Iceland: Environmental effects

http://webecoist.com/2011/05/24/grimsvotn-icelands-most-active-volcano-wakes-with-a-roar/
This article is about Iceland's volcanoes and goes to describe a little about the environment effected by these volcanoes and its air pollution. In 2010, one of the volcanoes in iceland, known as Eyjafjallajökull, erupted a large cloud of ash over Europe as some of you may remember. This ash cloud was so large and potentially hazardous to the airways, that United Airlines and other airplane companies were forced to shut down their European travel lines for a few days, and lost thousand of millions of dollars in the process, even though it was for a short period of time. In the process, it severely polluted the air, and for days (maybe even months) smog from the volcano hovered over the region. This year, another one of Iceland's most active volcanoes, known as Grimsvotn, is up to the same tricks as the previous volcano, but to a lesser effect. A majority of air traffic is not anticipating to be stopped in any way from these slight eruptions of smoke/ash. Only some airlines canceled flights, to areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Scandinavia; where the ash/smoke is estimated (and has) drifted towards. It's estimated that up to a quarter million of Iceland's population, has died as a result from their volcanoes (roughly about 500), either from noxious clouds of gas or acidic vapor, or even lava when they have fully erupted (on rare occasion.) The weather is always effected to a degree from surrounding volcanoes, but after the ash cloud eruption from Eyjafjallajökul, weather patterns around the globe were adversely effected. There were crop failures, water shortages, and famine in places as far away as Japan. Ash not only scatters in the air, but also collects on the ground, making it difficult to drive and navigate through and coating homes and people alive. Reminds me almost of Pompei! The only nice thing about the Ash scattering is, rather than falling all over Iceland and other areas for long periods of time like with the previous volcano, the ash from this one is falling relatively quickly, and closer to the point of origin. Overall, this ash cloud that has formed is expected not to be nearly as colossal (in terms of size AND impact) as last year's, which is much safer for our environment, ourselves, and a surely a heck of a lot better for the airlines that depend on money from flights every single day. SO, my questions for you are...
1. What do you think caused the volcano to erupt? What are usual signs of triggers that something is going to happen?
2. How do you suppose residents clean up and deal with the ash? List some methods and ideas.
3. If this volcano is supposedly more active than the previous one, why does it not produce an ash cloud as large or dangerous do you suppose? Use scientific ideas/examples to back up your response.

Future Perfect - Innovative ideas for renewable energy generation on highways

DATTATREYA MANDAL Feb 7 2011

         

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/future-perfect-innovative-ideas-for-renewable-energy-generation-on-highways/

This “article” was less of a conventional article and more of a list of new innovative ideas on how to get renewable energy sources to be more common. It also explains how they would go about doing this and such. There are 7 things in the list but I will only share the ones I thought could really work or are very interesting. The first one that I thought was very different was a solar road. It makes it so that the entire road is completely mad out of solar cells and as well as making solar energy it can sense damage and other things that happen on the road. The next one I liked was the turbines on the side of the highway. Instead of the green pole like objects atop a concrete wall to separate the two sides of the high way there could be wind powered turbines that would be affected by the passing cars.  I also thought that the solar arch was not a bad idea. It is an arch going over a road that has solar panels on top of it. It is not a bad idea but it will probably be very costly overall these ideas were pretty good.

The picture is of what a solar roadway might look like.

I think that these are generally good ideas that are worthwhile looking into but some of them seem as if they could be very expensive. There is also the possibility that in a car crash these devices could be ruins or at least damaged. This would put drivers at more of a financial risk if they do get into a car crash. If these do happen, they could be creating a ton of energy for the communities around them, so overall I think that they should be looked into but they defiantly need further research before actually investing.

1.       Which do you think is the best idea? Why? How could it be improved?

2.       Which do you think is the worst idea? Why? How could it be improved?

3.       What would be some pros and cons of these ideas? Do you think that they are worthwhile?

SB X 1-2 and California’s New Energy Future

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2011/04/sb-x-1-2-and-california%E2%80%99s-new-energy-future-/1716

The story starts off saying that Jerry Brown (above) had just signed a new energy bill for california. The law states that all California energy producers must have 33% of their energy from renewable sources. This really makes California become one of the best states for renewable energy. California has always been an efficient state when it comes to energy and this law would put them near the top for renewable energy. What California is also trying to do is put the U.S. at the top for supporting renewable energy because right now China is at the top. Now this law will not be able to go in immediate effect so they have set interims for the energy producers. By 2013 they want 20% of the energy renewable, 25% by 2016 and then the final 33% by 2020. When the law states renewable it means that it must come from a renewable energy producing facility.

To me this is a step up to what we all should be doing. It seems as though we should all look at California and try to do the same. I can see in the near future that many states will adapt to this same law and start to use renewable energy for most of their energy productions. Yet we would have to have many places to create any form of renewable energy. Hopefully our governor will look at more renewable energy spots here and we can be as energy efficient as California is going to be. This is a great thing to happen to this country and hopefully we will do the same.

