In Chicago, Coal Is The Real Crime

Summary:

When most people think of innocent people being killed, they think of murders or terrorism. However, toxic pollution has become a huge problem in our country and around the world, and is claiming many lives. According to the Clean Air Task Force and Harvard University, every year in the US, between 13,000 and 34,000 lives are lost due to the toxic chemicals released into the environment by coal plants. These harmful emissions also cause other health effects such as asthma attacks,heart attacks, respitory diseases, birth deffects, and many more. This results in Taxpayers dishing out nearly 500 billion dollars per year to pay for the damaging effects of this extremely harmful pollution. Chicago is home to two very old coal plants that release high levels of toxins into the air to to their ancient technology. The death toll from these toxins in the city of Chicago alone is about 40 people per year. Even worse, these power plants are generating power for places in the east coast and California. These plants are sickening the people of Chicago and helping them in no way. Chicago is suffering the destructive effects of these dirty energy sources, and not recieveing any of the profit.

Picture:

Crawford coal fired plant, which is one of the power plants mentioned in the article. Due to its old age, it is extremely dirty and the cause of much of the pollution in Chicago.

Reflection:
I knew that pollution could make people sick, butt i didn't know that it actually did! I do not understand how this is legal. If these toxic pollutants are causing such widespread sickness and even death, why are they still being released into the environment? It kind of makes me angry that the government lets these companies get away with murder...literally. This reminds me of the topic we've been discussing almost everyday in class lately, the Donora smog. The companies in Donora that were releasing so many chemicals from the zinc smelting plants and got away with it. It’s outrageous that these companies can get away with this. The government needs to step up and do something about it?

Questions:

1. Does this article change your views and opinions about air pollution? How?
2. Were you aware of these devastating health affects?
3. Why do you think the government doesn't take more action against air pollution?
4. How do you think your opinion about air pollution would be different if you were living in Chicago and suffering because of these coal plants?
5. What are some ways to fix the health issues caused by this pollution?

Source:

• Title- In Chicago, Coal Is The Real Crime
• Author- Phil Radford
• Date- May 24th, 2011
• URL- http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/in-chicago-coal-is-the-real-crime/blog/34899

Global Warming Affects the Polar Bears

Polar bears are losing their habitats due to global warming. Because of the intensive heat in the Arctic, the ice caps are melting and they spend far more time at sea than on land. Global warming is decreasing the size of population, causing sea ice platforms to move farther apart, swimming conditions more dangerous, fewer hunting opportunities, and an increased scarcity of food. They have a small amount of time to hunt during the important season when seal pups are born. As a result, the average bear weight has dropped 15 percent, causing the reproduction rates to decline. Remaining ice is farther from shore, making it less reachable. The larger gap of open water between the ice and land also adds to rougher wave conditions, making the bears’ swim from shore to sea ice more harmful. Exacerbating the problems of the loss of hunting areas, it is expected that the shrinking polar ice cap will also cause a decline in polar bears’ prey, the seals. The drop in ice platforms near useful areas for the fish that the seals eat affects their nutritional status and reproduction rates. Polar bears are going hungry for longer periods of time, and they can only go so long without food. As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey predicts that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050.

This polar bear issue has been a problem for quite some time now. I see those sad commercials about how polar bears are becoming extinct and how we should try to help and save them. It is amazing how global warming affects these polar bears so much, with habitats, food, and dangerous transporting conditions. I have heard this issue so many times before but never knew that two thirds with be gone by 2050. Hopefully this will all end by the time 2050 comes around because two thirds is much more than half the population.

1. What do you think we could do to help the polar bears?

2. When do you think global warming will end? Why?

3. Why should we care about the polar bears?

4. How is global warming affecting other animals?

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Polar-Bears.aspx

Australian Renewable Energy Revolution Critical By 2020

Summary: The author of the report "The Critical Decade: climat science, risks and responses," says that the earth will soon be running out of time to prevent very serious climate events cause from global warning and that countries of the world, especially Australia, should start a renewable energy revolution by 2020 or else there will be irreversible damage done to climate change. Austrlia must get there carbon emissions to stabilized by using energy efficient technologies. Lowering carbon emissions only slows the growth rate of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Changes must be made in the next decade to transition to zero emissions economy to avoid and increase in global temperature by 2 degrees. An increase in temperature could mean an increase in sea level by 1 meter by 2100, extinctions of coral reefs, and even the end of the polar ice caps. Renewable sources like solar and wind could help that change. This information just reinforces the science behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's that says that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. It also raises the question of the links tha could be between floods in Australia and the human induced climate change. ( picture- the major increase in global climate in just over hundred years)

Reflection: 2020 is not that far away which means the world, especially Australia needs to start thinking about global climate change. I never knew that climate change could be irreversible. If we don't get to it by 2020 the global temperature could increase by 2 degrees permanently. I also just learned that a small climate change could dramatically change the sea level. We could loose how polar ice caps! They are already melting because of the global climate change. I hope the world and Australia will realize we need to switch to renewable energies so we can prevent serious global climate events. This reminds me of when we learned about renewable energy and how much they could help with our environment. This also reminds me of just last summer and how hot it got during the day, I can't even imagine the summer getting any hotter. I hope we can stop this increase in global climate change.

