Research Draft 2: The Pacific Garbage Patch

Littering has become a huge issue in the world now. Our world is becoming more polluted as the days past by around the globe. Trash is building up around the world-changing as the months change. All of these issues are because of us, humans not caring enough about the world. We are destroying the world that we live in every day, more and more each day. Although humans may not be the only reason for polluted ocean they are the main reason because of the plastic in the oceans, marine animals dying, and contaminated water.

The Pacific Garbage Patch was discovered by a man who goes by the name of Charles Moore. Charles Moore is a man from Long Beach, California that grew up in the water. His family was a water family always sailing to different places. Charles Moore was actually a woodworking and finishing business owner that sailed in his free time. Mr. Moore discovered the Pacific Garbage Patch on the way back from a yacht race in 1997 from Hawaii. To be more pacific August 3, 1997 was when Captain Charles Moore discovered the garbage patch by accident. Since that day he has dedicated his time to research the patch and find ways to prevent and solve the issue.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is almost completely self-explanatory. We get it’s located in the Pacific Ocean but how big is the patch is the question. Patch can range in all different types of patches such as big, medium, or small. According to different literature the patch is from Hawaii to California and is bigger then any landfill that’s on land. Hawaii also has trash around it call the Eastern and Western Pacific Garbage Patch.  The western patch is located between Hawaii and California also. The eastern patch is located off the course of Japan. The approximate size is two full states of Texas and it estimated to get the size of Africa.

A known way how the trash gets into the ocean; is people who are sailing or working on the ocean throw it overboard either on purpose or accidentally. The trash is able to collect because the ocean circulates slowly in that area. The little wind and high pressures cause slow circulation.  Of course trash has always been thrown into the ocean but it was easier broken down back then. Now that trash has become lightweight and durable that break down process takes a lot longer and more toxic.

Littering is another way the ocean is contaminated with garbage. People litter all over the world. A great deal of that littering makes its way into the ocean over time by getting washed through drain storms, into the rivers and stream than float into the ocean. Just littering on the street eventually hurts other parts of the world. Basically everyone should try not to litter anything it’s not hard to put trash into a trash can.

Sea turtles tend to eat plastic bags because they look like jellyfishes. As marine mammals swim through the ocean that is filled with trash they become stuck in fishing net, plastic bags, and much more.  Many of these items get stuck in the animal’s intestines. Fish typically eat microscopic organisms for their nourishment. Birds fly over the ocean to find food to eat. Marine birds typically eat fish that have eaten the microscopic plastic particles. They also scope up plastic that they mistake for fish. The plastic pieces usually look like fish eggs, small crabs, and other things of nourishment to them.

Human are affected by ocean pollution because as the plastic breaks down chemicals are released in the ocean water. Humans are affected by the sea food that they eat, through fish, crabs, shrimp, clams, and much more marine animals that come from the sea. Fat cells are affected by Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals (EDCs) that plastic is made with. It’s believed that Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals (EDCs) can cause fertility problems, brain development, and chromosome abnormalities. Humans are causing health problems on themselves because of the toxins that are getting put into the ocean.

There’s not much publicity about this issue. I have talked to people personally and they have no clue such a thing existence. The issue has been known since 1997, that was thirteen years ago.  I know, I won’t have learned about if it wasn’t for this environmental English class. There are needs to be more articles, news coverage, and so much more to get this environmental hazard out into the public awareness. Usually no one goes in that area because of the slight wind problem.

In 1987, a law was passed that it’s against the law to dumping plastic into the ocean. Then on December 31, 1988 a law was passed against ships and land-based operation throwing plastic into the sea. Plastics aren’t the only thing by law that isn’t allowed to thrown into the ocean. Other items like glass, paper, metal, and crockery are not allowed.

There are no plans of cleaning up the Pacific Garbage Patch. It’s thought of that clean up would because more harm than good for the ocean and especially ocean life. Clean up would affect the microscopic ocean life. Like everything else once you affect part of the chain it’s downhill from there.  Those microscopic organisms also called plankton that is eaten by other ocean life that is usually trap in or on the trash.  The way garbage is cleaned up mostly today is performing beach clean ups from trash being washed up on shore or left by visitors.

Hundreds of years ago plastics were able to sink to the bottom of the ocean that would dissolve over time. Now a day’s that’s not so simple.  Plastic is built to be durable and long-lasting.  It can take up to four hundred year for plastic to break completely down in the ocean.

As it breaks down harmful chemicals are released into the water. Alternative things to use are paper based, cardboard, or glass made items. Recycling is always a great method of decreasing waste also.

Project Kaisei is a nonprofit organization that wants to increase the awareness of marine debris and solutions to prevent and clean up the debris. In 2008 Project Kaisei was started by three people who purpose was to bring notice to the amount of plastic that had built up in the last 50 years. That purpose eventually turned into wanting to decrease the amount of plastic and marine debris into the ocean. They have plenty programs to inform people about the issue and ways to help the problem. Project Kaisei way to solve the problem is to identify the problem and research it, develop ways to solve the problems, and put those ways into action. If you can’t help physically there’s the option of making a donations towards the Project Kaisei mission. To keep updated on all the new information discovered, there’s a place to sign up for email alerts.

Oceana was started in 2001 by “The Pew Charitable Trusts, Oak Foundation, Marisla Foundation (formerly Homeland Foundation), the Turner Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.” Oceana mission is to restore the oceans to original state before the plastic contamination that it has revolved into today. They want the ocean to be healthy and rich place it once was. Oceana has identified the problem as people destroying the oceans by pollution and taking more than we put back the ocean. Oceana focuses on decreasing the pollution, promote responsible fishing, protect marine life, and preserve land. For public awareness they use celebrities, foundations, corporate donor and any other donations.

A celebrity by the name of Ed Norton has dedicated his self to bring public awareness on the use of plastic bags and the damage that it causing to the ocean. Usually plastic bag never truly break completely down into something that’s not harmful to the world. Plastic bags are made with petroleum that makes the bag biodegradable. An alternative method to using plastic bags is using canvas bags that can be used repeatedly. He is now working on getting plastic bags banned all over the world. There are currently banned in China, Australia, Bangladesh, Ireland, Italy, South Africa and Taiwan. Mumbai (formerly Bombay) and India. In the United States Portland, Oregon has put a fee on using plastic bags. A few other places are Texas, New Jersey, and Iowa to name a few. California so far has rejected the ban on plastic bags.

Pollution has extremely changed the ocean from it original state. It has taken years, hundreds of years to get the ocean into the condition it is in today, so of course to successfully change it will take even longer. A change is wanted to increase a healthier place for marine animal to live and also for human’s health. Humans created this problem; humans can fix it and prevent it from occurring again someday. It’s our responsibility to change and improve the world

Works Cited

• Program, N. M. (2010, Febuary 27). Local Beach Global Garbage. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from De-mystifying the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”: http://www.globalgarbage.org/blog/index.php/2010/02/27/de-mystifying-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch/

• Amaral, K. (n.d.). Plastics in Our Oceans. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/kamaral/plasticsarticle.html
• Lowy, J. (2007). Plastic Left Holding the Bag as Environmental Plague. Seattle Post-Intelligencer , 1-4.
• Hoshaw, L. (2009, November 10). Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash. p. D2.

• Marks, K; Howden, D Asia-Pacific Correspondent. (2008, February 8). The world’s rubbish dump: a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan.
• Barretto, Fabiano. (2010, February 2). De-mystifying the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”.
• Dautel, Susan L. (2010).Transoceanic Trash: International and United States Strategies For the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. pgs. 1-30
• Casey, Susan; Segal, Gregg. (2007, October 7) Our oceans are turning into plastic…are we? pgs. 1-9
• Reid, David. (2007, November 21). Earth’s Eighth Continent.
• C, Tiffany. (2010,  May 3). A World Away of Plastic.
• Barry, Carolyn. (2009,  August 20). Plastic Break Down in Ocean, After All – - And Fast.
• CDNN –Cyber Diver. (2007, November 4). Plastic Ocean: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
• CBS News. (2010 April 10). “Plastic Soup” Found in Atlantic Ocean.
• Sohn, Emily. (2010, August 19). Mystery of the Missing Ocean Plastic.
• Le, Phuong. (2010, June 14). Emerging Ocean Concern: Tiny Plastic Particles.
• Walsh, Bryan. (2009, August 1). Expedition Sets Sail to the Great Plastic Vortex.
• National Geographic’s Strange Days on Planet Earth. (2010) Career in Science, Charles Moore.
• CNN News. (2010, June 8). Rowing across an endangered ocean.

Research Draft 2: Biodiesel’s Catch 22

When you go to the gas pump to fill your vehicle up, carbon dioxide toxins probably is not the first thing that pops into your head. More recently, the first concern of most people is the fast rising dollar sign on the pump. However, modern day environmental groups have been raising the issue of how the dependant use of oil is harming our environment. This is a paramount concern that has lead to the development of biodiesel as an alternative fuel source. The use of biodiesel is a controversial topic. There are many advantages to using biodiesel; it is biodegradable, non-toxic and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel is also safer to handle and transport, and there are fewer noxious emissions than petroleum-based diesel. A study by the U.S. Department of Energy revealed that a 78.5 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions was linked to the production and use of biodiesel fuel. However, there are also many unseen, substantial consequences to using biodiesel as well. Although biodiesel has many environmental benefits, it should not yet be used as an alternative to fuel because of its overall cost, increase in food prices and the over farmed biodiesel crops.

Most everyone has heard of biodiesel, but exactly what biodiesel is may not be common knowledge. There are many different definitions of biodiesel. According to Duffield (2007) biodiesel is a “diesel fuel substitute that is made from vegetable oils, animal fats, and yellow grease, which is primarily recycled cooking oil from restaurants and other food preparation facilities” (p. 1029).  This definition encompasses many factors that are included in most definitions of biodiesel, it is an alternative fuel source made from food sources such as vegetable oils and animal fats that can reduce emissions and pollutants that harm the environment. Biodiesel is a fast growing fuel alternative among fuel producers and consumers.

There is a worldwide recognized need for the use of an alternative fuel source. According to Du, Li, Sun, Chen and Liu (2008) the global biodiesel industry has developed drastically over the past ten years. (p. 331) The leader globally of biodiesel production has been European Union; European Union has increased their biodiesel production from 3.2 million tonnes in 2005 to close to 4.9 million tonnes in 2006. (Du et al., 2008, p. 331) Du et al., 2008 notes that, for European Union, this is a 54% annual growth for biodiesel production and consequently the European Union biodiesel production has increased two fold the last 2 years; it increased from 1.9 million 4.9 million from the years 2004 to 2006 (p. 331). Du et al., (2008) also examined the United States biodiesel production and noted that the United States, while not at the level of the European Union, has significantly increased biodiesel production over the last few years. (p. 331) Production in the United States has risen greatly from the years 2000 to 2007; in 2000 biodiesel production was 2 million gallons and in 2006 biodiesel production was 250 million gallons, and in 2007, biodiesel production jumped to 450 million gallons. (Du et al., 2008, p. 331) Du et al., (2008) also notes “according to the National Biodiesel Board, there are 105 plants in operation as of early 2007, with an annual production capacity of 864 million gal . . . an additional 1.7 billion gal of capacity may come online if current plants in construction are completed” (p.331). Du et al., (2008) points out that by the year 2016, the Global Biodiesel market is anticipated to make 37 billion gal which is an average annual growth of 42%. (p. 331)

With such an increase of the production and use of biodiesel, it is obvious that there are some definite advantages of biodiesel over diesel. Balat (2009) states that one important feature of biodiesel is that its chemical properties allow it to be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to generate a biodiesel mix. (p. 48) Hunt (2008) states that another advantage of biodiesel is that it is a certain, national energy source which is increasingly important with growing gas costs is helpful in reducing the United State’s dependence of foreign oil. (p. 48) Biodiesel also reduces carbon dioxide emissions that are harmful to the atmosphere because it uses clean natural substances that do not release as much toxins when burned, whereas diesel fuel tends to emit these harmful toxins into the atmosphere.