1. How much renewable energy do you want our country to be using by the year 2030?

2. If you had a choice what types of renewable energy would you use?

3. Do you think it is possible for 33% of our energy to come from renewable sources? If so when do you think this might happen?

4. If you were a major energy producer what would you think about this law?

"Fossil Free" Fossil Fuels May Lie Deep Inside Earth

Brian Handwerk
National Geographic News
July 30, 2009

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-deep-fossil-fuel-supply/

About three to five miles below the surface are fossil fuels we now know of and use everyday; scientists have conjured a hypothesis that there are "fossil free" fuels being made forty to ninety-five miles below the surface.  The same scientists are now experimenting with methane (a main part of natural gas) to see if this is possible and if we can create this "fossil free" fuel on our own, and not having to wait for the Earth to refill oil pockets over the decades (it's found to be doing this where oil has been removed from already). This idea of "fossil free" fuel was first developed by Soviets during the 1950s.
So in crushing methane between two diamonds to 20,000 times stronger than below sea-level and heating it to temperatures above 2,240 degrees Fahrenheit, a mixture of ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen, and graphite was made. This mixture is very similar to natural gas found in the Earth's crust.

Since natural gas is low in supply and it's already a non renewable resource, "fossil free" fuel that's made by materials we already have plenty of sounds amazing! The only negative would be that we don't know if the "fossil free" fuel is as reliable as natural gas. Furthermore, the new fuel would be more expensive because we'd find it one-hundred miles below Earth's surface or it'd be man-made (the latter is more plausible).

Questions:
1) Do you think "fossil free" fuel would put just as bad of an effect on the environment as regular fossil fuels? What would some of the effects be?
2) Who would be opposed to this new fuel? Who would support it?
3) What would there be dangers similar to nuclear energy because of the heat exposure? If so what would some of the dangers be?

Dean of Invention- Is Human Waste the New Coal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW6-1SlvtN4

In the video that I watched, it talked about how the new coal of the twenty-first century. They are deciding to use human waste as a new coal. They are taking a trailer/truck and collecting it all, then they hose all of it out and put it into a thing to contain all of it. After that, it goes through a carbonization process so that the water inside of it is extracted and it can no longer absored water. After that is done, it explains how the waste coal only takes a day to make while regular coal takes millions of years. The waste coal; however, is half as powerful. But, the waste coal is a lot more expensive so people will get 66% more energy.

I think the human waste coal is a great idea because it costs so much more money and take like so much less time. It helps the environment so much, while it also puts use to something we don't use anyway. We need to conserve our fossil fuels while we have them, and I think this is a great way and idea of starting to do so.

Questions:

1. Do you agree with this?

2. Can you think of any ways this could be used as?

3. How would you feel about using this power with a lot of things around you?

Dean of Invention- Is

The New Natural Energy?

Above is a short video that has to do with the article I read.

http://webecoist.com/2011/04/17/power-juicing-2-ads-using-oranges-to-light-the-way/

In the article I read about today, Tropicana (a fruit drink producer, as we all know) decided that to raise awareness for the benefits of fruit, they created an ad campaign to display how not only is fruit beneficial for your body, but for other resources as well. For this particular campaign, they took a group of oranges, and placed two medal rods in each orange (one rod was zinc, the other copper.) When the rods are placed in sync with the orange, a chemical change occurs within the orange, which creates a small form of power. This power allows for the flow of electrical current to take place, and sweep into whatever unit is on the opposite end of the electrical cords. In essence, oranges, lemons, and other fruits of similar chemical structures can power equipment requiring electricity! This would seem like a great alternate energy source, alas, it would be almost impossible to use.

Just to give power to charge an iphone, it would require approximately 2,380 orange slices for the iphone to be able to recharge. Just from the picture listed above under the video (the video is the filmed process of the creation of the above picture for those who didn't watch it), you can see how many oranges alone it would take just to solely charge that small amount of light. So even though we have another potential power supply, it would require many, many oranges if we ever wanted to use them to help juice (no pun intended) homes and power plants, factories, etc; much more fruit would need to be produced not just for eating, but also for powering, which is why it would be also pretty much impossible. Overall, we'll just have to keep searching for alternate energy sources. Even so, it's interesting to see what kind of creations mother nature does have in store for us.

Okay, so my questions are:

1. What are some other potential alternate energy resources we could use, other than the obvious ones we talked about/mentioned in class? (ex: I used orange juice power)

2. Why is finding an alternate energy source so important? Should we even care? Why? Explain your viewpoint on the situation.

3. What are other ways that companies can raise awareness for health and environmental problems? Name some ideas for campaigns they could use and why they would be useful, or list some you already known of.

Is 'fracking' poisoning Pa.'s water supply?