Questions:

1) Do you think it is possible to have a renewable energy revolution by 2020?

2) Why is renewable energy a way to prevent serious climate events?

3) What do you think is the reason why we have not tried to prevent an increase in global climate before?

Title: Australian Renewable Energy Revolution Critical By 2020

Author: Energy Matters

Publication: Energy Matters

Date: May 23, 2011

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1526

Green Economy Needs Boost, U.N. says

The United Arab Emirates are saying that the industrialized nations need to make renewable energy better and more attractive to keep the climate in check. A special report on renewable resources is saying that wind and solar energy could be as much as 80% of the global energy mix by 2050. This can only happen if the economies make the right decisions. If the economies make the right decisions and incentives then that could mean an increase in the energy mixes of clean energy development. Another thing that would happen if the economies switched to renewable energy would be that the greenhouse gases would stay low to keep the climate change in order. To make this all happen the nations must start using renewable resources at a very large scale. The different nations cooperations is the key to switch to renewable energy in all countries. (picture- what 80% of our global energy mix could be in 2050, wind and solar energy)

Having renewable energy in all countries would be an amazing switch in the world. Wind and solar energy could be 80% of the global energy mix by 2050, and thats not that far! It is surprising that just by switching from nonrenewable to renewable energy we could keep the climate change in check. I believe alternative renewable energy was always the better choice. There is so much more alternative renewable energy that could take place for nonrenewable energy and there would be so much less pollution. The world in general would become a better place. It would also be surprising to me if all the nations would be willing to work together and switch to renewable energy. If they can just realize what a difference it would make they could actually succeed.

Questions
1) Do you think switching to renewable energies in all countries is better than nonrenewable energy?
2) Do you think it's possible to switch over to renewable energy by 2050% Why or why not?
3) Why is switching to renewable energy put on the different econmies?
4) If the econmies switched to renewable energy what could happen?

Title: Green Economy Needs Boost, U.N. says
Author: does not say
Publication: United Press International
Date: May 10, 2011

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/05/10/Green-economy-needs-boost-UN-says/UPI-68121305024648/

Is nuclear energy worth the risk?

Summary:

After what happen in Japan is nuclear energy even worth it. Scientists say that big disaster like what happen in Japan will never happen in US, but what if they did. It could happen, then what would we do with that area? How would we clean it up? These are all reasons why we shouldn't use nuclear energy. Also what happens to all of the nuclear waste, what do we do with that. The world needs to focus on more renewable energy like wind energy not nuclear energy. Renewable energy doesn't have a peak in price because it’s fuel(wind) is free. Unlike nuclear energy were the price will only increase as time goes on. In the long term nuclear energy is not for the future.

Reflection:

I completely agree. Nuclear energy is not for the future. Even though nuclear energy does not pollute, I do not think it’s a good source of energy. Eventually we will run out of uranium then nuclear energy will become useless. We need to stop making nonrenewable energy and switch to the clean safe renewable energy. If we did continue to use nuclear energy then what would we do with all of the nuclear waste. Also what if some kind of disaster happened, then what. Nuclear isn’t safe or renewable, it’s not worth the risk.

Questions:

1. What is your opinion on nuclear energy?

2. Do you think nuclear energy is a good source of energy?

3. What type of energy would be a good replacement for nonrenewable energy?

4. What do you think is the best way to get energy?

Title: Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?

Author: Kumi Naidoo

Date: May 8, 2011

URL: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/04/nuclear.debate/index.html?iref=allsearch

Watermelon Juice- Next Source of Renewable Energy

20% of watermelon crops are wasted each year for many reasons. The watermelons go to waste and are used for nothing. What if we could do something with these watermelons? Well the good news is, WE CAN! Watermelons can be use to produce biofuel ethanol. The juice can be used directly or as a nitrogen supplement. It is good for other reasons as well. After using the juice, it can be used for ethanol production.

I think that using watermelon juice as biofuel ethanol is a GREAT idea. If the unsellable watermelons are not being used at all, then why not use them as a fuel? I makes complete sense to take advantage of this and use the juice in a beneficial way. It does not make any pollution, and we are decreasing the amount of fossil fuels we are using. I have always wondered what unique things we could use as fuel, and i think this is very interesting! I would have never guessed that watermelon could be used as a fuel. I can relate this very easily, because everytime I eat fruit I wonder what farmers do with all of the bad crops. Now I know that they can be used as fuel.. well at least watermelon. Overall, I think this is and extremely good idea and could become very popular in the future.

1.) If you had the option, would you use watermelon juice as a fuel?
2.) Do you think using watermelon juice is a good idea or a bad one? Why?
3.) Do you think this will become more popular in the future?

