RR Captain Charles Moore

Reading response 1

The article is focused on telling the readers about how our trash, specifically plastics, is wrecking havoc on the ecosystem. The article mentions that the particles of plastic that have been found in fish and on shores have come from humans and that our neglect to do anything, or allowing it to happen, is causing harmful reactions to ourselves and to the ecosystem. We are poisoning ourselves essentially. While it’s interesting to see what is said about the breakdown of cups or plates and wrappers and bags to these tiny particles that are being swallowed by fish, or deposited onto the beaches, and back into our lives is unsettling. Even those that don’t eat any fish, there is something else that is eating the fish that they eat, or their feeding the garbage patch with the litter.

A guy in Peru could drop a bag of chips on the ground and that bag could make its way out to sea. Whenever that bag would reach one of these patches of garbage, it will get broken down and fish eat it up. The fish could end up swimming downriver, hooked and served as dinner to a man in New York. Or that bag gets broken down and distributed all over the world on beaches as super fine particles that appear just like sand. The fact that this is happening is that there are things like this happening and there isn’t enough research or enough being done to stop or prevent it from happening is unsettling.

To find more about what is happening about this, research in addition to what was mentioned in the article, could probably found from Earth Island Journal, or other science sites or magazines.

Getting Real About the High Cost of Cheap Food

That was a much better written article.  The paper is heavily laden with direct quotes, references, figures and verifiable data, including references.  Everything is there and made plain.  The argument was well managed, the information well organized and delivered clearly, and bias was limited and hidden.  Altogether well done.  The only ding I might give it would be the uninspired writing style.  But that can be overlooked.

I think the difference between this paper and the New Prius article is in motive.  The motive of the Prius paper was shallow and deceiving.  The motive behind the Time article is a little more true.  The Time article was written to be enlightening and a little controvercial, with a good helping of politics for seasoning.  That is what people expect when the read Time, and that is what Time tries to deliver.  And the motive of the writer was to be published, probably in Time.  Further, Time has a good reputation that has to be protected.  With that in mind, the shinanegans that the Prius author pulled would be completely unacceptable to Time magazine.  It just goes to show that you don’t need to be a good author to be a best selling author.  Just an unscrupulous one.

Since I wrote such a scathing report on the last paper, I suspect that several people will have the suspicion that I am an anti-environmental, right-wing, gun-toting Conservative Republican.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  I refuse to back either party because I feel that neither has the best interests of the public in mind.  It always comes down to motive.  The best interests of the public are not the best interests of the political parties, and where those interests diverge, so do the politicians from the public.  Moderation is the key.  I guess that makes me a moderate, though I will never actually call myself that.  I would prefer unassociated.

In the environmental arena, I am split.  I feel that the environment needs to be protected, but I also feel that people are important, too.  Unfortunately, I keep seeing too much politics in the environmentalist movement, and too little environmentalism.  The Prius paper is a prime example.

On the topic at hand, I strongly believe in organic food.  I always buy organics, for a multitude of reasons.  First and foremost, it is the responsible thing to do.  In the face of ridicule, from almost everyone I know, I persevere, knowing that the extra money I am spending is worth it in the long run.  It is better for the planet, healthier for my family, and politically sound.  It also helps that I am a self proclaimed epicurean and organic food tastes better, and is easier to sift through, given my allergies.  Organic food is more often made with the ingredients that one would expect to find in them.  Another great reason to go organic is the increased dependence on local farmers.  You see, Americans have become addicted to the Economies of Scale, even when those economies start to fail.  Anthropologists have proven that sometimes the most efficient systems are the smallest ones.  That is why farmers markets are so inexpensive, even when compared to the likes of Walmart.  Every industry is different when it comes to scaleability, and the food industry has gone too far afield from where it should be.  But the organic food movement is starting to shift that back into balance.  Organic food production has given small scale farmers a viable solution to allow them to do what they do best, in a responsible way, and remain financially viable.  I have been buying organic food for several years, and there is one thing I have noticed more recently.  As more people are switching to organics, more farmers are following suit, and prices are dropping.  In certain areas the prices have almost normalized to a reasonable price.  I would expect to pay more for organic food, but when that difference has fallen to 10-25%, it certainly make the organics that much more appealing.

Vegetarian is the New Prius

Catchy, but another example of the usual scientific half-truths I expect from political journalism.  To her credit, Freston includes a suitable array of verifiable facts and figures considering her audience, and includes links to many of her sources.  Nevertheless, I noted the specific absence of her most important source, the recent UN report.  Did anyone else observe that all her linked references connect to articles written by like-minded individuals and published on three vegetarian websites, rather than credible scientific literature?  Cyclic logic, anyone?  And let’s not forget about her concluding sponsorship for two of her sources, GoVeg and VegCooking.  Assuming  that this paper exemplifies scientific writing, would it really be appropriate for an author to include as a source a website who publishes her literature and sponsors her books?