By DAVID B. CARUSO

Associated Press

Tue, Jan. 4, 2011
http://www.philly.com/philly/health_and_science/20110104_Is__fracking__poisoning_Pa__s_water_supply_.html

So this artical talks about how PA is basically doing a terrible job at saving our water ways, and we are contaminating them because of all of the natural gas we are "fracking". All of the other states are regulating where the contaminates are going accepct for PA. of corse we tried to help the problem, we decided that nobody else can release their waste back into water, but the people who already were ARE allowed to continue. "At least 3.6 million barrels of the waste were sent to treatment plants that empty into rivers during the 12 months ending last June 30, according to state records" the artical says. now the EPA is trying to figure out if the levels of waste in the waterways now is going to effect the wildlife and humans. It also mentioned that the water plants downstream were having a difficult time staying within EPA maximum standards. The most suprising fact was the last one that the artical gave, "All 10 of the biggest drillers in the state say that they have either eliminated river discharges in the past few months, or reduced them to a small fraction of what they were a year ago. Together, those companies accounted for 80 percent of the wastewater produced in the state. "
 this picture is of flammable water from somebody's tap. this is important because many people's tap water could end up like this is fracking is continued.

Even just this morning in NPR (national public radio) i heard that some of the inspectors of these plants took about 2 minutes to review the papers for fracking , and those who took the longest only took 30 minutes. they were speaking about how little is being done to stop the pollution besides hiring new inspectors, which could lead to the same end result anyway.I hope that something is done becuase not only is it bad for us, it is bad for the eniroment in general, and hurting the enviorment will eventually cause us much harm anyway. Think that we should make the choice now because it is either having clean water or having natural gas, and eventuallly the gas will run out and we will have nothing but contaminated water.

1.If you were in charge of obtainging natural gas, would you do it this way, a different way, or not at all? why?

2. What do you think are the pros and cons of the situation? which side do you support?

3. would you rather have  a lack of power or a lack of clean water in your hom? why?

GMO Cows Produce Mama's Milkhttp://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/gmo-cows-produce-mamas-milk.html

The article I read about introduced a group of 300 cows that had their milk genetically modified to be some what like human milk. Scientists are saying that they are trying to genetically modify the milk to be more like human milk so the baby cows could have more immunity to diseases they are prone to getting. They are trying to find a substance to replace formula, which is a substance that is less healthier then natural feeding. The article later goes on to say that Michelle Obama promotes natural feeding as a way to reduce child obesity down the line. Natural feeding is also a good way to prevent many infections or infectious things, such as ear infections, gas, obesity, constipation, asthma, allergies, and high blood pressure later in life. So for cows to be able to start this, it would help them very much.

I am still opposed to genetically modifying our food, but for cows to be able to use the same nutrients humans use to naturally feed their young ones, I can't see the problem. I wish I knew some of the bad side effects to this, because I know not everything in this can come consequently free. With a process like this there are many steps in completing this correctly. If done the way it is supposed to turn out and it has such great sucess as it says it should, then I completely agree with the scientists doing this.

Questions:

1. If this didn't work, how might the scientists help the cows get the milk?

2. What is your opinion on GMO, food and animals?

3. Do you think GMO's are humane?

Gene-Altered "Enviropig" to Reduce Dead Zones?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/

Anne Minard

National Geographic News

Published March 30, 2010

     This article focused on the results of genetically modified pigs that release 65% less phosphorus in their urine. These "Enviropigs" can benefit all bodies of water and even the fish that feed in the current algal blooms in the oceans.
     Currently, pigs throughout the U.S. and Canada are being fed phytase, or enzymes, that break down phosphate the pigs digest in their grains and corn. However, these phytase can eventually make their way into the water system from the live stock's waste and contaminate it. A fertilized pig embryo was recently injected with a genome of E. Coli and showed positive results. The GMO pig absorbed more of the phosphates being digested and the genes have been proved to pass from generation to generation.
     These Enviropigs can help farmers abide the "zero discharge" law that eliminates phosphorus and nitrate run-offs from animal waste. Currently, the waste is being used as fertilizer and stored in lagoons and pits, which adds to the farming expenses. So these Enviropigs are under much pressure of getting legalized in both farms and industries. Unfortunately, Enviropigs haven't been approved for human consumption yet.

   I like this idea of GMO pigs; they're benefiting to farmers, industrial workers in providing jobs, consumers, pigs' digestive systems, and even the water system. The only down side is that there is such a long wait to get it approved because of the different risks it may cause. The genes might effect human absorption of phosphorus. And although algal blooms are bad, some levels of phosphorus are good for the environment.

Questions:
1) What other draw backs could there be to the Enviropigs?
2) If Enviropigs are possible with the right modifications, what other farm animals can be changed to help the whole earth?
3) If you were a factory farmer, how would you feel about Enviropigs? What if you were a family or organic farmer?