Title: Watermelon Juice- Next Source of Renewable Energy
Author: Zachary Shahan
Date: August 27, 2009
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/27/watermelon-juice-next-source-of-renewable-energy/

Google Continues Investing In Renewable Energy

Summary:

Google stated that they were working to make renewable energy cheaper than coal for consumers, but this is a long term goal. Their center of attention is on wind turbine technology. These wind turbines are to produce power along the railroads and computer server farms. Wind energy is clean, renewable, eco-friendly, and will most likely only increase as time moves on. “The Internet search giant said in late 2007 it would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in solar, wind and geothermal technologies to help make renewables cost competitive with coal, reviled by environmentalists for its emissions,” says Reuters, a global news agency. Google made over $350 million in additional investments for renewable energy to date. Google Advisor, Rick Needham explained that Google is also discovering improved geothermal renewable opportunities; this uses existing heat from deep underground to create energy.

Reflection:

I never thought that Google was the type of company to help out like this. Google was always just one of those web-sites to look things up for research and projects. Hopefully Google will help the economy by reducing the cost of fuel/energy such as gas prices and electricity. I remember when gas was only a little more than a dollar, and now those prices have just sky rocketed through the roof. This is a big issue and I think that it is excellent to see all types of business trying to help out like this. If more people would help to change the world, we could do something big, one step at a time.

Questions:

1. How long do you think it will take for Google to accomplish making renewable energy cheaper than coal?

2. What do you think is the fastest way to get the most energy?

3. Do you think that using wind turbines is the best idea for what Google wants to do?

4. Will Google investigate other countries for renewable energies?

Info:

Title-Google Continues Investing In Renewable Energy

Author-Benzinga Staff Writer

Date- April 28, 2011

URL- http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/04/1041309/google-continues-investing-in-renewable-energy-goog

Waste-to-Electricity Plan Draws Mixed Response in N.Y.

Summary:

The mayor of New York City has added waste-to-electricity technologies to his environmental agenda. This technology has become very popular in Europe but is not very common yet in the United States. The hope is that burning waste will help reduce the amount of space needed for landfills and reduce the cost of transporting it. The city is planning on using two specific methods, anaerobic digestion and thermal processing. This will turn solid waste into either electricity or fuel that can be used to create electricity. Some people argue that this system will be a positive step toward a more environmentally friendly way of creating energy. It is said that fewer greenhouse gases are created from the burning of trash than from the current methods used to dispose of it. However, many say that the focus of the NYC Sanitation Department should be on improving the city's 20% recycling rate. Overall, the waste-to-electricty technologies create a win-win situation, trash is being disposed of and a cleaner type of energy is being produced. The above image is a picture of a landfill. It is absolutely horrible and disgusting, something needs to be done to lower the amount of these in our country.

Reflection:

This article looked really interesting to me because I think this is probably one of the best alternative energy sources. It makes so much sense, you can get rid of your trash and create electricity! At sometime or another we are going to begin running out of room for landfills and have to find a different way to dispose of our waste, and what better way to do it? Not only are we getting rid of the garbage, we are benefitting from it too! I also thought this article was good because we discussed it in class last week. This article makes it seem like burning trash doesn't create a lot of air pollution but there must be some harmful chemicals produced by it. However, if it's cleaner than fossil fuels then it's a step in the right direction. I think waste-to-electricity technology is a great idea and i hope to see it become much more popular in our country in the near future.

Questions:

1. What is your opinion on waste-to-electricity technology?
2. What advice would you give the mayor of NYC on his decision whether or not to use it?
3. Do you think this could become a major energy source in the near future?
4. If this technology is so popular in Europe, why do you think we don't use it in our country?
5. Do you think all the claims made about this technology are true? Why or why not?

Information:

Title: Waste-to-Electricity Plan Draws Mixed Response in N.Y.

Author: Mireya Navarro

Date: 4/27/2011

URL: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/waste-to-electricity-plan-draws-mixed-response-in-n-y/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Gates backs GM crops with $17.7m

"Efforts to use genetically modified crops to fight malnutrition in Africa and Asia will receive a major vote of confidence from Bill Gates."

There will be an improvement in rice and cassava due to the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is offering grants that are worth up $17.7 million to improve the crops that are eaten by millions of people in Africa and Asia. The improvement of these crops can only be done through genetic engineering. The money will help companys create strains of gentically modified rice, called "golden rice", which will produce beta-carotene and once consumed by the body it will turn into vitamin A. In SouthEast Asia alone, more than 90 million children suffer from a lack of vitamin A. A deficiency of vitamin A cause 670,000 deaths and 350,000 cases of blindness in children worldwide each year. The money will also help to add beta-carotene, iron and protein to cassava. Cassava is a crop eaten by more than 250 million people in Africa. Without the genetic engineering, the crop cassava could put people at risk for malnutrition. (picture right- what children look like who have malnutrition, the GM crops could help make the rate of malnutrition go down, and less kids looking like this)

I think this is the one of the first articles I ever read about GM crops that is actually about the postive part of GMO's and how it could help the people survive. A deficiency in these nutrients that crops need is causing many deaths and illnesses in children. I feel that Africa and Asia need these GM crops to help the rates of death and illness go down. It could also help the people who are starving in those areas since GM crops produce faster. This reminds me of when I was in global studies and we talked about the people in Africa and how unhealthy they are. If the GM crops work, Africa could climb very high in the world and their death rates from malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency could decrease. Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into this cause, I just hope it helps and doesn't cause any problems.

