence over the rights of an individual. Numerous laws and regulation have been put into place to balance the two sides throughout the American history. People are guaranteed the right to free assembly and free speech. However, those rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be limited when those actions harm others. For instance, when the actions of a citizen become violent, the authorities have a duty to halt the violence ant to shield the society. Governments considered to be democratic promote the freedom value but must also place limits on the freedom of an individual. Actions that might cause harm or alarm are forbidden for the common good. For instance, a person has the freedom of speech,

What's a terpene Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

What's a terpene - Essay Example Terpene is usually built up from an isoprene which is a type of a hydrocarbon that has five carbon atoms which are attached to the eight hydrogen atoms with the formula C5 H8 (Stewart 258). Terpenes usually occur after a biological formation of a combination of two molecules of acetic acid and mevalonic acid (C6 H12 O4) which is converted to isopentenyl pyrophosphate that latter transforms to isopentenyl compound that leads to occurrence of terpenes and terpenoids (which are oxygenated derivatives of the hydrocarbons that make up the terpene). Terpenes that are considered to be the true ones are those that are grouped according to the number of isoprene units in the molecules which usually includes two units of monoterpenes (C10 H16), six units of triterpenes (C30 H48), three units of sesquiterpene (C15 H24), eight units of tetraterpenes (C40 H64) and four units of diterpenes (C20 H32). Terpenes are used to make turpentine (that comes from the name terpene) which has several monoterpenes, resin (consisting of rosin acid and diterpenes), and even steroids (which are made from conversion of triterpene squalene that is usually obtained in the liver oil of sharks). Since terpene (diterpenes, monoterpenes and even sesquterpenes) is a constituent of the essential oils that are in many plants and animals, it is used to make fragrances used in perfumes and even the natural food additives. Other examples of terpene in its different form other than those mentioned above include vitamin A, hops (used to make some brands of beer), contribute to making of insecticides and recent research by biochemists in Norwich, England discovered that terpene through its bioactive cyclic molecule iridoid is a building block to potential anticancer agents (monoterpene indole alkaloids). Since plants that produce terpenes are aromatic, they are used in cooking. Terpenes are also an important ingredient in making of medicine such as marinol, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue TITLE Using a human fear paradigm, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to show competition between an instrumental avoidance response and a Pavlovian safety signal for association with omission of shock. Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning are two forms of associative learning. Pavlovian conditioning involves humans learning that initially neutral conditioned stimuli (CSs), such as a tone or colour, predicts an outcome (US), such as electric shock, or in the case of safety signals, safety, such as an omission of shock. Instrumental learning refers to learning associations between voluntary responses (such as a button press, or an avoidance response) and outcomes or reinforcers, such as shock or an omission of shock. In their first, overshadowing, experiment, expectancy data but not skin conductance levels (SCLs) suggested mutual overshadowing, as when the avoidance response (button press, *) and safety signal (C) were both presented with stimulus A, expectancy of shock was significantly lo wer than when A was only presented with the avoidance response or safety signal. In the second, blocking, experiment, no matter whether the avoidance response or C was pre-trained, the pre-trained element yielded the lowest expectancies of shock (i.e. greater safety learning), while safety learning of the alternate element was suppressed. Lovibond et al (2013) conclude that the expectancy data, as well as the non-significant SCL data, in the blocking and overshadowing paradigms exhibit evidence that competition occurred between the instrumental avoidance response and Pavlovian safety signal, and therefore a common learning mechanism underlies both forms of associative learning. In this paper, Lovibond et als (2013) experiments, and their conclusions, shall be critiqued. Strengths Lovibond et al (2013) exhibited considerable strength in the planning of their experiments. In both experiments, they used a variation of a previously used paradigm, such that their experiments already had relatively sound internal consistency and construct validity. They had the foresight to acknowledge the possibility that participants would learn a response-stimulus-outcome relationship rather than viewing the avoidance response and safety stimulus C as separate predictors. That is, they saw a potential weakness in their experimental design in that C could become a mediator of the causal efficacy of the avoidance response, rather than a competing cause. As such, in both experiments, they deliberately adjusted their design in order to prevent this by adding BC- trials and varying the time interval between the avoidance response and safety signal, to weaken the response-stimulus C association. They additionally asked participants to rate the degree of association between them, as we ll as with shock, so that they would know if response-stimulus-outcome learning had nonetheless occurred. Lovibond et al (2013) used previous research in order to resolve potential issues that could arise before running their experiment. For example, they doubled the number of B- trials in the pre-training phase because a prior study of theirs showed that predictors of no shock are more slowly learnt than predictors of shock, and they needed to ensure differential conditioning to stimuli A and B had