Antibiotics in Animal Feed--A Growing Public Health Hazard Worries Rise Over Effect of Antibiotics in Animal Feed

The article was blank so this is a random picture of chickens eating the special food.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/animalfeed.cfm

So the article starts off telling a story of a women in the E.R. She was in there to recover from a heart bypass when suddenly she had a respiratory failure. The doctors tried to help with an antibiotic but yet the bacteria of the infection was resistant. The doctors did not give up hope and gave her a new stronger antibiotic to try to stop this infection. The antibiotic failed because the bacteria was resistant to it. She died soon after. This is not the only case of this though. Many other times this has happened and more people have died. Right now people are fighting about how new drugs are used in this country. They want the farmers to stop using them. So right now they know that these antibiotics have caused many problems. The use of all these antibiotics are making the antibiotics for us not work as well as they were originally designed for. As we learned in class the more a bacteria gets used to an antibiotic the animals are fed the stronger it gets. So we will have super strains of these bacteria that are resistant to our antibiotics and the animals antibiotics. Then what the article talks about next is how these antibiotics are not used for the sick. Rather they are continually fed these things over and over again. The drug that was administered to this woman who died was called Synercid and was recently approved around March of 2000. While this was just approved a drug closely related to this is called Virginiamycin has been used since 1974. The bacteria that is resistant to this antibiotic has been found in almost 50% of all meat products in the super market. So many people consume this that a lot of people could be resistant to the antibiotic already. Now the FDA slowed down the use of this drug so the animals would not have it as much. Still the drug is in affect and some people are trying to get rid of it all together.

This is a very important issue and if you have people resistant to the "good" drugs then nothing will get done. I think the drug used in the animals is probably very bad for anyone to consume whether it be animals or humans. We obviously don't really need to use this drug as the only thing it really does is increase the growth of animals. It also prevents some bacteria from growing and cause diseases. It is good for the animals but they have to use it sparingly so things like this don't happen. So all in all this drug should not be used and we should immediately stop the production of it. In my opinion.

1. What do you think about this situation?

2. If you had a choice on whether or not this bacteria would be used, What would you do? Why?

3. If you were a farmer in this situation and religiously used this drug, What would you do?

4. Do you think it is a good thing that we get more production with this drug or not, Why?

Antibiotics becoming banned

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/denmark-drastically-limits-antibiotic-in-livestock.html

As we have learned in class, there is a very large difference between factory farms versus family farms. Few of these major differences include how quickly food is produced, how much land is used to produce the food, the cost of it, and animal treatment. In the article I read above, there are now starting to be put in place bans in certain countries or places on the usage of antibiotics on animals on factory farms. As we learned in class, many livestock are fed antibiotics even when they aren't sick, but instead to help fatten them up or to cure them of diseases present from filthy and poor living conditions, as the article made sure to also mention. Feeding animals for this specific purpose is done so often, it even has a formal name, it's called "sub-therapeutic usage." In the article, it went on to talk about how in Denmark, they decided to put a ban on antibiotics for sub-therapeutic usage after scientists studying the pigs from different farming locations found that this was the perfect breeding ground for drug-resistant bacteria. As the pigs (and other live stock) are fed these drugs as a back up to eliminate sickness from the filthy, cramped environment they live in, it was found that not all of the germs and bacteria were killed from these drugs they were being fed; the bacteria which survived were the ones that had genetic mutations. The genetic mutation bacteria would then find other genetically mutated bacteria and reproduce, quickly causing what could be a potentially very dangerous outbreak of drug-resistant bacteria which could mutate into strains of viruses. So of course, like any other smart nation would do, Denmark banned the drugs for this usage.

As a result from the ban, farmers quickly learned that the sizes of their pigs decreased. Forced to work around the drug restrictions, they found other ways of allowing their pigs to grow large: allowing piglets to stay longer with their sow mothers, giving the pigs more space to roam around and cleaning the stalls more vigorously promptly helped to make up for the initial lack of size in the pigs. When you actually consider it all, it's really quite sad though. The only reason why Denmark put a ban on these drugs in the first place is because it could be dangerous to humans. They didn't ban the drugs because it was harmful to the pigs, or because they knew that by banning the drugs farmers would have to treat their pigs better. No, no, they could care less about living conditions for these pigs, all they cared about was their own population. What about how the pigs were treated? Don't they matter anymore then we do? I think it's pretty unfair for them to only recognize the pigs at all simply because of these drugs. Animals deserve freedom and rights too!

Anyway, the article goes on to say America should make a change soon too, with this new information out. Denmark is the biggest pork exporting country in the world. If they can switch over to the new system, then why can't America? It should be noted as well that a drug-resistant disease has broke out in Los Angeles, CA in elderly patients. So far there's been 350 cases, and no cure has been found. If we're not careful, more diseases can come about if we don't put an end soon to sub-therapeutic drug usage.

Okay, so my questions for you are:

1.) If America were to make a transition over to eliminating sub-therapeutic usage in live stock, how would they go about making this change?

2.) Express what you're opinion on the whole topic of animal cruelty, and factor in how the treatment of the pigs was only recognized when the danger to humans came up.

3.) Based on this new information, has your opinion on factory based farms changed? Are they as safe to buy from as family-product farms?

4.) What measures can you take to helping raise awareness in your community about what is happening in factory farms?

Water scarcity: A looming crisis?