QUESTIONS

1) After reading this article what do you think of GM crops?

2) Do you think the GM crops could cause problems for Africa and Asia?

3) What problems could GM crops cause in Africa and Asia?

4) Do you think there is any other way to improve the vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition in Africa and Asia instead of using GMO's?

Author: The Times

Date: April 15, 2011

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gates-backs-gm-crops-with-177m/story-e6frg6so-1226039354140

Genetically Modified Canola Plants Evade Farmers' Borders

Scientists in North Dakota are finding that usually only farmed Genetically Modified Canola plants are starting to sprout up in very high numbers in the wild also. This so called 'escape' of these plants is giving some people worry because of the possibility of the plant becoming unable to kill with pesticides. This discovery was originally just a small size test not meant to really find any interesting results, but ended up having strangely overwhelming results. Scientist believe that this should not be a very big issue, due to the fact that the GM plants are used to being pampered with fertilizers, constant watering and tending to, and no competition with other plants. These conditions make it very easy for these plants to live, but makes it even more difficult for these plants to live in the wild. While this may not currently be a big issue, other spreads of GM plants could end up making it difficult for them to stay contained. 


Though people may be very wary to take another issue in our environment on their back, I think that it is important that we keep watching this trend and make sure that the rise in GM plants does not get overwhelmingly high. We don't think that these types of things will happen and it seems that they always end up doing so. While these plants may not be very well adapted to the environment, their adaptions are constantly changing and will eventually be able to hold their own in the wild environment, in contrary to the farm environment. I also find it interesting that the people who did this experiment were the first to realize this onslaught of GM canola plants, and not the environmentalists in the area.


Questions:
1) Do you think that this will become an issue if we do not keep tabs on the amount of GM canola plants throughout North Dakota?
2) Do you think there should be a mandatory check of amounts of wild GM plants?
3) Should farmers have to make sure that these types of "escapes" don't happen?
4) Do you think that scientists are undersizing the magnitude of this spread?


Title: Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Field
Author: Geoffrey Brumfiel
Date: 4/13/2011
Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499

GM crops created superweed

Summary:

This article was about GM crops causing a super weed. A GM crop was made to be resistant to herbicides and and weed that was growing in the same area became resistant to three different herbicides.They found this out when they tested the results from Canadian farmers that volunteer to do it. Scientist are confused by how this happen, so they tested another plant that was growing in the same area and it was resistant herbicide too. Other counties aren't sher if they are going to allow GM crops because scientist say that it couldn't create a super weed, but when GM crops were used it form a super weed.

Reflection:

Scientist sad this could never happen and now it did so what do we now? If more farmers continue to use these GM crop so their will be crop and insects that are unkillable. If this kind of thing happens then scientist will have to come out with some kind of super herbicide and pesticide.

Questions:

1. What do think will happen if this super weed spreads?

2. Do you think that this super weed could become spread everywhere?

3. Do you think GM crops should not be used?

4. How would you prevent these super weeds from being made?

Information:

Tittle- GM crops created superweed, say scientists

Author-Paul Brown

Date-4/12/11

URL-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food

Brazil utilises more GM crops than ever before

There was a study conducted by an agricultural consulting company, Celeres, from Brazil that states that the majority of soybeans and maize comes from genetically modified seeds. The Celeres Company monitored the crop season of 2010 to 2011 and discovered that more than three-quarters of the land used in Brazil for their crops were planted with genetically modified seeds. Maize crops have increased in area by almost 46% since last season and estimated to increase to 57% of the total area. 325 hectares (10,000 square meters) consists various types of GM which are pest-resistant, herbicide-tolerant, or blend of both of them. This mixture is currently being used in ordinary crop season for the first time. As herbicide-tolerant GM traits are being released, it is limiting the access of technology during the summer and is anticipated to increase in the winter.

We get so many crops from Brazil, how do we know that what we are receiving is not genetically modified? We don’t always know what exactly we are putting in our mouths every day. I never knew that Brazil was such a problem with GMOs. This article was really recent which means this is happening right now and I have never heard anything about GMOs and Brazil before. I never even thought that something existed like a combined GM trait like there is with the pest-resistant and herbicide-tolerant.