These advantages are well worth investing in. However there are significant drawbacks to the way biodiesel is currently being produced. The first major disadvantage is the cost. According to Canakci and Sanli (2008) biodiesel is usually made from good quality food-grade vegetable oils, in the United States the main vegetable oil used is soybean oil. (p. 434) Canakci and Sanli (2008) further assert that the increased cost of food grade oils is responsible for the increase in the cost of biodiesel and that this situation has become even more problematic because of the increase in the vegetable oil prices in recent years. (p. 434) Feedstock is an important aspect of the topic of biodiesel. Feedstock is basic, raw material that is essential for certain industrial processes. The price of feedstock in the mid 1990’s was responsible for 60 to 75% of the total cost of biodiesel fuel and today, around 85% of the cost of producing biodiesel is attributed to feedstock cost. (Canakci & Sanli, 2008, p. 434) Canakci and Sanli (2008) conclude this claim by stating that in order “to become an economically viable alternative fuel and to survive in the market, biodiesel must compete economically with diesel fuel…however, the raw material cost of biodiesel is already higher than the final cost of diesel fuel”, and currently the unit price of biodiesel is one and a half to three times greater than the price of petroleum derived diesel fuel. (p. 434)

The high cost of biodiesel is related to the second main disadvantage of biodiesel and that is the high food cost. Boyd (2008) asserts that as biofuel production increases, food prices increase as well as a result. (p. 55) According to researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute, between the years of 2000 and 2007, twenty-five to thirty-three percent of the increase in food costs appeared to be caused by the production of biofuel. (Boyd, 2008, pp. 55-56) Hill (2006) also notes his concern for the biodiesel and food cost relationship. Hill (2008) states that biofuel cannot become an alternative for petroleum without consequently influencing food supplies. (p. 11207) So, even if all of the United States corn and soybean production were committed to making biofuel, this would only meet 12% of gasoline demand and only 6% of the diesel demand. (Hill, 2008, p. 11207)

While it may reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the last major disadvantage to using biodiesel is that it causes over farmed lands and deforestation. Eric Holtz-Jinienez, the director of Food First stated that  “Brazil is chopping down the Amazon, Argentina is tearing up the prairie, and Malaysia and Indonesia arc chopping down forests and burning up peat bogs for sugarcane and palm . . .and it’s not even about a renewable future . . . It’s about the South growing fuel for the North.” (Boyd, 2008, p. 56) Boyd (2008) also stated that there are concerns that cultivating new land in order to grow crops for biofuel production has the potential to in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions. (p. 56) Boyd (2008) goes on to explain that according to a study in Science, the production of corn could potentially result in almost two times the amount of ethanol greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it replaces. (p. 56) Boyd states that the cause of this is attributed to the fact that CO² that has been stored in the soil for millennia gets released into the atmosphere when the grasslands and forests are converted to agricultural lands for biofuel production. (p. 56) Lands could be over farmed, permanently harming them and preventing fruitful cultivation efforts in the future, could become a problem with using biodiesel. This occurs because biodiesel uses corn and soybean and other grown foods to make the biodiesel and creating enough biodiesel to run vehicles means growing a substantial amount of corn, soybeans, and whatever else would be used to make the biodiesel. Growing all these products just for American consumer consumption needs already requires a vast amount of land. Image how many more crops would need to be planted to feed America and provide biodiesel materials. This would undoubtedly lead to an over farmed agriculture system.

Overall, the current disadvantages plaguing biodiesel production far outweigh the advantages. There is hope though. Canakci and Sanli (2008) have pointed out that in order for biodiesel to thrive in the world and become a realistic and practicable alternative fuel source, biodiesel has to cost less than diesel. (p. 434) In order for consumers to really consider the use of biodiesel it needs to be economically feasible for them. As discussed throughout this paper, this is clearly not the case. Biodiesel, and biofuel as a whole, is currently significantly more expensive to produce than diesel, the subsequent affect on food cost is another detriment of biofuel. Canakci and Sanli (2008) offer some future implications and suggest that if biofuel is to become an economically feasible alternative fuel source than its high price of production needs to be lowered and a relatively easy way to do this is to use low-cost feedstock’s such as used frying oils, animal fats, soapstocks and greases. (p. 434) This will not only decrease the production costs of biodiesel but also lower affect that biofuel production has on food prices because it will not require corn and soybean crops. This domino affect also continues because since using low cost feedstock’s, will not require as much crop production, over farming and deforestation will not occur and less pollutants will harm our environment.

 

References

 

Balat, M. (2009). Prospects for worldwide biodiesel market development. Energy Sources Part B: Economics, Planning & Policy, 4(1), 48-58. doi:10.1080/15567240701423951.

 

Boyd, R. (2008). The hunt for a sustainable biofuel. Earth Island Journal, 23(2), 55-58. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Canakci, M., & Sanli, H. (2008). Biodiesel production from various feedstocks and their effects on the fuel properties. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 35(5), 431-441. doi:10.1007/s10295-008-0337-6.

 

Du, W., Li, W., Sun, T., Chen, X., & Liu, D. (2008). Perspectives for biotechnological production of biodiesel and impacts. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 79(3), 331-337. doi:10.1007/s00253-008-1448-8.

 

Duffield, J. (2007). Biodiesel: Production and Economic Issues. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(12), 1029-1031. doi:10.1080/08958370701664890.

 

Hunt, S. (2008). Biofuels, Neither Saviour nor Scam. World Policy Journal, 25(1), 9-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Tiffany, D. (2006). Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(30), 11206-11210. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604600103.

 

Jenner, M. (2007). Biomass energy outlook. BioCycle, 48(11), 53. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

Manuel, J. (2007). Battle of the biofuels. Environmental health perspectives, 115(2), A92-A95. Retrieved from Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition database.

 

McCormick, R. (2007). The impact of biodiesel on pollutant emissions and public health. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(12), 1033-1039. doi:10.1080/08958370701533509.

 

Naylor, R., Liska, A., Burke, M., Falcon, W., Gaskell, J., Rozelle, S., & Cassman, K. (2007). The ripple effect: Biofuels, food security, and the environment. Environment, 49(9), 30-43. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

O’Neill, G. (2006). The biofuels promise: updated thinking. Ecos, (133), 22-25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

 

Runge, C., & Senauer, B. (2007). How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Affairs, 86(3), 41-53. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Tenenbaum, D. (2008). Diversion of crops could cause more hunger. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), A254-A257. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Traviss, N., Thelen, B., Ingalls, J., & Treadwell, M. (2010). Biodiesel versus diesel: A pilot study comparing exhaust exposures for employees at a rural municipal facility. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995), 61(3), 1026-1033. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.60.9.1026.

 

Research Draft #2: Particulate Problems

Fairbanks, Alaska is in the midst of a pollution problem that is threatening the health of its citizens. This pollution does not come from one source, but is a culmination of several sources that, together, can cause a smog of unhealthy air in the Golden Heart City. Heating prices have risen to a point that home owners are burdened to find a cheaper alternative to heat their homes (Brown, David, Callahan, 2007). Wood heat has become one of the most popular alternatives to heat a home in Alaska and around the country (Watson, 2005). Although wood burning is a good alternative to high-priced heating fuel, there is an unnecessary amount of pollution being produced that is detrimental to the health of Fairbanks residents because of the natural pressure system that traps pollution inside the city, many users are not properly using their wood burning devices, and some devices that are inherently inefficient despite the user.

On a cold day in Fairbanks, wood stoves and outdoor wood boilers are filled with wood to counter the winter’s bite. In the winter months, Fairbanks experiences not only one of the coldest winters in the United States, but also has some of the most extreme pressure inversions, and one of the lowest wind conditions in the world. This type of weather phenomenon traps cold air close to the ground with no way to escape. Despite, residents are forced to use cheaper alternative fuel sources because of the high price of home heating fuel. Fairbanks residents are paying between $5,000 to $10,000 dollars per year according to the 2010 Home Heating Survey. But as Fairbanks residents heat their homes with wood fuel, the city becomes the most polluted area in the state with the winter low pressure systems holding the pollution close to the ground. This is something that the city of Fairbanks must reduce.

The pollution problem in the city of Fairbanks is easy to define but difficult to solve. The growing popularity of burning wood for heat has introduced many new users to wood burning devices. These tools can be effective ways to heat a home in the cold Alaskan winters, but if used incorrectly, they can also be inefficient tools that cause a large amount of pollution. Ned Rozell (1995) stated that green Birch wood has between 40-60% water, and if the wood is not correctly split and allowed to dry, it will burn inefficiently. If the wood is wet, than more than half of the energy generated is used to evaporate the water, and is not turned into heat. The remaining heat created by the wood is not enough to heat up the inside of a wood stove, which would normally burn most of the carbon in the smoke as heat. This unburned smoke is emitted into the atmosphere as pollution which collects under the thermal inversion. Newer wood stoves have catalysts that combust the remaining carbon in the wood smoke. But this catalyst will only work if the wood is dry enough to convert a large part of the potential energy in the wood to heat the catalyst stone. When the air flow in the stove is turned to low, and the catalyst is engaged, the wood will have a high burn time that raises the efficiency of the stove to around 83% of the woods burning potential (“Alternative Energy,” n.d., para. 12). Wood stoves have the possibility to save a home owner a large amount of money if correctly used, while reducing pollution and non-renewable resources like oil for heat. If the home owner does not live in an area close to wood resources it may not be cost-effective to invest in wood heat, so the home owner must do research before making this investment (Gulland, 2009).

Another popular wood burning device in Fairbanks is the outdoor wood boiler. It is used to heat water for a home, but is terribly inefficient. It works by heating water which is circulating in metal tubes, with wood heat. Blake (2006) describes that when the water reaches a certain temperature, the air supply to the fire chamber is lowered so that the water is not over heated. Since these systems are made to handle wet, whole logs, that is what most users’ burn because of its ease of preparation. Outdoor wood boilers create much more pollution than a wood stove, which can be seen by the smoke clouds that collect around properties that use this type of device. Wood boilers operate at an average of 35% to 45% of the woods heating potential (Sippula, Olli, Hokkinen, Puustinen, 2009). A small remaining percentage of the heat is lost in the unburned smoke, which is heat lost into the atmosphere. This carbon particulate matter in the smoke is what is harmful to those who ingest it. With home oil-fired boilers operating at an average highest efficiency of 73%, it makes it clear that outdoor wood boilers and older wood stoves are not a good choice to heat a home, when compared to more efficient heating devices like wood stoves with a catalyst stone (Sippula, Olli, Hokkinen, 2009).

The pollution problem in Fairbanks cannot be taken lightly. Wood smoke pollution, sometimes called PM 2.5, is a caustic fine particulate that sticks to the tissues in the lungs, causing irreversible breathing problems. Health problems caused by PM 2.5 are similar to those caused by diesel exhaust or second-hand smoke inhalation. They include emphysema, asthma, or even lung cancer in extreme cases (“Health Effects,” 2006). The PM 2.5 particles are slightly larger than that of refined flour, so they are very easy to ingest into the lungs (“Health Effects,” 2006). Though these breathing problems are normally only seen in more extreme cases, it is still a problem that needs to be critically analyzed. Indoor air quality is also affected by the inefficiencies of wood stoves and outdoor wood boilers. A study posted in the American Chemical Society magazine analyzed the indoor and outdoor particulate air quality of homes with and without wood burning devices. In this article the author came to a conclusion, from the research done, that “the total cancer potency (sum of BaP equivalents) was significantly higher (about 4 times) in the wood-burning homes compared with the reference homes” (Gustafson, Pernilla, Östman, & Sällstent, 2008). As previously stated, outdoor boilers produce significantly higher levels of carbon particulates into the atmosphere due to their inherent inefficiencies, and it is these particulates (PM2.5 particulates) that cause breathing problems and cancers in those that ingest it. Exchanging inefficient wood stoves and wood boilers for units that meet the EPA’s standards for emissions was done in Canada.  Studies done on these homes showed a reduced indoor and outdoor air quality levels that were considered acceptable to the EPA as healthy air (Allen, Ryan, & Leckie, 2009). This conclusion shows that the use of efficient wood burning devices is worthwhile investment in the health of the citizens of Fairbanks. But despite the EPA standards, a Swedish study showed that the indoor air particulate level in homes without wood stoves was 5 times higher than the recommended healthy level and was higher in the winter time than the summer time, which says a lot about EPA standards (Gustafson, Pernilla, 2008).

To combat the pollution caused by wood burning devices, the state of Alaska and other states in the US are starting what is called the “Wood Stove Initiative,” which will regulate wood burning pollution in the community (“Particulate Matters,” 2010). In Fairbanks, the wood stove initiative gives an opportunity for home owners to trade in their inefficient wood burning device for a rebate on a new stove (Bohman, 2010). Though this is a good solution, replacement takes money and the focus can start with education to more efficiently use what wood burners currently have. If new users are given simple tutorials on how to properly prepare their firewood and how to properly use their wood stoves, this would help eliminate some pollution for all types of wood burning devices. Tutorials would take limited funds, and can be done by local wood burning retailers. Outdoor wood boilers create much more pollution than the average wood stove creates, and must not be used anywhere in the community. This can be done with lobbying to local government officials to enforce strict regulation or to add in some sort of government subsidy into the new “Wood Burning Initiative,” for trading in outdoor wood boilers for more efficient wood stove. These types of subsidies have been successful in the past for trading in inefficient wood stoves. But for now, local communities can educate and openly voice their opinions to those that are using an outdoor boiler, to stop their current activities. In an article from the Anchorage Daily News, Rosemary Shinohara (2010) stated that Fairbanks has seen a rise of 6% in breathing related illnesses in each of the last 3 years. This is a cycle that must stop for the sake of community health.

The unnecessary pollution caused by wood stoves is detrimental to the health of community members, and for the environment. The solution to this problem is simple. It is composed of educating people on how to properly prepare wood fuel and use of wood burning devices, and lobbying community leaders for the correct policy change. The difficult part of this proposal would be to lobby local government to regulate outdoor wood boilers so that they do not pollute communities at such a high rate. The pollution problem in the Golden Heart City is worth taking seriously for the health of all its residents and visitors. Without a change in air quality conditions there will be more health problems for residents in the years to come. Fairbanks is a beautiful place to live, and it is important that it also becomes a healthy place to live for visitors and community alike.