By Alex Kirby, Tuesday, 19 October 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3747724.stm

Although this article is kind of old I still wanted to use it because I feel like there has been no drastic change in the information given. The article tells you about what if happening in the whole world having to do with water, and then it gives solutions to help our world from having a dangerous lack of water.  Water pollution is becoming a serious issue because even though people may have water to drink, they defiantly cannot use that water due to contamination.  More than 5 million people die from water pollution yearly, this can be expected to rise since our world’s population is predicted to rise into the 8 billion’s by 2050. My picture is a picture of the water usage increase from 1900 to 2000 and you can only imagine what has happened since then and what will happen in the future if we do not change. Not only is it the amount of drinking water, but the amount of water to produced food.  The impoverished are also taking a huge blow, because those countries have very few ways of obtaining fresh water not only for drinking, but for everyday purposes as well. There are some “technical solutions” we can take, like drip irrigation and low pressure hoses for the agricultural world. Other things like desalination can help but cost far too much money to really fix our water crisis. The main technical solution that is given is RECYCLING, making water reusable for drinking and everyday tasks. Recycling and conservation are our best options especially with the question of our climate change and also the growing population.  Although, our water problem may be simple to solve, water is one of our most basic resources, everybody wants it (and needs it).

                I feel as if although this is a terrible crisis, that WE are the ones who put ourselves in jeopardy because of our lack of care for the way that we distribute our water supplies.  I am of course upset to hear not only what we are doing to ourselves, but what we are doing to those around who have NOT been using excessive amounts of water, and the people of the next generations that are going to be impacted greatly by something that is not their fault.  This reminds me of the presentation that Mr. Exton made at the beginning of the unit because he talked about how bad the need for clean water is becoming, so this just reinforces my thoughts on the subject. I think that everyone is going to have to change for there to be an improvement on this issue.

                Questions:

1.       What are you going to do to improve the water “situation”?

2.       Do you have any of your own ideas for a way to conserve water or fix the “water crisis”?

3.       How do you think water will be viewed at in the future? Why?

There's Something in the Water

By Hal Walter
WRITERS ON THE RANGE
November 8, 2010
http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.19/theres-something-in-the-water?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hcn%2Fmost-recent+%28High+Country+News+-+Most+Recent%29

When Hal Walter and his family settled down in the Wet Mountains of Colorado, the last thing they were expecting was for their "Rocky Mountain Spring Water" to by heavily contaminated by e. coli and total coliform bacteria, and later lead and nitrate-nitrite.
Note: The family had to drill their own well to have water source since there are no aquifers in that area.
Mr. Walter and his wife decided to test the water they were using out of the well because as more time passed more medical issues rose; Mrs. Walters was diagnosed with hypothyroidism, Harrison (his son) was diagnosed with autism, and he was also diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). When the results were seen, the report stated the water was said to be "unsafe for human consumption, or even bathing" and considered to be "very dangerous". This wasn't a huge surprise to the Walters as past samples had returned and also came back with negative results. The only attention grabbing part was that they couldn't use the water any longer because of the e. coli and total coliform bacteria. In un-contaminating the water Mr. Walter had to carefully measure bleach, pour it down the well, wash the well with water for the hose, open all the household plumbing, and wait till the chlorine scent no longer lingered (over 24 hours).
They sent back another sample to make sure the water was pure and the results came back positive finally! But the Walters wanted to be extra careful and only purchased purified water from nearby health food stores. Which is good because as more information was sent back the family, the worse the results became. The lead levels were two times as high as EPA requirements-- the leading cause of hypothyroidism, autism and ADHD-- and overwhelming amounts of nitrate-nitrite.
These results led Mr. Walters to wonder about the other people consuming the heavily contaminated water and the very few people who actually tested their water supply frequently. It also led Mr. Walters to think that whenever the water sample is taken its only a "snapshot" of whatever is present in the water at that time. He ends the article saying to be aware of what's in your water and treat it accordingly.

I think it's unfair that the Walters had to go through being diagnosed with three different diseases to find out on their own that their well water was heavily contaminated. The EPA should have made special rounds to all the self-drilled wells in the Wet Mountains and told the owners how to measure the contaminant level on their own and the limits for the different contaminants. Furthermore, the EPA also should have told well users what to do if the limits were exceed and which contaminants caused the most danger to humans. This reminded me of how surprised I was when we tested the water samples we brought in from home and there was an abundance of chlorine in my water sample. This was obviously on a much smaller danger scale though.

Here are some questions in response to the article summarized above:
1. What would you have done in the same situation? Would you have gone through all that trouble of getting more accurate results or simply using a different and cleaner water source?
2. If you were on the board for the EPA, how would you warn, and in the future protect people in danger of being contaminated by the water they use and consume?
3. Using your knowledge from the experiments we did in class and the background information we know about different contaminants, how could you tell if the water you used was contaminated without sending it to a research facility or EPA testing lab?

Bodies Make up Coral Reef?