occurred. Furthermore, aware that C being novel could be more anxiety-provoking and hence confound results by resulting in more conservative expectancy ratings and a higher SCL, Lovibond et al (2013) ensured that the first trial of the compound phase was always a BC- trial to reduce the novelty of C before it was paired with stimulus A. They acknowledged , in experiment 1, the possibility of participants having never experienced a trial with just the instrumental response or just the saf ety signal before the test phase, and thus participants may have been more conservative in their judgments, and account for this through directly evaluating competition via a blocking paradigm in experiment 2 where one group pre-trained Pavlovian (AC- trials) and the other pretrained (A* (+)) to ensure wasn’t just conservative ratings etcetera Lovibond et al (2013) also exhibited strength in their rigorously controlled experimental design. The use of headphones constantly emitting white noise (except when the tone stimulus was presented), ensured safety signal-shock learning was not confounded by external, extraneous sounds. The 180 degree rotary dial presented a more accurate measure of expectancy than a typical Likert 1-10 confidence scale. Lovibond et al (2013) used inter-trial intervals to ensure adequate time between trials to prevent confusion, to ensure shock was paired with the correct stimulus (A or B), and to allow SCL to return to baseline levels. Furthermore, they used Bonferroni correction to control for the extra possibility of type I error from using two measurements (expectancy and SCL data). In terms of theoretical strengths, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to explain unexpected results; and provide alternate explanations for expectancy data. In experiment 1, they excuse the lack of difference in expectancy to shock between A+ and B- trials in the pre-training phase, by explaining that across the remainder of the experiment, there was a significant difference in expectancies between the two (that is, differential conditioning occurred, it simply took longer than they expected). In experiment 1, they also provided an explanation for SCL unexpectedly increasing in the compound phase from trial 1 to trial 2, explaining that only 37% of participants made an instrumental response on the first trial, so that most participants received a shock then (so SCL would have been higher for trial 2 as they would be more anxious about being shocked), and from trial 2 onwards SCL declined appropriately. In experiment 1, they provided an alternate explanation for the expectancy data, by c laiming that it may have just been the novelty of A*- and AC- (that is, the novelty of testing the avoidance response and safety signal individually) that may have lead to the more conservative expectancy ratings when they were presented individually compared to when in conjunction. That is, they highlighted that it may not have been mutual overshadowing or competition that lead to lowered shock expectancies when in conjunction compared to when elements were presented individually, but rather an effect of novelty. This retained a sense of objectivity that is often forgotten in psychological reports which are determined to present their findings as definitive conclusions. Furthermore, while they do not bring this argument up, it is clear that this was not the case based on similar expectancy data from the blocking paradigm in Experiment 2, where either A* or AC- were pre-trained (that is, they were not novel in the test phase), and similar results emerged. They conclude by mentioning that the evidence of a single learning mechanism found in the paper is preliminary, not definitive, which is a strength as it highlights the need for repetition and an accumulation of more data to prove without a doubt that there is a single learning mechanism Lovibond et al (2013) do not make any assumptions. This is furthered by their outline of limitations in their own experiment by attempting an objective evaluation of their own experiment, a practice which is sometimes forgotten by psychologists who wish to convince their readers of their findings. As they highlight, the strongest evidence for competition was a cross-experiment comparison. They attempt to dismiss this limitation by saying that the same participant pool was used, with the same equipment, experimenter and same time frame, and that the common trials (A+ and B-) gave highly congruent data, suggesting that the test phases could be directly compared across experiments. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that a within-subjects design would be better. They highlight the limitation that only the expectancy measure yielded significant effects, but attempt to excuse this by explaining that autonomic conditioning results are often insignificant due to large individual differences which inflate the error term and reduce power. Weaknesses Unfortunately, Lovibond et al (2013)’s design had some flaws. Although they added BC- trials and varied time intervals between the avoidance response and presentation of safety signal C to ensure the avoidance response and stimulus C were independent, competing causes of shock, the post-experiment questionnaires where participants rated the degree of relationship between the two revealed that they were aware of a relationship between them. This means that the results (the lowered expectancies to shock when the avoidance response and safety signal were presented together, than when presented individually), which Lovibond et al (2013) saw as evidence for competition between an avoidance response and safety signal (and thus evidence for a single learning mechanism) may have simply occurred as the safety signal C, as a mediator of causal efficacy of the avoidance response, would have resulted in lower expectancy of shock when combined with the avoidance response, than when they we re separate (no competition necessary), whether in the blocking or overshadowing paradigm. Lovibond et al (2013) failed to discuss this, brushing it off as an intrinsic problem when there are voluntary responses. Continuing, while