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?