References:

Allen, Ryan, Leckie, Millar, Brauer. (2009, December). The impact of wood stove technology upgrades on indoor residential air quality. Atmospheric Environment. 43(37). 5908-5915. DOI 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.016

Blake, Uni. (2006, February 14). Outdoor Wood Furnace and Boiler Pollution. Retrieved from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200602outdoorwoodfurnaces.html

Bohman, Amanda. (2010). Fairbanks borough’s wood stove exchange program is gathering steam. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Retrieved on October 10, 2010 from http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/9602528/article-Fairbanks-borough-s-wood-stove-exchange-program-is-gathering-steam?instance=home_most_popular

Brown, David, Callahan, Boissevain. (2007, January/February). An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment. 13(1). 191-208. DOI 10.1080/10807030601105126

The Encyclopedia of Alternative Energy and Sustainable Living. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/AE_catalytic_wood_stove.html

Gulland, John. (2009, October). Wood Heat is Good For You. Mother Earth News. (236). 54-55. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier

Gustafson, Pernilla, Östman, Sällstent. (2008, July 15). Indoor Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Homes with or without Wood Burning for Heating. Environmental Science and Technology. 42(14). 5074-5080. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2006). Health Effects of Wood Smoke. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air-quality/wood-smoke/health-effects-of-wood-smoke.html?menuid=&missing=0&redirect=1

Particulate Matters: Wood Stove Undermines Local Control. (2010, Sep 5). Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/9381705/article-Particulate-matters–Wood-stove-initiative-undermines-local-control

Rozell, Ned. (1995). Wood Burners Unlock Energy with A Match. Alaska Science Forum. Article #1249. Retrieved from http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF12/1249.html

Shinohara, Rosemary. (2010, Aug 31). Fairbanks Air Pollution Linked to Increased Hospital Visits. Retrieved From http://www.adn.com/2010/08/30/1431777/fairbanks-pollution-visits-to.html

Sierra Research. 2010 Fairbanks Home Heating Survey. [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/Docs/Fairbanks_2010_HHSurvey_Final.pdf

Sippula, Olli, Hokkinen, Puustinen, Yli-Pirilä, Jokiniemi. (2009, October). Comparison of particle emissions from small heavy fuel oil and wood-fired boilers. Atmospheric Environment. 43(32). 4855-4864. DOI 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.022

Watson, Tracy. (2005, November 14). Hidden Cost in Wood Burning: Pollution. USA Today. Pg 3. Retrieved form Academic Search Premier

Research Draft 2: Don’t Panic, be Organic

When going shopping for groceries, what is the deciding factor on which fruit or vegetables should be bought? Is it whichever is on sale, or possibly which is the healthiest? What about livestock and produce? Does it matter whether it is organic or not? For the majority of people who take care of their family’s grocery shopping, buying organic is not on their mind or in their budget. Instead, with the economic crisis we are in, the ever-present thought is which item will give the most bang for a buck. The downfall to this line of thinking are the many chemicals and pesticides injected into both the soil and the food which is then contributing to our failing health and ever-changing environment (Spedding, C. 2006). Although chemicals and pesticides can be profitable, going organic is healthier because of the environment, soil, and health benefits.

 Before the benefits of organic growing for the environment as well as eating for health is discussed, we need to understand what exactly the environment is, what pesticides and chemicals are and finally what organic truly means. To start, what is the environment? There are many different ways to explain what this is. There is the environment, which is essentially all earth. But bringing it closer to home, the environment is where someone lives, where they work, where they play, eat and sleep. More specifically, this is called the ecosystem. It is not something to mess around with when our lives depend on it. Choosing to go organic can have a huge impact on our ecosystem and personal health. Both are connected together which is why it is very important to respect our ecosystem if we want our ecosystem to respect us.

Now what are pesticides? Pesticides are a type of chemical that rids specific areas of pests (Strategies, 2010). Pests can be found as bacteria or viruses in livestock, or it can be insects, worms, or microbes which would be found in crops. Basically anything that can cause damage or death to any other entity – be that livestock, grains or produce. The problem with pesticides is that, while ridding the area of obnoxious creatures, it is also causing harm to good soil and, in turn, the environment. This can, as mentioned before, directly impact each of our lives and the way we live them both in the present and the future.

Since we have a brief definition of our environment – or specifically our ecosystem – and of what the chemicals and pesticides do; the word “organic” needs to be defined next. How farmers choose to grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and meat, is how their crops and livestock are defined, either organic or not. Numerous farmers, with the higher demand of organic livestock and crops, have learned to rotate their fields of crop more often, thus encouraging soil and water conservation as well as a reduction of pollution and increase in health benefits. “Farmers who grow organic produce and meat [do not] use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease… (Clinic, 2008).”

 Instead of using the conventional methods of sprays, antibiotics and pesticides, they use straight manure and or natural composts with or without manure for crops and other natural remedies for livestock. A compost ampoule is full of every day leftovers, such as manure, remnants of fruits and their peels as well as natural brush like leaves and sticks. These are put into a pile away from buildings or in a specified container meant to help swift decomposing. The time it takes for each factor to decompose varies on the item, but once it is has disintegrated into a nice fertilizer it is put on the grounds where pesticides and chemicals would normally be used. This fertilizer might not get rid of all bugs, but it will enrich the soil instead of stripping the nutrients out of it. The fumes are not toxic to humans or animals (although they might not be something anyone would want to take a big whiff of) hence less of an impact on the environment, the soil and human health.

As stated, those who have ever farmed in their lives understand the need to not tire out the field. Generally there are working fields and resting fields. Degradation of the soil is exaggerated with all the use of pesticides and chemicals. The more deprived of good nutrients soil is, the worse the produce will be. In turn, if the produce is ridden with pesticides, and the livestock eat it, they will be exposed to all sorts of dangerous chemicals that we will eventually be exposed to when eating them. Not only are we being exposed by the produce, but also by the meat and the fumes coming from each field of livestock and produce. Going organic has the potential to limit every one of these problem areas by a significant amount. The only drawback is the cost.

            The cost of going organic can seem daunting, but once it has been broken down, it might not seem quite as horrendous (Magkos, F. 2006). By buying organic, there is a guarantee of very little to no pesticides, chemicals, or other unwanted things added to all food. Organic also means there are absolutely no genetically modified organisms (GMO). Genetically modified organisms are something to be worried about – it is when scientists modify whatever food with another type of food, such as apples (Lauridsen, C. 2010). Apples are not necessarily supposed to be as big as they normally are, which is why many people shy away from the smaller ones, which are organic, because they are not used to the size, or lack thereof. Apples are generally waxed to give that shiny sheen we are so accustomed to.

Going organic is not the end all beat all, however. There still are organic sugars, organic candy, and just plain unhealthy organic items. When perusing the organic row of food, before selecting an item, be sure to check the ingredients on each label for the exact contents (Pollans, M. 2010). Food items can have the label “FDA Organic” while only being roughly ninety percent organic. Here now is another good reason to always read labels. Unless every ingredient has the word organic before it, it can be assumed that there is roughly ten percent that is not organic.

With the cost of organics so high, another option is to pick certain items to be organic, such as the “Dirty Dozen.” Now what exactly are the dirty dozen? A research project was conducted by a group of scientists who tested all sorts of fruits and vegetables for their levels of toxicity (Bauer, J. 2006). These scientists found twelve fruits and vegetables that were the most detrimental to our health. These were then dubbed “the dirty dozen,” which are apples, cherries, grapes (imported), nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, celery, potatoes and spinach.

On the other side of that, there are “the clean fifteen”. These same researchers found the fifteen fruits and vegetables that basically do not need to be bought organic, for they had an extremely low toxicity. This list of “the clean fifteen” consists of onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, sweet peas, mangos, asparagus, kiwi fruit, cabbage, eggplant, cantaloupe, watermelon, grapefruit, sweet potatoes and sweet onions (Pou, J. 2010). These foods were found to be the least covered in pesticides. Most nutritionists would claim that these fruits and vegetables are completely unnecessary to buy organic, especially when there is a budget. Because pesticides and other hideous species tend to hide in the fatty areas of animals and their bi-products, when it comes to poultry and dairy, the need to be organic is even more present.

Eating foods that are not laden with chemicals and are not genetically modified might not impact any of the digestive systems, the immune system and life span, but there is still a chance they could (Hall, A. 2010). The theory is that the actual health content from a regular grown food object to an organically grown food object is barely different, it is simply the outside – where the pesticides and chemicals, or even wax, have been concentrated, that is considered possibly dangerous. There are many studies going on currently about the actual effects, be that good or bad, of genetically modified and pesticide laden food. Until these studies have been completed, which normally take twenty to thirty years for a good nutrition study to be compared and constructed, it must be said that erring on the side of caution and buying organic might possibly be the better route to take (Agency, S. 2009). Organic food is more likely to decrease the toxic intake each human has throughout their days (McCullough, M. 2010).

There are numerous issues with buying regular pesticide infested, genetically modified and chemical sprayed foods. In the long run, spending a little bit more on organic produce is worth saving our health. The whole point of buying organic is to help save our environment, allow the soil to breathe, and to contribute to a healthier lifestyle. With all the research backing up buying at least some organic food, like the “dirty dozen,” what will you choose during your next grocery trip?

Agency, Standards Food – Organic review published. (2009, July 29). Food Standards Agency – Homepage. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

Bauer, Joy. (2006) Organic food: is it worth the extra money? Today Show, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13737389

Clinic Staff. (2008, December 20). Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? – MayoClinic.com. Mayo Clinic medical information and tools for healthy living – MayoClinic.com. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

Hall, A. (2010, May 28). Organic food has no extra health benefits, say researchers. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281948/Organic-food-extra-health-benefits-say-researchers.html

Lauridsen, C. (2010, September 13). Darcof > Research > The consequences of genetically modified crops for organic farming in Denmark. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.darcof.dk/research/health.html

Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2006). Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition, 46(1), 23-56. doi:10.1080/10408690490911846.

McCullough, M. (2010). PLANET ORGANIC (1993-2010). Canadian Business, 83(9), 25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Pollans, M. (2010). BUNDLING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GOODS: THE MARKET FOR SUSTAINABLE ORGANICS. New York University Law Review, 85(2), 621-657. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Pou, Jackie. May 13, (2010) The dirty dozen and clean 15 of produce. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/the-dirty-dozen-and-clean-15-of-produce/616/

Spedding, C. (2006). Organic food production. (Cover story). Biologist, 53(4), 187-189. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Strategies. Effect of pesticides on environment. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9271628/Effect-of-pesticides-on-environmen

Research Draft 2: This Drill Won’t Cause a Spill; Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

                Does 7.14 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil seem like a lot (Baldwin, Gelb, Derner, 2006)? That’s because it is a lot, a significant amount, a plethora of oil (and a plethora of potential). That is the projected amount of barrels a day that could be drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. So, why is there no drilling there currently and why is there the huge concern and controversy over drilling in this oil abundant area? Perhaps because ANWR is home to thousands of caribou during calving season, is close to the Arctic Ocean, and consists of miles of rugged Alaskan tundra. Although there is much controversy and concern over drilling for oil in ANWR, drilling will not negatively affect the environment because the land will be protected, the wildlife will be preserved, and drilling will leave a small environmental footprint.

            In 1960, ANWR was founded. In 1980, more acres were added to the refuge, and oil development was mostly banned in the area (Gelb, 2006).  ANWR is actually divided up into three different areas by law: the “Refuge”, “Wilderness”, and the “10-02” area. In the south is the “Refuge” land, and in the center is the “Wilderness” land. These two regions take up 17.16 million acres out of the total 19.6 million acres. There is absolutely no drilling or exploration allowed in these two areas. In the northern region of ANWR is the “10-02” area. It is actually called this because in section 10-02 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress designated this area for oil exploration (“What,” n.d.). It is interesting that such controversy over drilling the land is apparent today, despite the fact that in 1980 the “10-02” area was clearly designated by Congress for that exact purpose.

            ANWR covers an astounding 19 million acres, which is larger than some entire states in America. The actual area where oil development would take place is only 12,000 acres (Young, 1995). That may seem like a lot, but it is not when put into perspective.  Don Young, congressional representative from Alaska, had a great example when he explained that 12,000 acres is the amount of land taken up by the Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. Essentially drilling in ANWR would only affect as much land as building an airport in the Refuge (Young, 1995). This drilling in the area the size of an airport would create anywhere from 86,000 to 245,000 jobs for Alaskans and Americans (Gelb, 2006). Building an airport uses taxpayer’s money, but drilling for oil is all privately funded, therefore creating these jobs and revenue for the state of Alaska doesn’t cost Americans a dime (Inhofe, 2009). There are not many projects that can boast that kind of numbers, with such little impact and price.   

            In mainstream America there is a vision of ANWR being a rugged, mountainous, pristine area. The “10-02” area doesn’t fit that description at all. It is miles and miles of barren tundra, with no trees, and covered with snow most of the year (Bachmann, 2008). The coastal plain of the “10-02” area is not pristine; it has roads, villages, and military outposts. Also due to the large amount of oil located in the area, there is some crude oil in the water and on the beaches (Venegas, 2008). This is a natural occurrence for the land and has not affected the wildlife negatively. If proper measures are taken, drilling in ANWR should not disturb the land or the wildlife.