not the most ethical option, conditioning may have been more robust (in particular, SCL results may have been significant) if the level of shock selected for participants was manageably painful instead of just uncomfortable. This is because more variability in SCL would have emerged as participants would have been more anxious. The highly constructed laboratory setting, where they deliberately presented twice as many B- trials, and made as many adjustments as possible to find significant results, begs the question as to how often competition between avoidance responses and safety signals occurs in real life, and whether the single mechanism of learning proposed by Lovibond et al (2013) really exists or is just a fabrication of the laboratory procedures use d. Furthermore, humans are quite intelligent: by giving them instructions telling them that pressing a button or hearing a tone may or may not effect an outcome, it would be much easier for them to gain an accurate perception of expectancy of shock, particularly if they were undergraduate psychology students, which they probably were, and this may have confounded the results by lowering the expectancies in significant amounts accordingly that is, rather than genuine competition, participants may have just believed that there were connections from the instructions given, that there was less chance of shock when a button press or tone, and in conjunction, there was the least chance. Continuing, Lovibond et al (2013) claim, in their first experiment, that they had 53 participants, and in their second experiment, 89 participants, but after exclusions, the sample sizes of these experiments were 30 and 57 respectively. While they still had significant expectancy data, Lovibond et al (2013) should have specified more accurately the number of participants in each experiment. Furthermore, if they had had a larger sample size, they may have found significant SCL results due to greater power. Lovibond et al (2013), make faulty conclusions regarding SCL data. They conclude that the SCL data pattern mirrors that of the expectancy data across both experiments. However, as the SCL results were not significant, it is inappropriate to conclude this, as there is a higher probability that any mirrored pattern could be the result of chance alone. Statistically speaking, if the SCL data was not significant, than no real differences between the instrumental response and safety signal tested individually versus together have been found. Furthermore, Lovibond et al (2013) brush off the lack of findings in SCL data by claiming that the SCL measure is unreliable. However, it must be asked then, why Lovibond et al (2013) used such a measure in the first place if it is so unreliable. They claim that SCL have greater individual variability and greater sensitivity to extraneous factors and that is why there were no significant results, but in real life, those extraneous factors are bound to interfere, and if there were non-significant results with such factors, one must ask how applicable a single learning mechanism approach is. Granted, it could be argued that Lovibond et al (2013) is a highly theoretical paper by nature, interested in modeling conditioned learning (by claiming a single underlying mechanism defines conditioned learning structure), rather than application. However, one must ask how relevant or important a model could be if it does not have any external validity. Lovibond et al (2013), furthermore, make assumptions in their conclusions. They fail to explain why it follows that because there seems to be a common associative mechanism that the critical association in instrumental learning is an R-O association in order to explain competition with a Pavlovian S-O association. They do not attempt to explain why, in their cross-experiment comparison, expectancy measure responding in the blocked condition was significantly higher than in the overshadowing condition. Continuing, they assume that if there is a single-learning mechanism, it must be propositional by nature. This is problematic, because while the common thought among single-learning mechanism theorists is that the mechanism is propositional, Lovibond et al (2013) do not explain how their experiment exhibits a propositional mechanism. Even if they have provided evidence for a single-learning mechanism, they have not provided evidence regarding the nature of this single-learning mechanism . Propositional accounts claim that associative learning depends on effortful, attention-demanding reasoning processes. However, one must ask which part of this experiment showed that learning was an effortful process. Continuing, propositional models are faulty. Propositional accounts of learning fail to align with animal and developmental psychology. Non-human animals exhibit associative learning, although they do not have the language to deploy propositions to infer relations about events. If p, then q (or contingency) propositions, are not understood until children are 6years old. However, despite lacking the language abilities and contingency propositions to infer relations about events, backward blocking and other evidence of associative learning has been shown in children as young as 8 months. As X claims, there is not enough evidence to justify structured mental representations existing when associative learning occurs (i.e. a propositional model), over a broad, non-proposit ional associative link between representations. In their introduction, Lovibond et al (2013) are pedantic with their definitions in their introduction when explaining how Pavlovian and instrumental learning could be separate mechanisms. They differentiate between performance and learning claiming that Pavlovian performance is involuntary while instrumental responses are voluntary, but that does not mean they are not learnt the same way. However, if they are to be differentiated, as Lovibond et al (2013) do, whether in their experiment they are actually measuring an underlying mechanism or performance in the test phase, as generated expectancies could simply be another measure of performance their