To understand science writing and evaluate the value of a given paper scientifically, we must learn to question the motives and intentions of the author.  Clearly, the author is not motivated towards eliminating global warming.  Rather, she intents to further her own career with the world’s most acceptable terrorist organization, PETA.  PETA owns and maintains all three of the referenced websites.  By repeatedly referencing those three sites in a paper published on the Huffington Post, she has dramatically increased the Page Rank of those same sites.  For those who do not understand page ranking, it is the method by which search engines direct users to certain websites.  In general, the more often a website is linked to by another website, the higher it’s page rank, or importance and the earlier in the list the site will appear when searched for.  I understand this because part of my job at Alaska Tent & Tarp is to manage the website, and a huge part of that responsibility is to increase the number of valuable links to our website from other sites, and to wade through the vast number of sites requesting link exchanges from our site.

To bring this back to the original argument, her sources are flawed.  In truth, she is only actually including two sources, PETA and the UN report.  She offers links to the PETA source, but not the UN report, even though her argument is plagiarized directly from the FAO Newsroom, a division of the UN.  Moreover, her use of PETA as a source is suspect, since she is a well published author through PETA, and a vocal proponent of PETA, risking creation of a sort of cyclic logic.  Her intention in writing is to further PETA by increasing search engine activity for their websites and by directly generating site traffic, thereby gaining new recruits and new donation sources for PETA.  No science involved.

The truth is that the healthiest diet for people or the environment is one that includes moderation.  I have a number of severe food allergies, and in my research I have discovered a few things.  In many cases, food allergies are a natural mechanism our bodies use to prevent overconsumption of certain foods.  It is an autoimmune response to specific proteins, and has been observed to activate as a result of continuous overconsumption of certain protein sources.  Some individuals, myself included are more prone to food allergies, while others are never affected.  As a result of regional trends in staple foods,  regional trends can be seen in food allergy demographics.  For example, in Asia, where rice is consumed as a major staple, allergies to rice are more common than in other areas.  Likewise in the US, where wheat is consumed as a major staple, wheat allergies are more common, and as soy protein filler and other soy products has become more commonly used in the US, allergies to soy have correspondingly increased.  At this time, no control experiment has been conducted to conclude if this is simply a result of increased awareness of certain allergies, or if this is truely a result of regional overconsumption.  Food allergies are not always the result of overconsumption.  Many people are allergic to foods they have never eaten before observing an allergic reaction, and some allergies have been known to trigger from other sources.  For example, many infants are allergic to soy protein from the womb.  As another example, I am allergic to fish, triggered not from overconsumption, but from a sting by a fish in my aquarium.  The point is that our bodies are acting as a natural parable, telling us that extremism in any direction is unhealthy.  Meat in moderation is healthy.

RR-5: Vegetarian is the New Prius

The article, Vegetarian is the New Prius, is definitely eye catching and sounds like a valid argument that makes sense or does it? After reading two thirds of the article I began to get a little suspicious especially when the writer starts instructing its readers on what to eat. What I mean by this is when she states “we can make a difference at every single meal, simply by leaving the animals off our plate,” sounds more like a campaign than journalism. If that were true and truly that easy to rectify the global warming crisis, then I take a vow to never eat another piece of meat again! The next paragraph had me chalking this article up to more than nothing but junk. As harsh as that seems just read the following: “all of which we can fix surprisingly easy, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger.” Fixing the world one veggie burger at a time….hmmm. Sounds nice but do we need to take a trip to the grocery store and look at the ingredient label to see that most brands have listed on the label soy lecithin and other unpronounceable words that are used as preservatives. Isn’t soy one of the government subsidized commodity crops that is harming the environment from the overuse of fertilizers and chemical pesticides? Let me state I have nothing against veggie burgers in fact they are pretty good, I’m just questioning her multiple references to them and curious if she is getting paid from one of the companies that makes veggie burgers. One last part before I wrap up my opinionated critique of this article, wouldn’t it make a funny commercial to see DeCaprio pulling up to the Burger King drive-thru  in his Prius to order a “delicious” veggie burger “that goes better with a side of fries” and the music in the background could be the lyrics from Madonna/Timberlake singing “you only got 5 minutes to save the world .” I realize this is not a scientific article but come on does she really think her readers are that ignorant. Taking a serious topic that needs attention, and turning it into an advertisement for veggie burgers doesn’t fly with me!