1. How can this be beneficial to our society?

2. With the economy the way it is, would the price of these foods increase or decrease?

3. Have you read anything about Brazil and GMOs?

4. What can you tell me about genetically modified food?

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/550.docu.html

More Revelations of FDA Bad Behavior Around GE salmon

Summary:

The FDA is pushing for a new type of genetically engineered salmon to be approved for human consumption. However, marine experts are trying to prevent this from happening. While the FDA claims that the potential risks of producing these fish are so unlikely that they do not even matter, many experts counter that the slim chance of these risks is insignificant because they could have devastating results. They say that if these genetically modified fish escape into the wild they could breed with natural fish and create a huge environmental disturbance. The FDA argues that the fish are sterilized so they are not a potential threat to the environment because even if they escape they are unable to reproduce. There is a flaw in this though, claims many experts. They say that three percent of the fish are still fertile even after the sterilization. There is always a slim chance that the small fraction of fish that are still fertile could escape and mate with wild fish. The FDA insists that the benefits of these fish outweigh the possible risks, and are hoping to have the them approved for sale very soon. This picture shows a place where fish are grown for the reason of human consumption. This is obviously an unacceptable way of growing geneticalley engineered fish and different methods will need to be used for them.

Reflection:

I personally am for the use of GMOs. I agree with the FDA that their potential positive effects outweigh the negatives. However, I think that there should be strict laws put in place about how and where these plants and animals are allowed to be grown. If many precautions are taken then there should be no way for the fish to escape into the wild. I think there should be laws about how close to bodies of water they are allowed to grow the fish, and they should be grown in labs or indoors somewhere. This exact topic was discussed in our GMO packet. This article was just a more in depth look at all of the different pros and cons of the situation. I think it is important to be informed about this topic because we might be given the choice whether to purchase these genetically modified fish in stores sometime in the near future.

Questions:

1. Do you side with the FDA or Marine activists? Why?
2. What other ways can the FDA ensure that genetically modified fish do not escape into the wild?
3. Do you agree that it is important to be informed about this topic? Why or why not?
4. Would you buy genetically modified salmon if they were sold in stores? Why or why not?
5. What do you think the situation with genetic modification will be like in a decade?

Information:

Title- More revelations of FDA bad behavior around GE salmon

Author- Tom Laskawy

Date- November 16, 2010

URL- http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-16-fda-bad-behavor-over-ge-salmon

GMOs taking over

Fish genes, pig genes, or whatever could all be found in GMOs. If you were to buy a tomatoe plant, you may end up eating some type of animal gene. When inserting a seed with GMOs, the seeds reproduce at a much faster rate, causing the genetically modified seeds to take over the normal ones. More then 90% of crop varities have dissapeared due to the genetically modified seeds. People do not realize that we are loosing plant species, faster then we are loosing animal species. This has caused a major problem in biodiversity, which then leads to problems with pests and diseases. Overall, the amount of genetically modified seeds needs to decrease, because we need to save the other species for our habitats.

      This picture shows how more, and more seeds are being injected with GMOs.

Wow, I knew that genetically modified seeds were taking over normal ones, but not to the extent that 90% of crop species have dissapeared. I feel that some type of action should be taken. We need to save the other species so our crops are not just all genetically modified plants. One way of doing this could be to limit the amount of GMO seeds planted in an area. Even though the seeds might still take over some parts, other parts will still left to grow normally. I can relate this back to the lab we are currently working on in class. We just started the experiment but we are testing to see if GMO seeds, and the normal seeds with die if we put the roundup ready seed on top. Whats predicted to happen is that the GMO seeds will not die, but the normal seeds will. Overall, I think that something needs to be done to save our plant species, and not let the genetically modified plants take over.

1.) What do you think could be done to prevent GMO seeds from completely taking over?
2.) Do you think GMO seeds are okay to plant?
3.) How would you feel if you were a farmer and your plant species were dissapearing due to GMO seeds taking over?

Title- Saving The Seeds
Author- Suzanne Elston
Publication date- April 2, 2011

http://www.torontosun.com/life/greenplanet/2011/03/30/17811271.html

EPA to Require Tap Water Tests for Unregulated Contaminants

Summary:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a national plan to require water utilities to test the quality of drinking water for 28 contaminants. The EPA has declared that this is a major leap forward in the government’s efforts to recognize and control pollution from perfluorochemicals (PFCs), artificial developed chemicals that has been used in many stain-repellent coverings, non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings. Perfluorochemicals pollute drinking water and source water in at least 11 states and could be a serious threat to public health. The EPA’s water testing will help get rid of difficult environmental problems that our country encounters. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found PFCs in the bodies of nearly all Americans over 12 years of age. The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) tests of blood sample from 10 infants born in the U.S. in 2007 and found that all 10 newborns had been exposed to PFCs during pregnancy. Some PFC pollution in water has been acknowledged throughout investigations of unofficial industrial releases. The EPA’s plan represents a certain step that would help define the full capacity of contamination and would help managers guard water sources from these pollutants.

Relfection:

Testing for 28 contaminants is a lot to be testing now, this should have happened a long time ago, especially with perfluorochemicals being in common everyday items. You would think that non-stick cookware and water and grease-resistant coatings would be harmless for food and safe to consume since these materials touch your food as you cook. Things that are developed today should be tested for contaminants. There needs to be a more productive and quicker process to get results. If they can put a man one the moon, testing for toxins should be no problem.

Questions:

1) Do you think this problem will ever go away? Why or why not?