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/culture-places-news/mexico-human-reef-vin.html

Or if you want it to load faster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H0U4CvgiMk

Yes it is a video but I found it really interesting. So this artist want to help the coral reef in Cancun because it is starting to be run down and destroyed. This is the second largest reef next to the Australian Great reef. It is being run down by too many tourists, over fishing and pollution. Tourists could also be taking many of the parts of the reef. Jason deCaires Taylor is the one trying to help. He is really good at making sculptures and wants to make some out of underwater cement. It is a special marine grade cement that will allow algae and coral to attach to it. He then drops the statues down to the bottom of the ocean and then a couple months later fish and algae are all over and around it. Not only do the bodies and sculptures grow coral but also it attracts more tourists to the sculptures instead of having them go to the coral reef. He also has already put a lot down to make it seem like a little village. Also it provides a safe haven to small fish who need to hid from predators. When a predator comes then the fish will be able to swim down to the bottom near the feet. Also a dive boat has to bring people to the spot so they will think that it will boost their rates of money they make and save the real reef.

I think this is a great idea and maybe other people will catch on and start to build their own sculptures too. It really provides a great balance and just isn't something that will really hurt the environment. It helps provide a natural balance and is almost just like a real coral reef because it will provide safe places for fish and already has. So this is one of the greatest things that I have seen that will help protect our reefs and oceans. Since reefs are really important to the ocean. For example they provide a natural storm barrier and also filter some water to make it clearer.

1. How would you help protect our reefs besides build sculptures like these?

2. Why do you think Jason deCaires Taylor decided to do this?

3. How well do you think this will work in rebuilding reefs?

4. What other benefits might this help in our oceans?

5. Do you think this idea will catch on to other people soon, if so how long do you think we have until that happens?

EPA to regulate rocket fuel chemical in drinking water for causing the same problems as fluoride

By: Ethan a. Huff; Friday, February 4, 2011

http://www.naturalnews.com/031208_perchlorate_drinking_water.html

The article I read, talked about how the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) needs to put a limit on the amount of perchlorate, something found in rocket fuel, in your everyday drinking water. The agency talked about how too much of that chemical will disrupt the take in of iodine. This would disrupt the way the thyroid would work, and would cause disease. When the thyroid fails to get the iodine it needs, then many things could begin to happen. You could get chronic fatigue, depression, weight gain, hair loss, perpetual muscle pain, increased cholesterol levels, heart disease, and many other conditions. The EPA had lowered the perchlorate level to a maximum of 4 parts per million(ppm). However, this thyroid problem also occurs with the natural toxin called floride. The EPA remains silent on this fact, also meaning that the natural chemical found in drinking water could be harmful to everyone. This doesn't seem right.

My thoughts are relatively predictable and simple. One, how will the EPA just leave an issue like this alone? With this being said it's hard to believe the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is not protecting people and leaving the flouride in the water. Water naturaly needs flouride, but when the protection of people is at hand, I believe that the limit should be decreased. I mean I can relate to how sick people can get when water is contaminated. My brother went to High School that had contaminated fountain water for a couple days without knowing. He stayed home for a while with stomach virus' and strep throat. Contaminated water is dangerous and should be delt with immediately, not just left alone.

Questions:

1. If you were to be contaminated by this water or knew someone who was, how would speak out to try and get this delt with?

2. When water is contaminated people suffer greatly. Would you help people who were contaminated who you know closely? Why or Why not?

3. Water is a rare source that people don't have much of. How would you react if we found more ways to get water that is drinkable?

Water: Present changes and future ideas

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/cycloclean-pedal-your-way-to-clean-drinkable-water.html#

http://webecoist.com/2011/02/25/the-future-is-green-12-visionary-architecture-concepts/#

I decided to blog about pieces of two interesting articles I read, both of which the original articles you can find provided at the links above. The first article concerns an invention created relatively recently by the Japanese in an attempt at helping slow down a world wide problem using a simple solution: Purifying contaminated drinking water through bicycling!

In the picture listed to the left, a woman is enjoying a glass of fresh drinking water from the bicycle-water set up, known as "Cycloclean." The bike is functional, cost-effecient, and if damaged, easy to repair. The act of purifying the water itself is quite a simple one- just through pedaling, it is able to accumulate water from the selected water source through a tube, and push the water through filter membranes before it is ultimately stored in a container connected to the mechanism on the bike. With 884 million people in the world suffering from dirty drinking water, it's no wonder such an invention was created. However, though very user-friendly and ideal, the bike comes at a high price, equivalent to $6,700 US dollars. Even at such a high price, at least 500 bikes have been created and sold in the last few years. Maybe in the future the production of the bikes will increase, and allow for a more affordable cost so the general public will be able to enjoy the bike's functions in their own rural areas all over the globe.

While the Cycloclean proves to be a rather efficient invention, it still doesn't stop others from dreaming big about what the future can bring. For some, the future certainly looks bright- very bright- for many architectures creating more eco-friendly spaces and homes!

Listed at the right are just 3 of the many architectural structures that designers came up with, all of which are based around the idea of using natural energy in attempts to go more green. The first picture listed on the right at the far left (the tall, green, twisted tower) is known as the "Acupuncture Tower." It was designed by grad students of Tawain university, for Taiwan's port city, Khaosiung. While working as a usable building, it would also simultaneously be able to desalinate ocean water, harvest wind and solar energy, and recycle waste. The top image to the right (the purple-grey/blue one) is another great, pro-energy design of a futuristic theme park. The park would be full of eco-friendly rides while still providing an entertaining experience; the particular structure in the design would be created to harvest rain water, collect solar energy, and recycle waste, similar to Taiwan's acupuncture design. The final design to the bottom right is a skyscraper created for Armenia. The tower would consist of three towers joined by a bridge, and would house offices, homes, and a hotel. The exterior of the building would be made of mechanical openings which would allow for light and heat to circulate through the building system, as well as being equipped with solar panels, wind turbines, and rain-collecting filters.