anxiety levels (CR) conditioned to the safety signal or avoidance response. Continuing, they claim that the notation E1 and E2, where E1 could be a stimulus (Pavlovian) or action (Instrumental conditioning), and where E2 is the outcome, reinforces the notion that a single learning mechanism may underlie both types of associative learning . However, this is simply induced notation. Equally, one could use the notation S-S for Pavlovian learning (the CS-US link, hence S-S), and R-O for instrumental learning (the response-outcome relationship), to portray them as separate learning mechanisms, and to support a dual-process model. Thus, Lovibond et als (2013) proposal of a single learning mechanism is largely based on unfounded claims. Furthermore, in their introduction, while Lovibond et al (2013) attempt to provide evidence for a single-learning mechanism, evidence can also be provided for a dual-process model. For example, a single learning mechanism assumes awareness is required for conditioning. However, Baeyens et al 1990 found flavour-flavour learning occurred in absence of any contingency awareness. Continuing, in Perruchets task where a tone was either paired with an air-puff or was presented alone, when the tone and airpuff had recently been paired together, expectancy of an air puff on the next trial was reduced, the probability of an eyeblink CR occurring was heightened. Furthermore, neurological data suggests different brain regions are involved in different learning processes, for example, the amygdala plays a large role in fear conditioning. Therefore, it is possible that instrumental and pavlovian are equally run by different parts of the brain. Lovibond et al (2013) did not actually provide evidenc e against such a model. For example, they could have argued against the dual-process model by claiming that the dissociation between the eyeblink CR and expectancy when CS-US pairings have recently been presented in the Perruchet task, which some learning theorists use to support the dual-process model, that the eyeblink CR results from sensitisation from recent US presentation (a recent air puff). Alternately, they could counter-argue that while the amygdala has a large part in fear learning, it could simply be a subcomponent of a broader, singular system of learning. It would have been a more convincing argument that the experiments were necessary and that a single learning mechanism were possible if they had had more depth in the lead up to their hypotheses. Conclusion Lovibond et al (2013) claim from their experiments that a single learning mechanism underlies Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning. However, despite their attempts to remain objective and their rigorous planning and control of their experiment, they fail to address vital problems to their experiment (such as the possibility of the safety signal being a mediator for the efficacy of the avoidance response), assume, without sufficient evidence, that if a single learning mechanism underlies both types of associative learning, it must be propositional in nature (a faulty assumption), speak of SCL data as if it were significant when it was not, and in the lead-up to their hypotheses regarding a single learning mehcanism, fail to dismiss the possibility of a dual-process model. Reference Lovibond, P.F. and Colagiuri, B., 2013. Facilitation of voluntary goal-directed action by reward cues.  Psychological Science,  24(10), pp.2030-2037.

Essay --

According to our research, our analysis and our experiences, we can assume that the following statements could help us to have a better understanding on how and why there is such a big difference of suicide rate at workplace between two companies competing in the same sector: The following statements are based on Geert Hofstede organizational dimensions model and on Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s different researches about organizational culture and management style. Between those two research projects, not all of the statements would be relevant for our research, so we will highlight the ones that can give us some answers about the reason of a higher suicide rate in France Telecom than in Claro even though both are competing in the same sector. 1. Means vs Goal oriented culture This first aspect is directly related to the effectiveness of the organization. Hence, in a means oriented culture, people identify with the â€Å"how†, in other words, how they will carry on a project, while in a goal oriented culture, people identify with the â€Å"what†, that is to say that they need to achieve a specific task or results within the organization. According to our research, we can say that Claro (Colombia) is a means oriented culture while France Telecom (France) is a goal oriented culture, the â€Å"what† and the obsession of achieving goals no matter how, gives stress and pressure to the employee. â€Æ' 2. Internally driven vs externally driven With this aspect, the idea of satisfaction is not about the employee, but about the customer. In an internally driven culture, honesty and business ethics matters, while in an externally culture, the only important thing is to meet the customers’ requirements. In Colombia, the employee feel like that if they r... ...anagement orders, while the solar system tends to have an impersonal bureaucracy and a high individualism within the different management levels. 8. Deal vs relationship management In deal-oriented cultures, managers tend to focus on the task and on the project itself and want to keep the head down to business. At the extreme, some of those managers may even avoid discussions with their employees. France is a good example of deal oriented culture; indeed, managers care more about business than about people. On the other hand, in a relationship oriented culture, as it is in Colombia, managers care more about people and put value on relation with them. It is important for managers to build a trustworthy relationship with their employees and to get to know each of them in order to understand how each of them work and therefore create a nice atmosphere within the team.