2) How do you think we can prevent contaminants from getting us sick?

3) What are 3 states you think already have perfluorochemicals and why?

http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-require-national-tap-water-tests-unregulated-contaminants?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ewg_alltopics+%28EWG%3A+All+Topics%29

75% of coral reefs threatened

Summary

Human activity and the climate has caused 75 percent of reefs to be at risk. The big human impact it the overfishing, coastal development and lack of watersheds. The highest threat is near Asia with a 95 percent chance of destruction because of the overfishing. These percent are only getting worse. If coral reefs were to start getting destroyed it could cause lots of problems. The only good thing is reef have shown in the past to be able to survive extreme damage.

Reflection

This would become very serous soon if some thing isn't done about it. If reefs were to get destroyed it would effect social and economic way of life. Many different species live in a reef and maybe thats why reef can survive extreme damage, but if thats true then that mean if they were to get destroyed it would have a huge impact of the food change and would even affect humans. I have seen forest get burn and the habit destroyed and I would hate to see that happen to the reefs.

Question

1) How do you think reefs are able to survive extreme damage?

2)Do you think the reefs will be able to survive the damage the human did?

3)What do you think should be done to fix this problem?

Tittle: 75% of coral reefs threatened

By the CNN wire staff

CNN

February 2011

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/world.coral.reefs/index.html?iref=allsearch

Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain

Summary

Drilling for natural gas has become very big over the past 10 years. Even though it is becoming big it is also being criticized for having a process that requires to pump millions of gallons of water into the ground which leaves many contaminants in the water which could come back to the surface. To stop the criticisim drilling companies began to reuse the wastewater. Many drilling companies are saying that it is a win-win because it reduces the demand for freshwater and eliminates the need to get rid of water. The win-win is not necessarily a win-win. According to state records, drilling companies in P.A recycle less than half of the wastewater they produce in 18 months. Recycling the water also hasn't reduced the environmental and health risks. The process can still leave behind salts or sludge highly concentrated with radioactive material and many other contaminats that is very dangerous to people and sea life. Also drilling companies are selling their wastewater to people that will spread it on roads because it is salty, but once it rains that wastewater that was put on roads will wash into our drinking supply. The process of recycling water all started when there wasn't enough injection wells to store the wastewater because they were too expensive and the geological formations of P.A. In a study drilling companies claim they recycle over 320 million gallons of water but 260 million gallons was sent to plants that let the water run into rivers. Drillers claim to recycle 90% of their water but reports say that only roughly 65% was recycled so at least 50 million gallons of water is unaccounted for. Many government officials have been trying to track the industry's drilling waste and they can find out where the waste is being taken but have no way of finding out if it actually got to that place. Also many reports save that over the years wells wastewater that comes up to the surface will have more contaminants and higher radioactivity levels. Drilling companies have tried to find new ways to get rid of the wastewater and as they were doing that they get reassurance that they are protected from the federal laws on hazardous waste. (picture- The wastewater that could be coming into our drinking water from the drilling companies)

Reflection
The drilling companies are basically lying to the people. They are saying that it is a win-win even though they are still the same amount of contaminants in the water that could be coming to the surface and into our drinking water. Also they said they are recycling 90% of their water when they are really only recycling less than 65%. All they care about is the money. They even sell their wastewater instead of paying to get rid of it. I just hope that they soon realize the harmful effects that can come out of this and start thinking of ways that the wastewater would not be able to get into our drinking water. Another thing is that it is protected from federal law. That is just surprising to me. We should really start to look at how much wastewater is coming into our drinking water because of the drilling companies and what we can do to make federal officials realize what is happening. I once saw wastewater coming out of a well and it looked like really muddy water. I certainly would not want that water going into the rivers where we get our drinking water from. Overall, I believe this problem is pretty big and people should really start to pay attention to it before it is to late.

Questions

1) Why do you think the waste from drilling companies is protected from the federal law on hazardous waste?

2) Do you think we should spend the money to build more injection wells so drilling companies can store the waste there, or keep on recycling water? Why?

3) How, or in what ways, could drilling companies recycle wastewater and not have the waste come into the rivers from which we get our drinking water?

by: Ian Urbina
The New York Times
March 1, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

3 Environmental Groups to Sue Water District

Article Summary:

There is a region in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey that can support little to no wildlife. This is due to the fact that algae suck all of the oxygen out of the water. It has recently been discovered that Chicago is one of the main sources of releasing phosphorus and nitrogen into the water, which feeds the bacteria. What happens is that power plants in Chicago do not properly clean their water, and release water with high amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus and nitrogen into the Illinois and Des Plains Rivers, which eventually flows downstream and ends up in the Gulf of Mexico. Phosphorus levels have actually been recorded at more than 10 times the limit set forth by the EPA in the Clean Water Act. Another crime the Chicago area is being accused of is contributing sewage and other pollution to the Chicago RIver and Lake Michigan. When it rains the sewage plants overflow and release high levels of sewage into the Chicago River. Untreated sewage is also being carelessly dumped simply because of laziness. This is causing similar problems for Lake Michigan as the Gulf of Mexico. The lake is experiencing low oxygen levels, and sludge and other pollution are beginning to litter its shores. Chicago is under high scrutiny because of these numerous problems and is being sued by many different environmental agencies. The groups say that suing pressures the government into enforcing the Clean Water Act. These groups also found that Chicago contributes more phosphorus and other pollute=ants to water than any other city in the United States. CHicago claims that they have removed 80% of the phosphorus from their water, but cannot remove any more due to financial limits. This picture shows the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The Green and Red region is the dead zone. Imagine how big that area, that can support almost no wildlife, actually is.