These constructions are only a few of many ideas composed for the future. Though the ones I personally blogged about here haven't been considered for construction, few of the other eco-friendly building designs have been slated for creation in upcoming years. As the earth becomes populated more and more each day, the horizon seems quite promising with the prospect of having space-saving, go-green homes which could benefit our society!

So, my questions for you are...

1. Of the three designs posted, which do you think would be the most beneficial right now? And where would it be beneficial most?

2. Do you think there is a way to help lower the cost of the bike so it's affordable to the mass public who's in need of clean drinking water? If so, what is this way?

3. Look at the building designs, and think about the way each one utilizes a way to improve the environment. If you could create your own structure, describe what would make your structure eco-friendly, and how (example: a structure that is solar powered, through large solar panels lining the building's exterior, etc.) Think creatively for this one, don't just use what the other designs talked of using!

Parasitic Wasp Swarm Unleashed to Fight Pests

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100719-parasites-wasps-bugs-cassava-thailand-science-environment/

This article was written about a species of bug called mealybugs. These were in Thailand and were killing cassava plants by sucking out the plant's sap and reproducing at an exceedingly fast pace because their native enemies weren't in the same environment. During the summer of 2010, a certain species of wasp was released into the cassava fields called Anagyrus Iopezi. This wasp species injects their eggs directly into mealybugs' bodies; when the larvae hatch, they eat their way out of their host, killing them in the process. The wasps just happened to be the native enemy of the mealybug, thus being "biological controls".

But don't be convinced, scientists only imported the wasps to Thailand because the mealybugs were killing the cassava plants in Africa during the 1980s as well. These wasps are unique though, they only attack a few species unlike most predators. Tony Bellotti, an entomologist at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, said the wasps and mealybugs would reach an equilibrium in Thailand eventually. He continued to say,

"The parasite can't eliminate the pest [completely] because it would eliminate itself, but you hope that the equilibrium will be at a low enough level that it's no longer damaging to the crops."

Bellotti said later that scientists would figure out if releasing the wasps was a good idea when Thailand's dry season as mealybugs are primarily dry-season pests (this was in 2010). If the release of the wasps was a good idea, it would be carried through and the technique of this pesticide would be used in Cambodia and other Southeast Asian countries.

I think the scientists did the right thing in releasing the wasps, given an equilibrium will be reached soon. Furthermore, if the results shown from the Thailand experiment are positive, the wasps should be definitely used in other countries where the cassava crop is being destroyed by more mealybugs.

Some questions in relation to the article:
What would some affects on the environment if the wasps and mealybugs didn't reach an equilibrium? (either the wasps over populate or the mealybugs re-over populate)
Should the scientists continue to use the wasps as parasites if it doesn't decrease the mealybug problems? Why or why not?
How would you protect the cassava crop if importing wasps wasn't an option and you didn't know the wasps and mealybugs were native enemies?

Healing Through Parasites

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/09/worms.health/index.html

In the article listed above, the story surrounds a man of 28 years old, who up until a few years ago, was having terrible, terrible bowel movements. About 10-15 times a day it would happen, usually with a lot of blood accompanying the movement. Having tried various treatments recommended by his doctor at the time, the man still continued to suffer. He tried steroids, which had negative side effects, and other kinds of treatments, none of which seemed to work. When his doctor gave him a choice of a specialized kind of surgery for his condition, you would think the man would be ecstatic. However, that wasn't the case. If he did have the surgery, there would only be a 50% chance of it working, and evening more so, he would be more at risk for cancer later on in life. If it happened the surgery didn't work, he would have to have his colon removed, and would basically being going to the bathroom in a bag for the rest of his life.

Of course, these options were far from appealing and healing the poor man's health condition. So he looked into other possible ways to heal himself. He found an article online in a medical journal about a person with colon problems as well, who had resolved his conflicts through the consumption of trichuris suis worm, a parasite that lives in the intestines of pigs. He tried to persuade a variety of different doctors to inject these parasites into him, which all of them refused, as there was no scientific back up behind the study, and according to them, would probably only worsen his already bad condition. He was stubborn though, and was adamant about not going under the knife with what could be terribly disastrous results.

So he traveled from USA to Thailand all on his own, where he came into contact with an 11 year old girl who had the parasites living inside of her. After having used the bathroom, he collected the parasite's eggs from her feces, cleansed them, then some how managed to raise them over time in an environment, which he referred to as "embryonation." The worms did grow over time, and once reaching their full form, he ingested the great number of 1,000 parasitic worms. While at first they didn't do much, quickly over time his bloody bowel movements began to lower, then disappeared all together. He didn't feel much pain otherwise, and when faced with having a bloody bowel movement again, he just resolved to consuming more of the warms.