RR-4: Getting Real About the High Price of Food

Do we really know where our food comes from and should we care? To be honest I never thought to ask the question. When I’m pushing my cart through the grocery store I don’t have time to think about where the food I’m purchasing has come from. In fact after an eight hour day on top of a two hour commute time, I’m just too exhausted to care. I care about two things; how far I can stretch my dollar, and how fast can I throw something together that”s edible before my family. After reading the article, Getting Real About the High Price of Food, I began to see why I should be concerned about the food (or lack there of ), that fills the aisles of the grocery store. Take for example a stick of butter and compare it to a stick of margarine. Notice the difference on the list of ingredients? I feel it is necessary to list out the ingredients for each very different product to make my case in point. The ingredients for butter are as follows: cream and salt. The ingredients for margarine are as follows: liquid soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, water, buttermilk, salt, soy lecithin, sodium benzoate, vegetable mono and diglycerides, artificial flavor, vitamin A palmitate, colored with beta carotene. Which one shall I choose, the one that lists only two ingredients or the one that clearly states on the package that it is “naturally cholesterol free”, and is about the third the cost of butter. This brings me to my point that there are hidden costs that are not showing up in your grocery bill but they are paid in other ways such as our health, environmental damage, and the future wellness of generations to come. The fertilizers and chemical pesticides that are heavily used to grow commodity crops is costing the environment irreconcilable damage which is evident by the “dead zones.” The livestock that is eating the government subsidized food crops are confined to small spaces and live in poor conditions that they give them antibiotics to keep them from getting sick on top of the growth hormones they receive. The largest amount of fossil fuel consumption which is the fuel behind global warming, comes from the industrialized food industry. Health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, are increasing instead of decreasing and I doubt the rise is due to our longevity. We eat food that is processed to the point it’s causing harm to our bodies. We rarely see the connection that we are in a relationship with our environment and what we do to the environment we do to ourselves. As we poison and overburden our world, our lives, we are left with that byproduct and it is a high price to pay.

RR-3: Need for Sustainability

Our environment is showing scars of overuse and abuse that has mother nature no longer tapping on our shoulders patiently waiting. We have taken what was once thought of as unlimited resources and recklessly overused them without giving thought to what future generations will be left with. In the article, Need for Sustainability, it shows how the human population has disrupted the environmental balance of give and take and guides the reader through a handful of statistical evidence to draw the conclusion we need to change. The most powerful point the writer made in my opinion was when she illustrated the fact that we recognize logos more than we can recognize what type of tree that may be in our own back yard. Realizing how disconnected we have become from nature is sad, but to see that is has become the norm for our society is even worse. Although this article is an eye opener it also had me thinking, what we do possess is a younger generation that is watching and learning from our mistakes and what better teacher could there possibly be. They watched as a generation depleted resources and now there’s hope that this generation will be one that is concerned with conserving resources. We have begun to make positive changes as evident by recycling, using energy efficient appliances and light bulbs to larger scale projects that have many of us investing into green projects and buying fuel efficient cars. By investing in our youth the possibilities could be endless. The example of the biology teacher leading her students away from the confinements of the classroom and allowing them to explore their natural world was inspiring to me. It had my creative juices flowing for new ways of approaching kids to take a hands on approach to nature. Everyone knows how to run laps around the gym instead why not have outdoor studies in which children can get the health benefits while learning about different things like snowshoeing, hiking, anything that involves getting active outdoors. Another idea is why not teach children the benefits of growing your own food as in a community garden that everyone gets involved in. Just some ideas I thought would be a great way to promote getting connected with the environment by modeling and teaching it to a younger generation.

RR-2 Nothing Wasted Everything Gained

A new way of life from unlivable to sustainable is almost unbelievable. Common sense happens to be the best way of explaining this philosophy on how to live. The community of Gaviotas, which started as a scientific experiment, aimed at living off the natural resources that the land had set before them. Impressive to say the least that the small community of about 200 took the barren land and converted it to a thriving community that supports itself with a factory and is completely emission free. This story reminds me of the natives that live a traditional way of life. Society considers them to be poor and because of their isolation uneducated, nothing could be further from the truth. Indigenous people from all over the world who maintain this way of life just as the Gaviotas community have a little secret, they live a very rich life of comfort. Monetary resources do not dictate how they live, they cannot simply buy food, water, energy, or shelter; they must rely upon the subsidy that mother nature provides. The knowledge they possess parallels that of a scientist, year round observations of migratory bird flight patterns for example can tell us many things about global warming. Celebrating nature, listening to what the earth and the animals that inhabit it are telling us must be overwhelmingly powerful. Honoring the earth and each other is more than a way of life it is a manual on how to live abundantly rich. The solutions to real life problems the Gaviotas community encountered were solved through the use of windmills, solar collectors, and hydroponic systems can teach us we don’t need to revert back in time to create sustainability we need to take a new direction.