Reflection:

I think this is pathetic and embarrassing on Chicago's part. First of all, the sewage problem is disgusting. I am really glad I don't live in Chicago because I would be leery about drinking the tap water. This reminded me of the discussion we had in class the other day about overflowing sewage tanks. We came up with so many different solutions for this problem when we were doing the Enviroscape example as a class and I don't see any reason why a class of ninth graders can think of ways to fix this problem, but officials running a major city cannot. I feel like the real reason action isn't taken against this problem is simply because of laziness, carelessness, or because they do not want to spend money on it. Most people do not care about polluting water but I'm sure Chicago will regret their actions when they have no clean water left to drink and no fish to eat. Lake Michigan is obviously widely used for recreational purposes so once the sludge gets too thick on the shores for people to use the lake anymore maybe they will finally decide to take action. Also, I did not know that too much algea was so harmful to water, or that algea eats phosphorus. I know that many animals eat algea, but I guess too much of it is harmful. When I was younger my parents used to tell me "too much of anything, even something healthy, is bad" because i would always try to eat a whole bottle of vitamins and could not understand why it was bad, since they're supposed to be good for you. The excess of algea in the Gulf reminds me of this. Overall this is a huge problem and swift action needs to be taken to reverse it.

Questions:

1. Why are low oxygen levels in water so harmful to marine wildlife?
2. How does the government get away with not enforcing the Clean Water Act?
3. Why do you think this problem is ignored by the government?
4. If so many other cities can clean their liquid waste, why don't you think Chicago does?
5. Can you find more examples of "dead zones" in other parts of the world?

Water Pollution- Effects

Water pollution is a very dangerous thing that can cause a variety of damages. The effects of this depends on what chemicals are dumped into the water, and where the water is located. Urban areas are usually more polluted than other areas due to factories and garbage being dumped in the water both legally, and illegally. A great example of this is the Boston Harbor. Sewage and toxic waste fill the water, and usually receives for waste then the rain washes into it. In water based ecosystems, the inhabits living there are killed by the polluted water. Beaches are becoming filled with dead animals that have been washed up on shore. The death of these animals is caused by the disruption in the food chain. Little animals eat ppollutants such as lead and cadmium, and then are eaten by larger animals. Those larger animals then die or are eaten by even larger animals. Either way the food chain is interrupted by the decrease in animals. Eventually at the end of this food chain is us humans. Hepatitis is a disease that humans can get from poisoned sea food. Humans were the ones that started the water pollution, but in the end it came back to "bite them in the butt." Here is a picture of an example of the effect of water pollution. It shows how hundreds of fish have died and now are just floating on top.

It simply amazes me how humans can be so stupid. People pollute the water and do not even realize what they are doing until they become extremely ill from eating poisoned sea food. It just does not make sense to me in any way. I had already known that water pollution was a serious problem and needed to be looked at more closely. What I did not realize was how it was effecting humans. I just hadn't put two and two together. I now realize that some of the sea animals that aren't dying are still poisoned and are being eaten by us humans. It is clear that this is a major problem, but needs to be advertised more to all people. Individuals that are illegally dumping stuff into bodies of water, need to be aware that they could face serious consequences if doing so. When I go to the beach in the summer, I do not want to see dead fish washed up on shore because of polluted water, and I surely do not want to be swimming in that. So, overall I think that this issue is very serious, and should be looked at more closely.

Questions:
1.) Why do you think humans are dumping garbage, toxic waste, and other things into the water?
2.) What do you think can be done to decrease the amount of pollution in the water?
3.) Do you think this problem will ever be fixed? Why?

Information Source:
Title of article- Water Pollution Effects
Author- Caroline, David, Michael, Mindy, Neil, and Vikas
Publication- ThinkQuest
Date- 1999

http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_Problems/water_pollution_-_effects.html

Hudson Fish Adapts Fast to Resist PCBs

By: Greg Clary, Gannett News Service February 20, 2011

The discovery of PCB-resistant fish in the Hudson River is known as one of the fastest species adaptations on record. Usually, if the fish followed normal natural selection, it would have taken thousands of years to mutate but for this case, it only took about 50 years. Researchers have been studying these fish for years, even bringing in control fish to monitor the growth. The Atlantic tomcods were the fish that were unaffected from being exposed to toxic levels while the control fish were much more sensitive. The fast adapting of the Atlantic tomcods comes down to one gene, said by Isaac Wirgin, the New Rochelle resident that lead the research team who made the discovery. The Atlantic tomcods have two missing amino acids, that the control fish have, which gives the ability to prevent the man made toxins to the tomcods. This change in the gene caused and evolutionary change and the funding of the removing of PCBs should still be happening. The PCBs are not going to go about by themselves. (picture- Isaac Wirgin holding an Atlantic tomcod)

