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