RR -1: Clean Water Laws are Neglected at a Cost in Suffering

How naive of me to think that everyone had a right to clean, safe, drinking water! After reading the article, Clean Water Laws are Neglected at a Cost in Suffering, I was horrified that this is really possible right here in the U.S. Instead of being horrified maybe I should wake up from the illusion that we are under this blanket of protection and those that do harm will face consequences. So many things are wrong in present day America; I admit I am fearful of problems we face as a nation such as the unstable economy, terrorism attacks, global warming, the energy crisis, but my drinking water? When I think of water pollution I think of the bigger picture, our oceans that are basically human land fills, not the water that comes out of our tap. A small town in West Virginia near a coal mine, is experiencing a tragic cascade of events that’s killing the citizens of their community. Yes, literally killing them! The dirty coal is being washed with corrosive chemicals that is ending up in the water system and making everyone sick from brain tumors to painful skin lesions. The community is currently in a law suit, but the problem still exists and the solution is delivering bottle water to the community members while the case is pending. My response to this article other than shock is, we can’t afford to continue our dependence upon dirty fossil fuels any longer. Once we sever that codependent relationship we will pursue alternative sources and have success. We have right now a combination of resources available today that are abundant enough to provide energy to needs to everyone. Are they costly, yes; but what if we create a competitive market? Look at the auto, steel, and agriculture industries; they received government subsidies why not apply the same to renewable energy sources. Using a combination of rebates, tax credits, grants, and subsidies from both federal and state I believe this will work. I don’t know much about the in’s and out’s of solar energy, wind power, or geothermal energy, but I do recognize the need to transition to clean renewable energy.

Biodiesel: Reading Response 5

The biodiesel article that I read was very interesting. I heard a little bit about biodiesel in the past. The idea to renew vegetable oils or animal fat and turn it into usable engine oil was marvelous. The audience of this article would have to be someone like me who knows nothing about biodiesel and those who could contribute to the business. The effectiveness of the article went right to the point and explained what biodiesel is and does.

Regarding the implication to the environment, this reduces harmful emissions unlike the petroleum based diesel. Concerning the counterarguments, I would have to say that the oil and fat products used probably would not meet the demand of fuel used in America today if everyone owned and used diesel engines. It could possibly help with the big construction companies that use a lot of fuel in their heavy equipment, etc.

My concern would be that using vegetable oil and animal fat might have an adverse effect. For example, when corn was being used for fuel the outcome according to the news years ago was not good because farmers and the companies lost money. I am not sure where that stands today, but using what humans consume is kind of like taking from Peter to save Paul (excuse me, I am not sure how that anecdote is expressed or even if it is one).

If I were to pursue this issue, I would research the use, who contributes to the uses, and how much is available including if it is a sustainable solution to petroleum diesel. I once heard that someone invented a car that ran on water, but industries bought them out. Probably one of those spun up stories that my brother loves to spin on and add a couple lines to. Anyway, the article was worth reading. I now have a good understanding of biodiesel, and you can’t just use your personally used oil and stick it in a diesel engine!

Response 5:Eating Mercury. by nate missimer

The audience for this article is the biggest and broadest it will ever be. The audience is any food consumer in the entire world. The only way it is even close to being narrowed down into categories is with what certain brands of food each individual eats.

The point is this, that it was stated that there are 17 of 55 brand name products out there that contain HFCS which stands for high fructose corn syrup and HFCS contain trace levels of mercury which is very poisonous to the consumer. Such as sushi and smuckers jelly.

Big time brand names, and cases of sickness and documented mercury poisoning makes this article very effective in its topic of discussion. Who wouldn’t want to know what exactly they are eating.

A good argument is that we as people and food consumers don’t really know what all goes into our foods to preserve them, we just know what we like and what we want to eat. So just taking a moment to look at the back of the label while sitting on the internet could and will open a huge door on your knowledge of what really goes into what we eat.

More knowledge of what exactly happens in the long run from eating these foods with HFCS would give a better tool to decide for ourselves what we should do about it . More research on mercury treatment, and advice should be available to the consumer as well. On the back of every brand name product should have a website to help us, help ourselves.