            ANWR is host to many different wildlife species year round, including birds, polar bears, and caribou (“Study,” 2004). The main concerns from environmentalists are usually raised over the caribou in the north, especially since caribou calving season takes place in ANWR. There are two herds of caribou that migrate through ANWR; the Porcupine caribou herd and the Central Arctic caribou herd. The Central Arctic herd is estimated to include 32,000 caribou, and they usually occupy the west side of ANWR. The Porcupine caribou herd is estimated to include 123,000 caribou. This herd migrates to the northern section of ANWR in March. In May the pregnant females are first seen on the slope, and by late May calving season has begun in the north. In late July the herd has moved off the slope and into other areas of Alaska and Canada (“Caribou,” n.d.). Since the caribou are only in the Refuge during the summer, drilling can be done in the winter to limit the affect on the caribou during the summer (Venegas, 2008).

            Along with caribou, the coastal plain of Northern Alaska is home to many polar bears. Pregnant mother polar bears build dens out of snow and ice on the coast, and then have their cubs about halfway through the winter. Most activity in the oil development area would happen in the winter, which is the very same time polar bear cubs are birthed. Like other possible environmental issues associated with oil development, this potential problem can be taken care of with technology and careful planning. The use of incredibly detailed landscape photography and ground-truth sampling has enabled scientists to identify 91.5% of polar bear dens on the coastal plain (Derner, Amstrup, Ambrosius, 2006). Using this information, oil developers can limit their activities to non-den areas so as to minimize the disturbances to all polar bears.

            The caribou, whales, and other animals are needed by the Alaska Natives in the North to provide their subsistence lifestyle. The government knows and recognizes this need, which is why proper rules and regulations can be put into place to protect the wildlife from the dangers of drilling. If drilling in ANWR was permitted, it would take about 9 or 10 years for the drilling to actually begin (“Study,”2004). This gives adequate time to make sure that all drilling can be done completely safely. The Anchorage Daily News Miner stated that “the industry can do it right—especially when held accountable by governments and citizens who demand that no corners be cut, that the best available technology be the norm, and that maximizing profits never trumps care for safety and the environment” (“Keep,” 2010).

            Don Young puts it best when he said, “The caribou herd that migrates through the existing Prudhoe Bay oil field has tripled since development began 20 years ago. Alaskans have done such a good job protecting wildlife that there has not been one death of any animal because of oil development there” (Young, 1995). The simple fact is that the caribou herd near Prudhoe Bay is only there part of the year and they have not been affected. Not only have the caribou been undisturbed, they have actually thrived since the oil drilling began there. The entire Prudhoe Bay oil development project has not negatively affected the wildlife after all these years. Therefore, these new operations in ANWR, utilizing better technology, and better planning will definitely not disturb the wildlife. If there is adequate time to develop stringent rules and regulations, drilling can be very safe for all animals.

            The environmental footprint in any refuge is very important. This is the area that will be directly affected by exploration and drilling for oil. Over the past few years, methods of oil discovery and retrieval have been developed and improved tremendously. Due to these advances in equipment, technology, and retrieval methods, the surface footprint of drilling for oil has been dramatically reduced (Gelb, 2006). The environmental footprint in any refuge should have restrictions and laws in order to protect the land.

            In ANWR, this type of legislation has been in effect since 1980. That legislation created the “10-02” area of ANWR, which contains 1.5 million acres and was originally designated for oil exploration. Congress narrowed the environmental footprint even more by only allowing 2,000 acres to be affected by actual drilling in this region. Simply put that is .05% of ANWR as a whole (“What,” n.d.). Overall that is a very small footprint, and oil developers may not even disrupt all of those 2,000 acres with the utilization of new technology. Some claims by environmentalists have said that no intrusion at all on the land is justified. In a world where humans and wildlife have to coexist, it is impossible to never disrupt an animal. Sometimes the end justifies the means, but this oil drilling would have such a small environmental footprint that the disruption is insignificant.

            There are misconceptions about drilling in ANWR, and naysayers discourage people from seeing its possible potential. Congress has designated the “10-02” section specifically for economic development, especially oil and gas exploration (Everett, 2002). However, in the years since, Congress has blocked the drilling. Despite this, Congress recently allowed research groups to remove ice cores in the “Wilderness” zone using heavy machinery (Bluemink, 2008). If Congress will allow this type of disruption in the “Wilderness” zone, then why won’t they allow exploration in the developmental “10-02” zone? Congress needs to realize that if proper safety rules and regulations are put into place and enforced; there can be environmentally safe drilling in ANWR. Drilling in the “10-02” section will not negatively affect the environment, because the drilling can be completed with a small environmental footprint that protects both the land and the wildlife.    
Bachmann, M. (2008). ANWR Needed to Cut Cost of Gas. Human Events,   64(26), 1-6. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from            http://content.ebscohost.com/

Baldwin, P., Gelb, B., & Corn, L. (2006, July 7). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Controversies for the 109th Congress. CRS Report for Congress.        Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207

Bluemink, E. (2008, August 4). Clue to the Past Climates and Hint of Future are Hidden in the ANWR Ice. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved October          11, 2011, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Caribou in ANWR. (n.d.). ANWR. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from    http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/caribou

Everett, L. (2002). The Controversy over Economic Development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. American Geophysical Union, 12.            Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/

Derner, G., Amstrup, S., & Ambrosius, K. (2006). Polar Bear Maternal Den    Habitat in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Arctic Institute of North    America, 59(1), 31-36. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from             http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/361/0

Gelb, B. (2006). ANWR Development: Economic Impacts. ncseonline.org.    Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Inhofe, J. (2009). Pork-Filled Stimulus Bill Fails to Tackle Real Energy Issues. Human Events, 65(5), 1-10. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from    http://content.ebscohost.com/

Keep ANWR in Play. (2010, May 11). Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact – U.S. news – Environment –            msnbc.com. (2004). msnbc. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Venegas, S. (2008). A Bright Green Light for ANWR Oil. BusinessWeek.       Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/

What is ANWR and where is it?. (n.d.). ANWR. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/What-is-ANWR-and-where-is-it.php

Young, D. (1995). Oil Exploration can be a Boon to Alaskans and Environment. Christian Science Monitor, 87(223), 18. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy

Research Draft #2- Just Because it’s Popular Doesn’t Mean it’s Good for You!

We, as a society, have a need for speed and convenience.   We want everything faster, more accessible, and bigger.  We are the “super-sized” rulers of the world, and we want it all, right now.  This type of lifestyle flows in to every part of our lives, including the way we eat.  Hundreds of millions of people buy fast food every day without giving it much thought (Schlosser, 2001).  For many it is a way of life, the American culture.  For others, such as college students, single parents, the financially restricted, or people who live in certain areas, it is the only answer.  When resources are limited people have to access what is available and unfortunately the food industry feeds on this, producing, advertising, and selling more unhealthy food than ever.  This type of lifestyle has consequences though and if we do not start doing something about it right now the consequences will be too far reaching and irreversible. Although fast food is convenient and inexpensive, we as a society need to stop eating fast food because it has increased health problems, destroys the environment, and has created a food economy dominated by giant corporations.

Most people know what fast food is, but for clarity, according to Webster’s Online Dictionary, “fast food” is the term given to many items that can be prepared and served quickly. While any meal with low preparation time can be considered to be fast food, such as TV dinners, typically the term refers to food sold in a restaurant or store which is rapidly prepared and served to the customer in a packaged form for takeout/take away (Fast food, Webster’s, 2010).  Due to the convenience of having food ready-made, along with fast food being significantly less expensive than other food establishments, it is extremely popular.  Americans spend nearly half of their food budget on foods prepared outside of the home and consume about one-third of daily calories from outside sources, much of it from fast food (Young &Nestle, 2007).  However, just because it is popular does not mean it is good for you.

The dangers of fast food have been a much discussed topic in recent years, however our society is still choosing to spend 15 minutes in the drive-thru rather than 15 minutes preparing a home cooked meal that we know what is in it.  According to Hellmich (2006) choosing to eat fast food meals is also choosing to consume more calories and fats then one would think.  Because nutritional intake labels are designed for standard sized meals it is usually difficult for the average consumer to calculate the nutritional content of a super-sized meal, or even a regular sized fast food meal for that matter.  Most fast food restaurants do not have nutritional labels on their foods anyway.  So a consumer may think they are just having a normal lunch and actually be consuming about 500 more calories and 20 more grams of fat than what they thought.  The intake of extra calories and extra fat, especially without knowing it, is a major problem.  Eating these unhealthy meals frequently can lead to many different types of health problems and many of these health problems can be life changing diseases.

Consumption of fast foods, which have high energy densities and glycemic loads, may be greatly contributing to and escalating the rates of obesity and overweight adults and children  in the United States (Rosenheck, 2008).  There is a direct correlation between the consumption of fast food and the increase in rates of obesity and overweight Americans, and what happens when there are more overweight and obese people, more people die.  One of the biggest consequences of obesity is premature death (Ulrich, 2005).  Since 1990 there has been a 33 percent increase in death related to obesity in the United States and about 400,000 people die each year because of poor diet and inactivity.  Obesity can also lead to other major health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancers, depression, etc.  These are major health issues which can alter the lifestyle of not only the individuals impacted by the health issue, but those around them, and society as a whole.  The cost of health care is increases by 36 percent for an obese person and medication is increased by 77 percent (Ulrich, 2005).  There are also psychological issues and discrimination associated with obesity. In our society, being overweight or obese has a stigma attached to it.  Although more Americans are overweight than not, there is still negative perceptions and harmful weight-based stereotypes such as being lazy, weak-willed, unsuccessful, unintelligent, lacking self-discipline, or being noncompliant with weight-loss treatment associated with people that are overweight (Puhl & Heuer, 2010).     The correlation between the increased fast food consumption and increased obesity rates is obvious and this is just the beginning.  The fast food industry is not only destroying our health, it is destroying the health of animals and the environment as well.

The environmental issues that surround the fast food industry are devastating.  Between the waste, deforestation and loss of land, and animal cruelty, our society is proving to be more selfish and barbaric as ever.   The waste from fast food is growing while renewable resources are shrinking.  What once was a forest area is now a strip mall loaded with fast food and the waste that comes with it.  Fast food retailers are leaders in paper consumption and waste and there are no current laws or regulations in the US to force these retailers to reduce, reuse, or recycle their waste (West,2010). The Southern forests of North America supply 60% of US and 15% of global paper demands.  This area also contains more threatened forest ecosystems than anywhere else in the US with one of the largest perpetrators of the deforestation being the fast food industry (Mongabay, 2010).  How many times do you drive or walk down the road and see a Taco Bell or some other fast food restaurant wrapper on the ground or an animal trying to eat it?    The expansion of the fast food industry has taken over leaving fewer greener places and more pollution and food and animal waste.  Most animals raised for food or to produce food in the U.S. are raised on “factory farms,” or CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).  These farms can have hundreds or thousands of cows, hogs, or chickens (Neff, 2009).  There are several issues with this kind of farming, the most important in my mind being the animal cruelty that is involved.  Many of these animals are housed in pens with hundreds or even thousands of other animals in spaces so small they cannot even turn around.  This issue alone is cruel and inhumane.  They can be injected with growth hormones so they produce more, go through torturous mutilations such as beak searing and ear clipping, and easily succumb to disease because of the unsanitary conditions.  With these animals also comes waste.  Dairy cows produce 82 pounds of manure a day, beef cow 60 pounds , a sow and litter 33 pounds and a boar 11 (Merryweather, 2002).  This industrial food production creates several other problems as well, including pesticides used to fend off insects that eat the crops, fertilizers which require enormous amounts of fossil fuels to produce and many times end up in the water, and outbreaks of disease in animals that can be passed on to consumers.  These are huge issues that cannot be ignored.  However, fast food corporations have become larger than life and have the power to not only get away with these outrageous acts, but to influence and dominate the food economy as well.

The fast food industry is dominated by a few giant corporations that have vast purchasing power and great demand for products.  This influence has altered the way many other industries are operated. According to Schlosser (2001) the great demand for fast food meats has changed the fundamentals of the cattle industry.  This industry once employed highly skilled and highly paid professionals to breed, slaughter, and pack meat.  Today this industry is operating with poorly skilled, mostly immigrant, workers with little training and who are being under compensated.  This industry is now known for its dangerous environment and the many injuries that go with it.  There are many people who would argue that the fast food industry has created jobs and helped a struggling economy, but what about all the smaller family owned businesses that get taken out along the way?  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.   When companies have as much power as these industry giants do, they can do just about anything they want, including selling their unhealthy food to whomever, wherever, and whenever they want.

Fast food outlets have become the messiah for the millions of people out there who don’t have more than a few minutes to spare in grabbing a bite to eat or for the millions of mothers desperate for one night of not cooking dinner for the family.  There is certainly a lot to choose from.  All one has to do is switch on the television, turn on the radio, or walk down the street.  We are bombarded each and every day with jingles and gimmicks inviting us to partake of their unhealthy food.  Some appeal to the consumer’s need for convenience, others appeal to the consumer’s economic constraints.  Whatever it may be, these fast food companies will stop at nothing to get us to eat their foods.  The fast food industry strategically places their restaurants within walking distance schools, not caring about the health of the children consuming their products.  According to Fraser & Edwards (2010) “There is a significant relationship between the density of fast food outlets per area and the obesity status of children.  There is also a significant association between fast food outlet density and areas of higher deprivation”.  It doesn’t matter that they are negatively impacting the health of our children; they are still going to advertise that “one of a kind” toy with their meals to imprint themselves on every child’s mind and conveniently place their restaurants within our reach.  This is an industry that has been built on convenience and cost, not better health choices. 