Taking thousands a years to adapt is a long time but going from thousands to just 50 is a big difference in the natural selection process. I never knew animals could adapt to a man made toxin. Since it's man made you would think that the fish wouldn't be able to adapt at all. I have never been to the Hudson River so I don't know how bad the water is but since the Atlantic tomcods feed on the bottom of the Hudson and millions of pounds of PCBs have been dumped, it must be very unhealthy for the fish. I'm surprised that some people would think that since the fish adapted to the PCBs that they should stop the funding of trying to clean the river up. The PCBs changed life and the funding should continue until the river is clean.

How do you think they could get rid of the PCB in the Hudson River faster?

Why do you think the fish are adapting to what man puts in the river?

How are the fish affecting the people?

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20110220/NEWS01/102200362/Hudson-fish-adapts-fast-to-resist-PCBs

Boa Constrictors Becoming an Invasive Species

Summary: Boa Constrictors were introduced into Aruba in an illegal manner, and since that time they have been multiplying in exponential numbers. This foreign invasive species is making a big impact on this generally secluded islands' bird species. The birds that are feeling the impact of this foreign species the most are the mockingbird, oriole, and owl. These birds are being eaten in incredible numbers this is not too large of an issue at the moment, but in the future it has a potential of greatly impacting Aruba's environment.

Reaction: I think that we all have heard how vicious boa constrictors are so the thought of them becoming predators is not very difficult to wrap your mind around, but at the same time the rate that they are eating the bird population is astounding. They seem to be wiping out the bird population and there is nothing being done to stop this before it makes a real impact. I feel like when we here about environmental issues its always after they've made an impact and is too late. Boa Constrictors are turning into a very dominant species in this area and this can only turn out negative.

Questions:
1. How do you think you could stop this species from becoming a large issue now?
2. What could the birds do to become able to get away from these snakes?
3. How much concern do you think Aruba should put towards this environmental issue?

Urban Coyotes

Summary:

We are constantly shifting the surroundings where many wildlife species live. Some species have certain habitat necessities and they are becoming extinct, while adaptable ones are continuing to grow. Coyotes are popularly known for being sly and can live up to the constant change of a region. Coyotes initially have taken the southwestern U.S., but they spread all through North America in the past century. In 2005, coyotes were guilty for 60.5% of an estimated $18.3 million in sheep losses. Coyotes have killed sheep and goats in North America ever since domestic species were introduced. People have been trying to minimize the coyote’s population. Each pair of coyotes creates about six spare young coyotes per year. Organizations suggest that more than 70% of coyotes have to be removed from a population within many years in order to actually reduce a population. If only certain methods were allowed, such as completely getting rid of, killing, or destroying, the coyote population will solved. But as a result, the coyotes are not going anywhere for some time.
Coyotes are able to adapt to different environments much more quickly than usual animals. They will alter their movement and space use in reaction to humans, and they will also hurriedly adjust to alter in prey resources and sharing. Coyotes are unique, with different responses to different management methods. Their unpredictable behavior, however, also makes their organization more difficult. Not all coyotes are evenly vulnerable to all management methods, no distinct approach will always be victorious.

Reflection:

I have never seen a coyote before and am still wanting to. I understand why organizations would want to kill coyotes to help minimize their population, but it just seems like an awful thing to do. Since coyotes are so adaptable to their different environments, maybe the other types of animals could follow the coyotes “techniques.” Coyotes have never struck me as an immensely populated species.

Questions:

How else do you think we could get rid of these coyotes?

What do you think we can do to help prevent killings of our farm animals?

Do you know of any other species that can adapt as quickly as coyotes?

If rearranging an environment causes so many problems with animals being extinct and increasing, why do you think we still do it?


http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/shivik.html

X-rays Reveal Ancient Snake's Hidden Leg

Summary:

Recently found that a 95 million year old snake fossil reveled that the snake had legs. Scientist used a 3D simulation machine to show the hidden legs. Scientist still don't know if the snake was a ocean dwelling snake or a land dwelling snake. Scientist also used another machine to show the other leg of the snake that was inside of the fossil. The machine that they used this time is like a X-ray machine but a 1000 times higher revolution. The scan they ran showed no foot or toes on the snake.

Review:

Why would a snake need legs is what I am wondering. Snake being able to walk of

crawl would defeat the purpose of having a of the vertebra's in its spine. If snake

had legs that must have adapt them so if they did what was the purpose.

What purpose do you think the legs had?

Why do you think snakes grew legs in the first place?

Do you think any other species are like this?

http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-reveal-snake-hidden-legx-rays-reveal-snake-hidden-leg.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)