Case Study Real Choices at KFC Essay

Case Study Real Choices at KFC (page 243) Could you imagine eating a sandwich without any bread? At first I found it kind of odd but overall it may be something to consider in your future diet. Next time you are standing in the bakery department deciding on what loaf of bread to buy, flip the loaf over and read the nutritional information. You may be surprised of what you are actually eating. My significant other does a lot of grocery shopping so I wanted to see exactly what she has been having me eat. Four times a day without giving it a second thought I eat a peanut butter and honey sandwich for breakfast and roast beef and cheese for lunch. My findings from Nature’s Own 100% whole grain are that each slice contains 70 calories and 0 calories from fat. I guess that’s not too bad considering you have to have two pieces of bread for something to be considered a sandwich right? Well the debate officially began in 2010 when Kentucky Fried Chicken (as known as KFC) introduced their â€Å"Double Down† to be an additional item to the menu. KFC promoted the new item in its advertisements stating that there is â€Å"so much 100% premium chicken, that they didn’t have room for a bun† The sandwich is an attempt to grow revenue in a very competitive business in a society where every calorie counts. The United States has the largest fast-food market in the world and it continues to advance daily while keeping their current customers happy along with trying to recruit new business. KFC began in a gas station in North Corbin, Kentucky during the Great Depression. The success of the eating establishment original called Sanders Court & Cafà © led to expansion and renaming of what we know it today as Kentucky Fried Chicken. In 1952 the first KFC opened in South Salt Lake Utah, and expanded in Canada in the early 1960’s. Since this time KFC has changed ownership several times and today the brand is owned by Yum Brands and is based in Louisville, Kentucky. There are more than 14,000 KFC restaurants in more than 80 countries around the world, serving 12 million customers each day. According to KFC.com, the Double Down, â€Å"features two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets (original recipe or grilled), two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper cheese, and the Colonels Sauce.† Although it was initially offered on a limited time basis, KFC decide to add the item to its menu permanently. The company’s change of course was related to the string sales driven in part by people eating the sandwich on YouTube and popular TV  personality Stephen Colbert consuming one on The Colbert Report TV show. KFC reports that the launch is one of their most successful ever. From a nutritional standpoint, the Double Down is 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1380 milligrams of sodium. The grilled version is 460 calories, 23 grams of fat, and 1430 milligrams of sodium. The level of sodium in the sandwich is drawing a great deal of concern from customers and health organizations. To put these numbers into perspective every twelve hundred milligrams is equal to  ½ teaspoon of salt. Many critics are questioning why KFC introduced this as an option in the middle of building its brand image as a fast food restaurant offering healthier menu choices. The fast food retail market is in constant state of competition. The dilemma for the company is how to appeal to both the healthy market and the generous market? Many customers prefer healthy choices when considering fast food; however there are numerous customers who find the appeal of fat, salt, and processed carbohydrates simply irresistible. The general issue of obesity is leading to major health problems become front page news. The choice of menu items must lead to long term profits and competitive market advantage and KFC will have to find a way to balance both. 1.What is the decision facing KFC? The decision facing KFC is how to appeal to both the healthy market and to the not so healthy market? I think for starters they could have renamed the sandwich from the get go. When I hear the words Double Down at a fast food restaurant, there is no way it can’t be good for you, but then again maybe that’s why it was such a huge success. I take it more like double your weight and your heart rate slows down while eating the sandwich. I think if they had used another name it may have drawn better attention to health organizations and to the healthy market. My suggestion are Twice is Nice, Two is better. Pure Chicken, or the Real Deal maybe something more appealing to the healthy consumers. 2.What factors are important in understanding their decision situation? Some of the most important factors in this decision facing KFC is to first realize what consumers really want to eat and then even how it looks and sounds to others that may be on the fence of trying the sandwich. They say you judge something within 7 seconds of seeing it whether it is going in your mouth or in any other means of life. I personally think meals like this one is not an option for most consumers in  today’s competitive market while hungry when others have a lot more to offer and healthier. 3.What decision do you recommend? In today’s environment I personally think the idea was there with the chicken, which is one of the cheapest and healthiest things to eat. I think this option would attract more consumers if it was on a wrap or tortilla and smaller portions instead of holding two pieces of chicken in your hand while drinking a big gulp to wash down the salt. 4.Conclusion To sum it up fast food is ongoing competition to entice consumers of all markets to buy their product whenever and wherever. I hope you have learned something from me and my case and the next time you order a sandwich will it be without bread. Regardless of what I think or what others may so, would you order one of these sandwiches, if you haven’t already indulged into the deliciousness? To be honest I never even heard of it? Can you come up with any other ideas that may help out KFC to attractive the healthier market of consumers? Do you feel sandwiches like the â€Å"Double Down† is the future for fast food chains?