People choose fast food for many reasons.  Fast food is inexpensive, convenient, and it taste good.   Americans are busy, they need to get a lunch that is quick, easily accessible, and affordable and the fast food industry has spent many years creating a brand that meets all these needs.  However, the same fast food that meets all these needs is also causing severe health problems, destroying the environment, and creating a food economy with a few at the top and many at the bottom.  What is it going to take for the food industry acknowledge the dangers to our health, environment, and economy and start doing something about it?  Unfortunately that probably will not happen so that leaves us, the consumer.  As a society we need to be more aware of our choices and understand the dangers of fast food.  If we decrease the demand for fast food, we are taking away some of the power this industry has.  To stop our society from continuing on this dangerous path of unhealthy eating, destroying the environment, and creating monopolies run by those promoting these dangerous behaviors in the first place, we have to stop eating fast food.

Works Cited

Fast food. 2010. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Retrieved October 30, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fastfood

Hellmich, N. (2006). Superzie: bigger than you think. USA Today

Merryweather, S. (2002, April 29). Metro: waste reduction fast facts: food and agriculture. Waste and Recycling News, 5(6), 13

Morgan Erickson-Davis, mongabay.com (April 28, 2008). Fast-food industry destroying forests in the Southern U.S. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0428-davis_nofreerefills.html

Neff, R. (2009, January/February). Food matters: how what we eat affects our health and the planet. Imagine Magazine, 16(3), Retrieved on October 30, 2010 from http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/imagine/20090102_v2/index.php?startid=18

Puhl, R. M. & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity Stigma: Important Considerations for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health. 100 (6). Retrieved  November 16, 2010 from Academic Search Premier (50615774)

Rosenheck, R. (2008). Fast food consumption and increased caloric intake: a systematic review of a trajectory towards weight gain and obesity risk. Obesity Reviews. 9 (6) 535-547. Retrieved  November 16, 2010 from Academic Search Premier (14677881)

Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Ulrich, C. (2005). The Economics of Obesity: Cost, Cause, and Controls. Human Ecology. 33 (3) 10-13. Retrieved  November 18, 2010 from Academic Search Premier (15307069)

West, L. (2010). Progress is Slow on Reducing, Reusing and Recycling Fast Wood Waste. About. Retrieved on November 17, 2010 from http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/fast_food_waste.htm

Young, L. R. & Nestle, M. (2007). Portion Sizes and Obesity: Response of Fast-Food Companies. Journal of Public Health Policy. 28 (2) 238-248. Retrieved  November 19, 2010 from Academic Search Premier (01975897)

Research Second Draft: The World’s Water Crisis

The World’s Water Crisis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steven Norris

Engl 213: Writing for the Environment

Professor Sulivan

November 6, 2010

 

The adult human body is made up of approximately seventy percent water. In infants and children, water accounts for closer to eighty percent of body composition (Burgan, 2008, p.16). Water lubricates the body systems, helps eliminate waste, and is essential to overall homeostasis (Cossi, 1993, p.13). As people move and breath, water is expelled – creating a fundamental need for intake of more water. Unfortunately, in the world we live in today, over one billion people are unable to meet that need with clean drinking water. This fact results in over 3.5 million water related deaths each year across the globe. What is just as devastating is the lack of awareness of this problem in developed countries. Thankfully though, the technology to help solve this water crisis does exist and efforts are being made to implement it in regions that need it the most. Although most people in developed countries are unaware of the situation in underdeveloped countries like Rwanda, the word needs to be spread about the growing water crisis because people are dying from the lack of clean drinking water, the solution to this problem exists, and help is needed to employ it.

In many countries around the world there is a dire need for water. As cited on the 20 Liter website, the World Health Organization (WHO) has deemed it necessary that a person have access to approximately 20 liters (slightly over five gallons) of clean water every day in order to maintain healthy drinking and hygiene levels. Of the one billion plus people that struggle daily to collect enough water for themselves and their family, many of these people’s water usages average less than five liters per day – far below what is considered to be minimal. There are several reasons for this lack of water among people all over the world. The three primary reasons for water shortage are attributed to the substantial rise in the human population, the global change in climate and water usage, and the long distances between water sources and homes.

Though water covers over two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, only a small portion of it is available for consumption by humans. The majority of the planet’s water is salt water and is not suitable for consumption without proper treatment.  Of the planet’s remaining water content, most of its fresh water is not easily accessible because it is in the form of ice, snow, and glaciers. A total of less than 0.007% of the world’s water is directly available for human use (Burgan, 2008, p. 16-17).  The Earth is a closed system, meaning that it will not gain or lose any of its water. But this fact in combination with a look at the growth trend of the human population over the last century is one of the primary reasons there is a shortage of water. Back in the early 1950’s, when the world’s population was only 2.7 billion, there was concern about a global water crisis. So one can understand why the water crisis has become such a big issue now that the world’s population is nearing the 7 billion mark (Walbridge, 2009). Harald Frederiksen (2005) plainly states that there simply is beginning to be too many people for the amount of clean, consumable water on our planet.  It is estimated that within the next fifty years, the population will double – creating an even more serious and widespread water crisis.

Another contributing factor the global water crisis is the worldwide change in climate and water usage. The President of the Republic of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, stated in a 2007 public event that a viscous combination of a continually warming planet and an ever growing increase in water usage is creating an additional stress on the world’s water supply. As the planet’s average temperature continues to climb, more and more water sources are slowly drying up to the point where they are inadequate to sustain the human life around them. At the same time, humans are continuing to use more all the time, especially for agricultural purposes. Shiva (2008) discussed how in many regions, 65-90% of the available water is used in agriculture. Though this has helped increase many regions’ food security, it has at the same time jeopardized the lives of their people in another way – dehydration.

A smaller and yet very real reason that so many people in the world lack drinking water is that many people live a long distance from an adequate source of water. In addition to the quantity of water needed by a person in a day, the World Heath Organization also considers it necessary for the source of this water to be within one kilometer of the household. Unfortunately, every day there are many people around the world who travel much greater distances to collect much less water from a much more unsanitary source than is said to be essential to sustain life at a minimal level. There are over one billion people that travel far more than one kilometer every day to collect water from a contaminated source.  According to the website Water.org, women around the world collectively devote over 200 millions hours to collecting water for the most basic of human needs because their water sources are so far away.

This lack of water, whatever the cause, creates a very unhealthy living situation. As Tim Lougheed (2006) describes, water related diseases account for millions of deaths every year. Diarrhea, being one of the most common diseases contracted due to lack of clean drinking water, is one of the leading causes of fatality in developing countries. In children under the age of five, diarrhea is the second largest cause of death – claiming more than 1.5 million young lives every year. Another water-related condition called schistosomiasis consists of tiny parasitic worms that burrow into one’s skin and cling to the veins surrounding the intestines. The worms produce millions of eggs that enter directly into the intestines and are passed with the stool. If the stool not contained in a sanitary plumbing system, there is a probability that the eggs will find there way back into water supplies and be spread to other people (McLeish, 1998, p. 24-25). It is estimated that at any given time, approximately half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from diseases contracted through a contaminated water source (Water.org).  Though these numbers are scary, there is a hope for those who suffer from the global water crisis.

There are a variety of solutions that can and are helping to solve world’s water crisis. Some of the solutions to providing clean drinking water to more people are found in advanced collection techniques, filtration systems, and desalination. Each of these has their own benefits and may be more applicable in some regions than others.

An extremely effective, though very simple, way of providing people with clean drinking water is to create a collection system to harvest water when it rains (Cotthem, 2008). In countries like Rwanda that suffer from severe drought during certain times of the year, people are forced to collect water from contaminated sources. The majority of these countries though, only suffer from drought for portions of the year, while other portions provide rainfall. For example, Rwanda’s rainy season typically averages about 45 inches of rain per year. Five inches of rainfall, with a proper collection device, is enough to fill a 2500-gallon rain cistern. Many efforts to provide people with enough water consist of teams of people installing these rainwater collection systems in small towns and villages. These devices are enormously beneficial because they are normally located in a central location, nearly eliminating the need for people to travel the long distances to retrieve their water. (20 Liters)

Another simple, yet amazingly effective solution to the lack of clean drinking water is simple filtration systems. For over one hundred years people have used slow-sand filters to strain large particles, like dirt and parasites, from their water. Slightly more modern sand filtration systems are now being used in many countries as a way to clean water before use. In these modern systems, the sand has a two-fold purpose: to slowly strain out large particles as well as create a place for bacteria to colonize. When the sand in the filter becomes colonized with bacteria, contaminated water that is poured through the filter is cleaned by the bacterial colony in the sand filter. It is a very clever way to use the contaminated water’s bacteria against its own bacteria. When the filter is fully colonized, approximately 90% of the bacteria in the water is removed. In many countries like Rwanda, all the materials necessary to build these filters are readily available. When teams go to regions in water crisis, they teach the people to build these filters and how to use them. This way the people in the area can be self-sufficient.

A more expensive and very modern way of providing clean drinking water is done through a process called desalination. This is the process of turning salt water into suitable drinking water. Desalination is an up and rising technique that shows a lot of promise in aiding in solving the world’s water crisis. An Australian company called WaterWays is working to perfect and produce wind driven equipment to power the desalination process.  This way they can turn salt water into drinkable water without having to use any of the earth’s limited resources in the process. They are also working on harvesting the power of the ocean’s currents to power their equipment. This method would also be a very efficient way of producing drinkable water because it is powered by another one of earth’s unlimited resources – the rising and falling of the ocean’s tides. The desalination method is a promising technology, but is expensive to get started and is only beneficial in specific regions along coastlines.

Whatever the method is to provide clean drinking water, it is a given that the world’s thirstiest people need help to employ the solution. They need training, and more importantly they need funding. As exhibited by the 20 Liter website, almost all of the people that suffer from the water crisis also suffer from extreme poverty. This is what makes raising the awareness of the problem and its solutions such an important task. The greater awareness about the issue, the sooner people can start making a difference in the lives of those who suffer from the lack of drinking water. Fundraising is another key element in the success of conquering the world’s water problem. Each solution takes money to initially employ. Among the endless methods to raising funds, many cities and schools are hosting water walks. This is where kids raise funds based on how far they walk carrying a heavy jug of water. It is an excellent way to raise funds and awareness at the same time.

 

 

 

References

 

20 Liters. Accessed October 25, 2010 from http://20liters.org/.

 

Burgan, Michael. (2008). Not a Drop to Drink. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society.

 

Cossi, Olga. (1993). Water Wars: The Fight to Control and Conserve Nature’s Most Precious Resource. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

 

Cotthem, Willem Van. Rwanda: Water Harvesting – Solution to Drought. Disertification. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://desertification.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/rwanda-water-harvesting-solution-to-drought-google-allafrica-the-new-times.

 

Frederiksen, Harald D. “Addressing Water Crisis in Developing Countries,” Journal of Environmental Engineering 131, no. 5 (2008): 667-675. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=19&hid=8&sid=ce0820f9-48ab-4799-b196-4768a7381d74%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=16783846.

 

Frederiksen, Harald. “The World Water Crisis and International Security,” Middle East Policy 16, no. 4 (2009): 76-89. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=10&sid=13d7b864-620d-4c81-96d3-6ff5a424e700%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46751366.

 

Hoffman, Allan R. “Water Security: A Growing Crisis and the Link to Energy,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1044, no. 1 (2008): 55-63. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=14&hid=8&sid=ce0820f9-48ab-4799-b196-4768a7381d74%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34428390.

 

Hutchinson, Harry. “Input Output: Water Without Borders,” Mechanical Engineering. 129, no. 2 (2007): 64. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=8&sid=ce0820f9-48ab-4799-b196-4768a7381d74%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=24829800.

 

 

Kagame, Paul. “The Challenges of Development and Environmental Sustainability in Africa: the Case of Rwanda.” October 4, 2009. London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/humanRights/events/kagame.htm.

 

 

Lall, Upmanu, Tanya Heikkila, Casey Brown, and Tobais Siegfried. “Water in the 21^st Century: Defining the Elements of Global Crisis and Potential Solutions,” Journal of International Affairs 61, no. 2 (2008): 1-17. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=10&sid=9b409cfc-28bd-4b3d-a39d-e3f411ef4d22%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=32110389.

 

Lopez-Gunn, and Manuel Ramón Llamas. “Re-thinking Water Scarcity: Can Science and Technology Solve the Global Water Crisis?” Natural Resources Forum 32, no. 3 (2008):228-238. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=10&sid=bef33b3c-9c69-43de-845b-0c88c677c298%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34137199.

 

Lougheed, Tim. “Clear Solution for Dirty Water,” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 7 (2006): 424-427. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=8&sid=ce0820f9-48ab-4799-b196-4768a7381d74%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=21722414.

 

Mascarenhas, Michael J. (2010, August). Surveying Rwanda’s Water Supply. New York Times. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/surveying-rwandas-water-supply/.

 

McLeish, Ewan. (1998). Keeping Water Clean. Austin: Steck-Vaughn Publishers.

 

Shiva, Vandana. “From Water Crisis to Water Culture,” Cultural Studies 22, no. 3 (2008): 498-509. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=8&sid=ce0820f9-48ab-4799-b196-4768a7381d74%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=31937577.