After having a positive experience from the worms, he found a man named Loke to report his experience. Though at first reluctant, Loke became fascinated by what drove this man to do what he did, and reported about the man and his worms eventually. Though there was an outcry from the medical community, believing the man was promoting unsafe means to healing through parasitic worms, the man quickly defended himself by claiming he didn't wish for others to do as he did as much as he just wanted to report his bizarre yet positive experience. Perhaps in the future more scientific study will be done on parasitic worms and what they could do to benefit human medical conditions.

I definitely think more research should be done before people should start trying out parasitic worms as a treatment. Though this man's experience was positive, what if others is not? It's important to keep in mind all options though, like this man did. Hopefully in the future we'll find out more about the benefits, risks and negatives to how parasites can influence humans in the medical field.

So my questions are:

If you were faced with the option of surgery (with only the 50% of it working and a higher risk for cancer, or if it didn't work you would have to go to the bathroom in a bag for the rest of your life) or eating parasitic worms, which would you choose?

Do you think the man was promoting the use of parasitic worms, why or why not?

What could be the potential results of people reading/hearing about healing through parasitic worms?

Do you think more should be done on parasitic worm research before it is embraced as a future medical treatment?

Tigers Need Conservation, Not Conversation

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22iht-edgalster.html?ref=endangeredandextinctspeciesThe article I read stated that the poaching of tigers in Asia has got to be cut down. The poachers have cut the population of the tigers in Asia down to only 3,200, halving the origingal number. All the talk has brought people from twelve different countries to a metting of conversation about conservation. This metting later brought in the "St. Petersburg Declaration." The article goes on to say that this will need doners to chip in a lot of money. The author says that this doesn't need to happen because in the 90's, the anti-paoching brigade, "Inspection Tiger," only costed a little bit more than $7,000. The article then goes on to say that the help they could get would be a tremendous help if only people would do something and not just talk about it. The article ends on a note stating, "If tigers could speak, they would roar for action, not more words. Let the St. Petersburg Declaration be the last, and let's start to put our money where our fangs are."
I believe that the money should definitely be put into helping the tigers and stop the poaching. If the people who poached them were really desperate for money that they would hurt a harmless animal that never did any bad to them, then that person needs to turn their life around. I believe tigers are a very important part of our environment that keep the total food chain in balance. The people of the St. Petersburg Declaration should stop talking about ways they can consevate the tigers. They should take the ideas they have and put them to a good use. The tigers aren't going to magically start doubling in population, so the money has to help the conservation of them.
Questions:
1. If the money was raised, how would you spend it to save the tigers?
2. How would you be able to protect the tigers? Explain.
3. If the tigers kept getting poached, what would your plan b be?

Drilling for gas in Mediterranean Sea will threaten valuable marine life, says WWF by Gemma Parkes

SummaryIn the Eastern Mediterranean's Levant Sea, a deep-sea gas field was thought to be found and immediatly people wanted to start drilling. In that very same area there was a very biodiverse ecosystem of animals. If there is drilling then it WILL have harmful effects on the rare and interesting marine life living there. The gas field that was found was the biggest one discovered in over 10 years. This particular sea is protected by a law that says there should be no destructive trawl fishing over 1000 meters in depth. This law is being ignored. The argument is definatly serious because drilling in this area can wipe out species that are thousands of years old.
Opinion
I chose this artical not only because we were talking about the bidiversity factor of an area and how important it is to be biodiverse, but also because i strongly believe that this is wrong. Clearly the people who want to drill in this sea are only hungry for money but not smart enough to realize that the planet should come first. These types of animals balance out the biosphere and are a neccesity in keeping our planet a great place to live, so by drilling in this gas field would only be hurting ourselves.
Questions
Would you drill for gas? why or why not?
Do you agree that biodiversity is an important part of keeping our world in balance? Why?
How would you go about stopping people from drilling?

Greens slam Hong Kong theme park for importing endangered species

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/364326,park-importing-endangered-species.html

Summary

So what happened in the article was that Ocean Park had started to take endangered animals into there aquarium which is there most popular event. The people at Green Sense ,which is the group saying they have endangered animals, want them to have better protection for endangered species. The aquarium attracts the most people and apparently they have 5000 fish from 400 different species. Some of the fish in the aquarium are bluefin tuna which are critically endangered species. Now some of these fish have already died so now more people are wondering about Ocean's Park conservation role even though they don't really have a good one. Although at the same time this place was already criticized for funding a study into bottle nose dolphins and importing them into new aquariums.

Opinion

My stance on this is that you really shouldn't be taking endangered species for use. I think that may be why they call them Endangered Species but that could be just a guess. Also even though this is a really popular aquarium it needs to get rid of its endangered species and stop funding bad activities.

Questions

If you knew about this place and were in Hong Kong would you go to it?

What would you be doing if you were in charge of this aquarium?

If this place imported more endangered species and still be the most popular theme park, Do you think it would be worthwhile to be shut down?

How would you handle this if you were a worker at this place and cared about animals?