 

Walbridge, Mark R. “Water Availability, Watershed Management, and the Impending Global Water Crisis,” Agricultural Reseach 57, no. 1 (2009): 2. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=10&sid=1d2a7b82-2c71-4424-851b-610c715b41f6%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=36411753.

 

Water.org. “Water Facts” page. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://water.org/learn-about-the-water-crisis/facts/.

 

Research Draft #2- The light at the End of the Landfill

Sand, ash, and limestone are three simple substances that, when combined, form one of the most wondrous materials known to man: Glass. Glass bottles have been around almost three thousand years (Key, 2010). It didn’t take long for the glass container industry to become wide-spread, encompassing all the world. The glass recycling industry, however, is taking a relatively long time to catch hold. In 2008, the European Union led the world in glass bottle recycling rates: 62%. Brazil was around 50%. The United States recycled 40%, Alaska included (Fox, 2010). Then happened January fifth, 2009: Black Monday in the Alaskan recycling world. This was the last day that Anchorage had a glass recycling program. When this program went, all hope of glass recycling in the state of Alaska went with it. The 2009-2010 annual percentages of glass bottles recycled in Alaska: 0%. All these bottles are now tossed in the trash. Landfills are becoming saturated with bottles while the recycling process is well known and could be implemented. These completely recyclable items should not be allowed to take up space in Alaska’s landfills. This is a time when every thing possibly recyclable should be so, especially glass, and Alaska should take a firm stand on this view. There is a solution to the accumulation of un-recycled glass in the state of Alaska. Although it would take some effort from all residents, Alaskans should reuse or recycle all glass containers because glass is one hundred percent recyclable and can be easily reused or made into new bottles and other things, glass sitting idle in a landfill is extremely wasteful of materials and energy, and reusing and recycling glass can save costs of production and transportation and even create a few jobs.

  Glass is one of the most common packaging materials in use. The first glass bottles were made by the Phoenicians around 700 B.C. These bottles were made by wrapping strands of molten glass around a mud or clay core, which would then be scraped out. These pioneers were thought to have been used for perfumes. It was the Romans who perfected the art of glass blowing around the first century B.C (Key, 2010). In 1904, a man named Michael J. Owens patented the first automatic glass bottling machine, capable of creating four bottles every second. (Key, 2010) A new industry was born. Soon, sodas and beer were exclusively contained in glass. The market for glass bottles was off and running, and every company wanted their own trademark bottle.

Glass is the only packaging material that can be completely reused or recycled. All residue can be fully rinsed out of a bottle before the reuse. Although it would seem obvious to simply wash, refill, and repackage used glass bottles, no major distributor of glass-contained products practices this method. There are many excuses for this failure to reuse, the greatest being that the makers of the products are obsessed with the standardized packaging and labeling of their products. This repetition is the key to sales, as consumers tend to buy a product that is familiar to sight. The time and cost needed to separate and ship bottles back to their respective factories greatly outweigh the benefits of reusing bottles and is, therefore, not widely practiced. The solution to this would be the standardization of bottle design to ease reusability: A uniform bottle shape and color. It is time for common sense to overtake packaging specialties; if all glass bottles were the same, they would much more easily be reused.

Bottle reusing has a long history. In the past, people were much more ecologically savvy than modern times, whether they realized it or not. The business of the milkmen, for example, was a flashing example of common sense. Why not give back those bottles to be refilled? It is impossible to imagine those 1950-era housewives trashing all their old milk bottles. When did it become taboo to reuse a bottle? Today, bottles (especially in Alaska) are tossed out with the common garbage without a second thought. Those gems, those completely washable, reusable, recyclable bottles, are left to pile up, potential unfulfilled. There are a few beacons of hope out there in the bottling world, mostly from the beer industry. Most small breweries now offer growlers, gallon jugs of beer to go that can be endlessly refilled. The beer is often discounted when a growler is returned for more. This process reduces the number of individual bottles and promotes the beer at the same time. How long can one stare at that empty growler on the shelf before giving in to those taste buds and taking the trip to town to refill?

The most common method of reusing bottles occurs in the home brewing field. There are scores of folks who dabble in the great art of brewing beer right from their own dwelling place. That beer has to go somewhere. Why not wash out those beer bottles and give them a second chance? Every Bud Light bottle holds the innate possibility to actually contain something fantastic: Fulfill the dream, say the home-brewers. Bottles can always be reused, but for the average family, it is simply not practical to keep every bottle. The collection would quickly overtake all open space, reducing the home to a glass maze and creating a different kind of problem. No, until the largest distributors decide to make the effort to reuse their bottles, the next best option is to recycle those glass containers.

 Glass is entirely recyclable. When glass is taken to a recycling facility, it is crushed down into a product called cullet. It is this cullet that is then shipped to glass forging furnaces all over the country. It is there mixed with the basic ingredients of glass- sand, soda ash, and limestone (Glass Packaging Institute [GPI], 2010)- and forged into new bottles. No part of the original bottle need be cast off in the recycling process; unlike other materials, glass can be fully reused. This process of adding cullet into the glass-making process saves the amount of raw materials needed to accommodate the glass bottle industry. Since cullet melts at a lower temperature than pure sand, demand for energy goes down and carbon dioxide output levels also decrease when cullet is used rather than straight silica sand. An interesting study undertaken by the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Rome (Vellini and Savioli, 2008) found that the optimal amount of cullet in glass production to produce the greatest ecological efforts, lowest energy use and pollution output, was 80%. Any more or less was not quite as environmentally sound. This seems to be the percentage to strive for.

 In 2007, around twenty-seven percent of glass bottles were recycled (GPI, 2010). The United States glass container industry has a goal of using at least fifty percent recycled glass by 2013. This accomplishment would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2.2 million metric tons a year, equal to the emissions of 400,000 automobiles (GPI, 2010). This is a huge figure. All that exhaustion from the glass-making industry could be greatly reduced. The more glass recycled, the greater the benefits to the environment.

There are other uses for glass besides becoming new bottles. Landscapers have utilized crushed glass as an alternative to wood mulch, stating that it is actually better for plants because the cullet does not absorb as much water, leaving more for the plant (where did I find this info?). Interior designers have begun to use recycled glass in flooring and tiles. A study by the American Ceramic Society (Bernardo, Esposito, Rambaldi, Tucci, & Hreglich, 2008), found that although the amount of recycled glass in each tile is relatively low, the demand for such tiles is large, and therefore uses a large amount of otherwise wasted glass. These recycled glass ceramic tiles are durable and easy to clean, creating a very marketable product. Even artists and craftsmen are aiding the reuse of glass. Everything from sculptures to dishware is now available made of recycled glass. These are all examples of how glass, even when not state sponsored, can still be reused and be kept out of landfills. One new innovation recently researched by marine biologists in Florida was the use of glass cullet as an alternative to beach sand. The beaches of the world are eroding everywhere and glass cullet was seen to be an answer to this dilemma. The only question was the ability of sea turtle eggs to still properly incubate and hatch in the cullet/sand mixture. It was determined, after rigorous testing, that the sand and cullet mixture would still support the proper development of sea turtle embryos (Makowski, Rusenko, and Kruempel, 2008). This is a wonderful example of what can be done with all the extra glass. The problems of both beach erosion and glass excess are aided by this discovery.

Today, about seventy-five percent of glass in the United States ends up in a landfill. There, it will remain for one million years until it breaks down on its own. Compare this to the rates of other popular containers. Aluminum cans, 80-200 years, and plastic beverage bottles, 450 years, decompose in a flash compared to glass (Bloch, 2009). Landfills are becoming overfilled, flooded with unnecessary rubbish. Many of these items can be recycled, glass most productively of all. There are 217 landfills in the state of Alaska (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2009), the largest of these being the 275-acre Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL). The ARL services over 250,000 people and takes in almost 1,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day. This is over half the state’s garbage (Grunwaldt, Kryger, and Merrill, 2000). On a national average, 1.3% of waste in a landfill is glass (Miller, 2009); this means around 130 tons of glass are tossed into the ARL on any given day. The amount is probably much higher because although most other states utilize a glass recycling program, Alaska does not. All these unnecessary tons of glass are piling up each day in landfills across the state: This need not be so.

The recycling of glass is a practice that the entire state of Alaska needs to adopt immediately. Anchorage recently had a workable glass recycling program, with much of the glass being shipped to the lower forty-eight for recycling, obviously expensive, but worth the price, some say. Some of the glass was staying here in the state. EK Industries, a local company, was collecting the glass to be crushed into sand and used as a bed for radiant in-floor heating: There turned out to not be enough demand for this technology. The Alaska Railroad was also taking in glass to be used as traction sand, a innovation that apparently did not work in the winter time (O’Malley, 2008). So, as of January 5, 2009, there is nowhere in Alaska to recycle all those glass beer bottles and spaghetti jars.

The main problem is the cost of glass recycling. There being no facilities here in Alaska to crush the glass into cullet for recycling, all glass must be shipped out of state to be processed. This is no small financial endeavor. Alaska faces a dilemma here that is non-existent in the continental United States, where facilities are much more easily accessed. Alaska can either restart the expensive process of shipping out glass or invest in a glass crushing factory on its own turf. The building of a plant here in the state would create jobs, enlist people to build the plant and those to run it, and end the expensive practice of sending Alaska’s glass elsewhere. Once the factory is complete, Alaska could then begin a state wide glass collection program. This endeavor, seemingly unattainable due to the massive area of the state, could be achieved by a few simple steps. The following scenario is a rough sketch of how the program could work.

First, a deposit/refund system of all glass containers, as proven workable in many other states, would provide incentive to residents to return their empty bottles. In the state of Michigan, for example, there is a ten-cent refund on every container. That means that a case of Miller High Life yields a whopping $2.40. Of course, the deposit is paid for as part of the purchase price, but this makes all the more incentive to return those bottles and receive back that cash. Say, for instance, one were to host a large party, BYOB. The next morning, cleaning up all those beer bottles is not so much of a chore when counting by tens. Ten cents here, ten cents there, and soon, those 500 bottles strewn about the yard yield $50.00. Not bad for a night’s work. This deposit/refund system also cuts down on litter. How many bottles line the highways of Michigan? The answer is none. Ten cents apiece is a huge incentive to gather trash. This system of deposit and refund should be adopted by all states, Alaska topping the list.

Second, the bottles could be returned to the store they were bought at, saving the consumer the hassle of finding a specified collection zone. In a study of the Swedish system of recycling, researchers found that the recycling centers should be located near workplaces and shopping centers so that consumers could recycle in the midst of their daily routine (Eklund, Kihlstedt, and Engkvist, 2010). It is even easier to return the bottles to corner store where they were purchased: Return, refund, and replace!

Finally, the trucks or planes that bring in the products could haul out the empties, returning them to a specified area where all bottles could be collected and sent to the crushers, to emerge as fresh cullet, ready to be sent to bottle producers. There would have to be some compensation plan worked out as the weight of an aircraft or trailer directly affects the fuel usage and cost, but something could be decided upon to make such a scenario feasible. The glass has to easily flow in and out to properly be recycled. Some tweaking of the above scenario would be necessary, but this could be the answer to the glass recycling deficiency in Alaska.

There is no excuse for glass reusing and recycling to be absent in the state of Alaska. The technology is available, it is simply a matter of will and perhaps a few extra dollars. The outcome is worth every penny. There should be a glass-crushing facility in Alaska. There needs to be a system implemented to refund and return all glass bottles. The recycling of glass has been proven to reduce energy input and pollution output. Recycling is great for the environment and the air necessary to breathe. Landfills everywhere are full enough; there is no need for excess piles of easily-recycled glass. Overall, the benefits of glass recycling greatly outweigh any downsides. The earth is piling up with trash. Alaska can be a beacon in that sea of rubbish, an example to all of what can be done. The place is Alaska; the time is now: Recycle!

References:

Bernardo, E., Esposito, L., Rambaldi, E., Tucci, A., & Hreglich, S. (2008). Recycle of Waste Glass into Glass-Ceramic Stoneware. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 91 (7) 2156-2162.

Bloch, M. (2009, April). Waste Decomposition Rates: How Long Does it Take “X” to Break Down? Retrieved from http://www.greenlivingtips.com

Eklund, J., Kihlstedt, A., & Engkvist, I. L. (2010). Sorting and Disposing of Waste at Recycling Centers- A User’s Perspective. Applied Ergonomics 41 (3) 355-361.

Fox, M. (2010). Cash for Trash. Earth Island Journal 25 (1) 49-52.

Glass Packaging Institute. Cradle-to-Cradle Life Cycle Assessment of North American Container Glass. (2010) Report on Internet. Available from http://www.gpi.org/downloads/lca/N-American_Glass_Container_LCA.pdf

Grunwaldt, J.J., Kryger, W.P., and Merrill, K.S. (2000). Alaska Landfill Covered. Retrieved from http://www.wasteage.com

Key, M. (2010) The History of Glass Bottles. Retrieved from www.ehow.com

Makowski, C. , Rusenko, K., & Kruempel, C. J. (2008). Abiotic Suitability of Recycled Glass Cullet as an Alternative Sea Turtle Nesting Substrate. Journal of Coastal Research 24 (3) 771-779.

Miller, C. (2007). Profiles in Garbage: Glass Containers. Retrieved from http://www.wasteage.com.

O’Malley, J. (2008, December 31). Anchorage Glass Recycling Will be Suspended Monday. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.adn.com/2008/12/31/639618/anchorage-glass-recycling-will.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). List of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Washington, DC: Author.

Vellini, M. & Savioli, M. (2009). Energy and Environmental Analysis of Glass Container Production and Recycling. Energy 34 (12) 2137-2143

Research Draft #2 Farm Animals Overrun

Humans have become reliant on hormone enhanced meats for cheap and abundant food. Most agriculture production for animals has been using hormone altering medicines. The changes that are made through injections include faster muscle and growth development, resulting in more products in shorter time periods. Beef specific breeding of steers produce more meat than dairy steers, “This is shown by the improvement obtained for beef over dairy breeds in live weight of 12%, while the improvement of carcass and meat produced of 24% and 33%, respectively” (Clarke, 2009). The main animals included are poultry, cattle, and pigs. These altering effects are the reason why eggs, chicken, milk, beef, bacon, pork and much more are relatively cheap to other fresh products. But, beside the benefits of cheap foods, they are causing health problems and environmental issues. To stop the unhealthy lifestyle, we must find alternatives and follow a more suitable solution for this dilemma. Although hormone injected animals produce more products faster, we need to slow consumption and production because there are negative effects associated with consumers, environmental issues, and practice alternatives to end suffering from the cheap abundant products.

One of the effects of consuming hormone altered food products are the advanced maturity rate in females. Young girls who consume above average amounts of the enhanced products have a tendency of maturing faster than girls who don’t eat as much of the same products. Studies have proven this idea; puberty has been acquired at a younger age from eating more of the hormone products. “Early puberty in girls has been found to be associated with a higher risk for breast cancer. Height, weight, diet, exercise, and family history have all been found to influence age of puberty”. (Consumer Concerns About Hormones in Food). The effects the hormones are also believed to increase chances of breast cancer development. Young girls are greatly affected by the consumption of the enriched products, especially from health concerns with breast and other forms of cancer. Females have been known for developing such diseases from eating the cheap products. The products are found everywhere, from restaurants to gas stations; the unhealthy product is almost unavoidable. For females to negate these products, chances are slim since the only way to eat uncontaminated fresh foods would be to shop organically at markets.  One out of eight women is affected from the disease of breast cancer in general, that can be reduced if not so much hormone products were eaten. “Dairy cow growth hormones are linked to cancer in humans. The number of residual hormones found in cow milk is as much as 10 times higher than non-treated cows.³ Several studies have linked these high levels of residual hormones to an increased risk of breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer in humans” (Serving Food with a Side of Growth Hormones).  Females are not the only ones affected by the products; males have to be cautious of health issues also.

Males are known to have problems under the circumstances where mothers while pregnant consume above average amounts of hormone injected foods. Smoking, drinking and drugs are all bad for a pregnant women and fetus, one thing to include is too much hormone enriched products. Male infertility is growing; one reason that is responsible for the over consumption of hormone-injected food. According to a scientific study,

The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups. They found that:

* Sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the “low” beef consumption group.

* Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for subfertility ­ about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group (Swan, 2007).

Infertility is a common problem; see it on the television and news. People must be aware of the consumer effects from the enriched products, is some way or form, over eating them will cause harm.

Both Blue Vinyl and My Year of Meats show how globalization uses women, technology, minorities, and animals to feed the insatiable mod- ern desire to consume and to appropriate otherness for profit and power; both also draw on humor to convey their activist messages. They expose the intersection of environmental degradation that harms animals and humans at the levels of manufacturing, consuming, marketing, and dis- posal of materials, emphasizing through narrative, irony, and pastiche the

“commodity chain” that begins with resource extraction and ends with the purchase, use, and disposal of waste in both meat and vinyl production (Fish, 2009).

Fish is an author who read and researched work of Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold for further explanation and effects of hormone injected meats. Aside from harmful consumer effects, mass production of these products causes environmental issues.

Environmental issues are a growing concern for planet Earth and a huge contributor is mass production of farm animals. These mass production farms are a growing threat to the environment because it is causing excessive pollution. Farm animals that are hormone enhanced eat excessively in order to maintain the altered growth rate and size. From the excessive eating, the animals have extreme amounts of solid waste. While composting the solids is an almost perfect solution, it is also more time consuming and costly to farmers who are looking for cheap and fast solutions. Instead of composting solid waste, the animal manure is thrown into rivers and lakes, which contributes to several problems. According to Joshua Monaghan of King Conservation District this method of disposal creates problems such as, “nitrogen loading, decreased oxygen, contamination of shellfish beds, and damage to fish habitat and food sources” (Monaghan). One easy solution may benefit one thing, but may harm another, farmers must find the easiest and cheapest method to dispose the waste in order to aid in environmental safety. Another important environmental issue is something called the gassing effect.

The gassing effect is a problem caused from the over populated farm animals passing gas in excessive amounts to the atmosphere. It is proven that global warming is happening, one cause that is contributing is farting farm animals. According to Anra Kennedy, “One of the gases found in farts and burps is called ‘methane’. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet” (Kennedy, 2005). This has become a major problem for the entire planet; mass production of agricultural animals is causing unfixable damage.

These farm animals require an abundant amount of water usage. The water is used for hydration and some types of necessary cleaning. The water is also used for healthy grass growing on the farms. The amount that is required is extreme; water is pulled from rivers and lakes. With numerous amounts of farm land bunched together, the lakes and rivers are brought to simple streams and ponds. This change in land creates a transformation in climates, downstream of the farming, water streams that become, eventually raise the climate temperature of that region because there is not the same amount of cooling at river and lake locations. Although people use fertilizers for farming, the land properties greatly change from mass agriculture farming. The land properties will change over time from the continuous nutrient draining. Year after year hundreds even thousands of farm animals flood fields of grass, grazing and eating every last green piece of grass. This process done yearly will eventually cause the fields to completely drain every nutrient of the field. Soon there will be more land to be cleared of trees and wildlife homes destroyed for more farmland because the farm animals ruined the grasslands already dedicated to them.

Land property changes include the climate health. With more fields committed to agriculture and less wildlife lands and more destroyed trees, the climate will lose the oxygen/nitrogen to carbon/oxygen ratio. In other words, in those regions there won’t be enough oxygen to breath with way too much carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. This lack of oxygen can destroy smaller plant life in those regions, and each species has its role in climate health.

Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues in cow manure. Growth promoting hormones not only remain in the meat we consume, but they also pass through the cattle and are excreted in their manure. When manure from factory farms enters the surrounding environment, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish, throwing off the natural cycle (Artificial Hormones).

In result there would be a chain reaction for the negative health in the environment. The environmental issues are a result of mass production of farm animals and alternatives must be found and enforced.

To resolve the issue of over populating farm animals we must find alternatives to resolve the problem. “In addition to the use of hormones, many avenues are still open for increasing productivity in meat and milk production (see 115), including breeding programmes, regulation of rumen fermentation, optimalization of the balance between the indirect and direct feeding of the ruminant organism proper, and disease control” (Velle). The over population has become an issue,

Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth. ”In my grandfather’s day, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter,” explained Rich Blair, who, at 45, is the younger of the brothers by four years. ”In the 50′s, when my father was ranching, it was 2 or 3. Now we get there at 14 to 16 months.” Fast food indeed (Pollan, 2002).

Organic meat products are one way to solve these issues. If farms were enforced to become organic only, there would be a fraction of the health problems associated with meats. Naturally the prices of organics are higher so consumers would decline from such high consumption, which would then benefit the environmental problems.  With the declination of farmed animals, the excess area could benefit by shifting to vegetation agriculture. Vegetarianism is a quality choice to reduce the negative effects of hormone enhanced meat products. It would create improved overall health. Meat products are not a necessity; people can avoid meat products with vegetarianism and supplement replacement, such as vitamins.

Hormone injected agriculture is causing damage to numerous things and in numerous ways. With the welfare of the planet declining, additional issues that can be avoided should be resolved. Reconsidering the agriculture focus for production and consumers would be greatly appreciated from the environmental and health point of viewpoints. Simple lifestyle and agricultural changes should be made to accommodate the damage that has already been done.

 

 

Swan, S.H, Lui, F., Overstreet, J.W., Brazil, C., & Skakkebaek, N.E.(2007). Growth Hormones Fed to Beef Cattle Damage Human Health. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5543.cfm

Pollan, M. (2002). Power Steer. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/magazine/power-steer.html?scp=1&sq=power%20steer&st=cse&pagewanted=2

Artificial Hormones. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/

Serving Food with a Side of Growth Hormones. Retrieved from http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx

Cornell University (2000) Consumer Concerns About Hormones in Food. Retrieved from http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

Velle, W. (n.d.) The Use Of Hormones In Animal Production. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/X6533E/X6533E01.htm

Clarke, A., Evans, R., Berry, D., Kenny, D., Drennan, M., & McGee, M. (2009). Intake, live animal scores/measurements and carcass composition and value of late-maturing beef and dairy breeds [electronic resource]. Livestock science, 126(1-3), 57-68. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Fish, C. (2009). The Toxic Body Politic: Ethnicity, Gender, and Corrective Eco-Justice in Ruth Ozeki’s “My Year of Meats” and Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold’s “Blue Vinyl.” MELUS, 34(2), 43. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.

Monaghan, Joshua. Manure Disposal Guide. King Conservation District. Retrieved from http://www.kingcd.org/manure_disposal_factsheet.pdf.

Kennedy, Anra. (2005). Cow Farts: Global Warming Or A Load Of Hot Air? Retrieved from http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html.

Research Draft #2:Medicating our Planet

For centuries chemists have been inventing synthesized organic compounds to mimic and increase the potency of certain plants with natural healing properties. These potent petroleum-based substitutes are considered a modern marvel in medicine, aimed at specific ailments with many unintended direct effects (side effects). One unintended direct effect of this “chemical maintenance” is environmental contamination. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP) enter the environment through many sources, the majority being from human excretions, animal feed lots, rainwater runoff, and direct surface water contact through recreation and bathing. Scientists are now researching the dangers these compounds are causing. Although pharmaceuticals and personal care products are used to treat disease, ease suffering, beautify, and prolong life, their usage and disposal should be reduced, or avoided because they are causing our aquifers and surface waters to become polluted, destroying aquatic environments, and poisoning agricultural soils.

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP) which have been discovered in the environment are innumerable and have an assorted range of chemical components. The most commonly found PPCP’s include contraceptives, antidepressants, antipsychotics, cardiac, blood pressure, antibiotics, anti-seizure, ibuprofen, pet meds, nicotine, synthetic musks and fragrances (EPA 2007 p.1). Over the counter medications, consumer chemicals, sun-screen agents, and pain relievers have increased substantially over the years. PharmPro Daily (2010) indicates prescription pharmaceuticals comprise a whopping 1.7 percent of gross national product (GDP) (www.pharmpro.com). According to Ruhoy and Kaye (2010) this translates to approximately 1.8 billion dollars per year on personal prescription medications (26-32). This figure does not include veterinary medications for farm animals. This yearly overabundance of prescription pharmaceuticals eventually end up in a community’s water supply and agricultural soils posing a hidden danger that negatively affects a larger unsuspecting population. This difficult issue is a clear case where the health benefit of a few adversely affects the health of the many. The average American over age 55 takes eight prescribed medications, some of which are to block the negative side effects of primary medications (Ruhoy and Kaye, p.26). Heberer (2002) indicates that the number of dangerous and toxic substances that enter the environment through multiple sources number in the tens of thousands (p.175-189). Expanding usage of medications, especially children’s anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs as well as illegal or “recreational” drugs add to the excessive supply of contaminants (Daughton and Jones-Lepp, p.11). These chemicals in combination with other environmental pollutants pose an exponential threat to the human body.

The majority of the PPCP contamination originates from individuals and hospitals. The volume of excreted chemicals also depends on the size of the community and the number of elderly residing in the community (Rodriguez-Mozaz & Weinberg p.1016). Although the elderly are not solely responsible for pharmaceutical contamination, they tend to be the largest target groups for pharmaceutical companies since many elderly have insurance plans that are subsidized by the federal government which guarantees a minimum payout for each medication. Pharmaceutical companies themselves are forced through legislation to observe stringent regulations concerning the release of compounds, however PPCP’s are released freely into the environment through human and domesticated animal excretions and represent the largest contributor of PPCP contamination (Daughton and Jones-Lepp p.10). The EPA has noted that once in aquifers and transported through the water table, few barriers prevent it from dispersing through a large geographical area (p.2). Contamination of large aquifers such as the Ogallala Aquifer spread pharmaceutical compounds over eight states which leaves few opportunities for smaller communities to have access to clean water. Contamination also inadvertently spreads through the use of human biosolid waste as fertilizers.

Septic tanks and sewage treatment facilities are the first line of failure in PPCP contamination. Septic systems bypass any form of treatment and liquid flows directly from the septic leach field into surrounding groundwater without any opportunity of degradation (EPA 2007 p.1). Flushing of unused medications has for years been the officially sanctioned method for disposal. This has caused the release of full therapeutic doses for each pill flushed as well as the excretion of non-metabolized therapeutic doses of medications. In both cases, PPCPs are released into sewer systems that overwhelm sewage treatment plants, many of which are technologically incapable of testing for chemical contaminants or lack the funding to upgrade existing systems (EPA 2007 p.2). Pharmaceutical rich water must then be released into nearby surface waters or groundwater aquifers due to the lack of suitable alternatives. It stands to reason that the larger the community, the greater the variety of PPCP that are excreted into the environment. Many of the parent compounds combine within the sewer system to create new compounds which are incapable of being identified (Daughton and Jones- Lepp p15). The EPA (2007) states that “excretion of biologically unused and unprocessed drugs depends on: ability of individual bodies to break down drugs (this ability depends on age, sex, health, and individual idiosyncrasies” (p.2).

Sewage treatment facilities are unable to detect or remove the thousands of chemical compounds that pass through their system, especially new or unrecognized compounds that form within the sewage system. Researchers are working quickly to assess the potential effects and impacts these chemicals are having on humans and the environment. However, very little information is available concerning adverse reactions in humans because of the as of yet unknown effects due to chemical bonding of parent compounds, creating new unknown compounds inside the sewage system(Daughton and Jones-Lepp p. 12). As pharmaceutical companies market new products, the list of unknown chemical compounds increases at a greater rate. This chemical cocktail poses the greatest threat to civilization due to their unknown properties. Researchers try to focus on identifying endocrine disrupting compounds; these particular pharmaceuticals have raise the most alarm in the scientific community due to their effects being irreversible and usually do not manifest their effects until long after the exposure has occurred. Pharmaceuticals have been “designed to activate at low doses, targeting specific biological and physiological systems” (Ruhoy & Kaye, p.28). Some of these chemicals biodegrade but they are still considered harmful because of chronic exposure due to the continual supply of untreated sewage effluent. There is a difficulty associated with long-term research since immediate health effects are difficult to pinpoint. The matter is further complicated reports Ruhoy & Kaye (2010) due to medications affecting humans differently at varying stages of development, especially fetus development (p28). This perpetual chronic exposure to multiple organic compounds tends to bioaccumulate and the effects on humans are unknown.(Daughton & Jones-Lepp, p14). This becomes especially troubling when behavioral issues are suspected to be linked to certain chemical compounds.

EPA (2007) data suggests that neighborhoods that utilize both septic tanks and wells are the most susceptible to contamination due to soil being incapable of filtering pharmaceuticals before inflowing with well water (p.1). Studies indicate that individuals are ingesting their neighbor’s unmetabolized medications at an alarming rate. A single neighbor can contaminate well water which can encompass an entire neighborhood. Straight piping of raw untreated sewage into the ground is common in undeveloped neighborhoods and contains the worst levels of contaminants since microbial degradation is limited. It is currently unclear due to the large number of pharmaceuticals currently in use how long local ground water will remain contaminated especially if subterranean water flow is slow or stagnant and does not dilute with other sources of water.

Surface waters are the most susceptible to PPCP contamination since human interaction and agricultural runoff are principal avenues of contamination. In addition, water treatment facilities continue to release treated water into nearby lakes which poses increased exposure to humans through recreation or domestic water intake. The Groundwater Foundation of Nebraska (1999) determined that 80% of their surface water streams were contaminated with some forms of pharmaceutical (p.1). This has led to the concern that many U.S. surface waters are contaminated with varying levels of unknown contamination. The situation has only gotten worse since the increased use of over the counter medications for humans and veterinary medications for livestock has increased substantially. Indicator species such as fish and other aquatic species have been studied to gauge the effects of PPCP in their environment since it has been shown that they display similar effects to pharmaceuticals as do humans (Corcoran, Winter, and Tyler 2010 p290). Aquatic species have chronic long-term exposure to PPCP since natural degradation of chemicals is offset by the continual replacement of chemicals due to agricultural runoff and wastewater discharge.

Bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals on wild fish populations have not yet been fully examined for the effects of drug mixing in their environment (Corcoran et al, 2010 p. 301). Canadian researchers have deliberately contaminated an otherwise pristine lake with low levels of a common birth control medication to examine its effect on flathead minnows and other aquatic species. This experiment was to replicate the average human waste contamination similar sized lakes suffer in the midst of populated areas. Within two years of the low dose injection, the population of flathead minnows disappeared (Kidd et al. 2007 p.8897). Similar results on other fish populations suffering from contamination of birth control chemicals related to human excretions indicate that fish populations experienced “intersex, histological changes in gonads, feminization of male fish, . . .[which] prevented them from reproducing” (Rodriguez and Weinberg 2010, p.1018). Many lakes and reservoirs across the Western United States are showing the similar results of fish feminization within the larger fish species. Studies that include the effects on mammals and birds around these environments have not yet been published.

Aquifers in the American Midwest and Western States are becoming more polluted with PPCPs. Treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants are increasingly being utilized to recharge depleted groundwater aquifers due to overuse from crop irrigation and human needs (USGS 2008). The Groundwater Foundation (1999) research indicates that drinking water from these water sources are currently lacking any standards for the presence and testing of PPCP (p.2). Water contamination is commonly measured at the discharge pipe of wastewater treatment plants; however, intake water sources for domestic water usage lack scrutiny since other alternate sources of water rarely exists. This becomes especially troubling in drought prone or arid areas where water is recycled several times and accumulation or loading of chemicals is compounded by passing through countless human cycles adding to chemical contamination. The EPA (2007) contends that contamination of pharmaceuticals within aquifers remain permanent and multiply in measure over time due to the lack of U.V. degradation or microbial breakdown (p.2). Reservoir water contamination multiplies according to the number of times a municipal reservoir is recharged. This leads to populations turning away from local utility water supply for drinking and instead turning to transported bottled water.

Contamination of agricultural soils is another developing field of study in which scientists are becoming increasingly concerned. Currently, little is known about the behavior of pharmaceuticals in soil (Xu, Wu, and Chang 2009 p.1299). Veterinary pharmaceuticals injected into livestock enter soils by direct contact through excretion flowing directly on the ground. According to Rodriguez-Mozaz and Weinberg (2010) many of the pharmaceuticals used on humans are also used in animal feed to increase the appearance of health among the stock, but unfortunately little research has been done to measure the levels of non-metabolized parent compounds within animal waste (p.1017). Irrigation and rainwater then wash the contaminants into groundwater or make their way into wetland systems (Fisher and Scott, 2008 p.1437).

An example noted by Oaks et al. (2004) of pharmaceuticals spreading throughout the environment is the veterinary medication Diclofenac which when used on livestock unwittingly caused a 95% reduction of the vulture population in India and Pakistan within a period of 3 years (p.631). This unforeseen result can also correlate with the diminishing of certain populations of wildlife within agricultural areas. PPCPs also enter agricultural soils through deliberate spreading of sewage treatment facilities sludge (human waste) as a fertilizer. Municipal biosolids used as fertilizer is a common practice throughout the world, including the U.S. Although these fertilizers are an available source of nitrogen, municipal biosolids are also heavily loaded with PPCP’s (Lapen et al. 2008 p.50). Another avenue of PPCP contamination in soil is irrigation using wastewater for agricultural and landscaping purposes. Many parts of the U.S. such as California, Florida, Colorado, and Arizona are heavily dependent on recycled wastewater and use it extensively for irrigation (Xu, Wu, and Chang, 2009 p.1299). According to Xu, Wu, and Chang (2009)The long-term effects of chemical buildup by utilizing wastewater is unclear, however there is a variance in effects since some pharmaceuticals activate at certain pH levels and within specific environments and microbial action within soil can degrade the potency of pharmaceuticals, but as the level of chemicals increase, the effectiveness of microbial action decreases (p.1301). Crops growing in contaminated soil can uptake certain chemicals within the developing plants. Lab tests on soybean plants indicate that both wastewater and biosolid fertilizer are avenues for uptake into the beans (Chenxi, Spongberg, Whitter, Min and Czajkowske 2010, p.6157). The amount of chemical uptake in crops varies between plants. Certain watery plants such as lettuce and melons have high uptake rates, whereas soy beans and tobacco uptake to a lesser degree. This ratio also varies depending on the degree of chemical loading in the soil.

Agricultural soils around the world have already become heavily loaded with pharmaceutical chemicals which contribute to the unintended uptake of these chemicals into the plants. However, a new danger lies on the horizon which adds to the already unsafe situation. The biotech industry in an effort to lower the cost of pharmaceutical production has genetically modified crops such as corn, soy, canola, tomatoes, rice, and bananas as well as other non edible crop plants, to produce within their cellular structure the chemicals needed to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial proteins (Asia Biotech, 2004. 1074). Molecular pharming or” Pharma Crops” have been classified into two groups; Plant Made Pharmaceuticals (PMP’s) and Plant Made Industrial Proteins (PMIP’S) (Nature Biotechnology, 2007 p.166). Nature Biotechnology (2007)reports that farming of Pharma Crops in North Carolina has already been successful in securing the necessary permits required for the production of 335 acres of rice carrying the chemical loctoferrin or lysozyme (p167). Other PMP’s and PMIP’s are currently in production. Local farmers have already voiced concerns over possible cross-pollination with other Genetically Modified and Organic crops as well as inadvertent mixing of Pharma Crops seeds with other similar agricultural seeds. Other concerns include, non commercial portions of the plant products being composted back into the ground causing a buildup of target chemicals in the soil. The dangers imposed by possible runaway biotech farming compounded with poor soil content poses to much of a threat to an already stressed ecosystem.

Many environmental dangers lurk in the unseen world of molecular chemistry. For decades the health and mental well-being of Americans has been mysteriously deteriorating at a rapid pace. The recent discovery of large quantities of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water and agricultural soils is among the many veiled avenues for human decline. Society must address this urgent issue and take appropriate action to mitigate this hazardous situation. The first step in this difficult process should be to maintain individual health by eating a healthy diet and proper cardiovascular exercise followed by using natural forms of health sustaining substances. Next, reducing or selectively using man-made potent chemical compounds only when absolutely necessary with an open return policy of unused medications. Finally, proper disposal techniques and lower doses based on body weight and metabolic rate should be employed. With intelligent solutions we can turn this disaster around for a cleaner, healthier future.

Sources:
Asia Bioech. (2004). USDA Tightened Pharma Crop Farming Legislation. Nature Vol.8 p.1074 Retrieved from http://www.asiabiotech.com

Chenxi, W,. Spongberg, A., Witter, J,. Min, F., & Czajkowski, K. (2010). Uptake of pharmaceutical and personal care products by soybean plants from soils applied with biosolids and imgated with contaminated water. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 16, 6157-6161. Doi:10.1021/es1011115

Corcoran, J., Winter, M.J., & Tyler, C.R. (2010). Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: A critical review of the evidence for health effects in fish. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 40, 4, 287-304. Doi:10.3109/10408440903373590

Daughton, C.G., & Jones-Lepp, T.L. (2001). Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.

EPA, US. (2007). Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). Basic information: Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pppc/basic2.html

Fisher, P.M.J., & Scott, R. (2008). Evaluating and controlling pharmaceutical emissions from dairy farms: a critical first step in developing a preventative management approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 14, 1437-1446. Doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.02
The Goundwater Foundation, (1999) Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products: An Emerging Issue. Loncoln, Nebraska 68516. Retrieved from http:// www.groundwater.org
Heberer, T, (2002). Tracking persistent pharmaceutical residues from municipal sewage to drinking water. Journal of Hydrology, V.266, p.175-189.

Kidd, K.A., Blanchfield, P., Mills, K., Palace, V., Evans, R., & Lazorchak, J, (2007). Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proc National Academic Sciences, USA. 104:8897-8901. Doi: 101021/104084498335671.

Lapen, D.R., Topp, E., Metcalfe,C.D., Li, H., Edwards, M., Gottschall, N., Bolton, P., . . . & Beck, A. (2008). Pharmaceutical and personal care products in tile drainage following land application of municipal biosolids. Science of the Total Environment, 399, 1-3, 50-65. Doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.02.025

Nature Biotechnology. (2007). The fit between organic and pharma corps in North Carolina. Nature Publishing Group. Vol. 25 p.166-167. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology

Oaks, J.L., Gilbert, M., Virani, M.Z., Watson, R.T., Meteyer, C.U., & Rideout, B.A. (2004) Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427:630-633

PharmPro Daily. (2010, October). GDP for 3rd quarter. Stock Market Report. Retrieved from http://www.pharmpro.com/News/feeds /2010/10/ stock futures-slide- before-3rd quarter-gap-report/

Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., & Weinberg, H.S. (2010). Meeting Report: Pharmaceuticals in water- An interdisciplinary approach to a Public Health challenge. Health Perspect, 118, 1016-1020. Doi:10.1289/ehp.0901532
Ruhoy, I.S., & Kaye, L.W. (2010). Pharmaceuticals in the Water: Relevance to Older Adults. Generations- Journal of the American Society on Aging, Vol.33 No4, 26-32

USGS. (2008). Water-quality data for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in ground water and untreated drinking water sources in the United States. Open-File Report 2008, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia. http:// pubs.usgs.gov.of.2008/1293/pdf/ofr2008-1293.pdf

Xu, I., Wu, L., & Chang, A.C. (2009). Degradation and absorption of selected pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in agricultural soils. Chemosphere, 77, 10, 1299-1305. Doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.063