Research Part 2

Thesis: Although Alaskan Natives disagree with it, the polar bear should remain on the endangered species list because their environment continues to change and it greatly affects their energy expenditure, hunting, reproduction, and weaning.

Armstrup, S. C., York, G., McDonald, T. L., Nielson, R., & Simac, K. (2004)

           Detecting denning polar bears with forward-looking infrared (FLIR)

           imagery. BioScience, 54(4), 337-344. Retrieved from

           http://search.proquest.com/

 Armstrup, S. C., Caswell, H., DeWeaver, E., Stirling, I., Douglas, D. C.,

           Marcot, B. G., Hunter, C. M. (2009). Rebuttal of “polar bear population

           forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit”. Interfaces, 39(4), 353-

           369, 380-382. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Courtland, R. (2008). Polar bear numbers set to fall. Nature, 453(7194),

432-433. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Derocher, A., Lunn, N., & Stirling, I. (2004). Polar bears in a warming

climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(2), 163-176. doi:10.1043/1540-

7063(2004)44<163:PBIAWC>2.0.CO;2

 

Derocher, A. E., Anderson, M., Wiig, O., & Aars, J. (2010). Sexual

dimorphism and the mating ecology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

at Svalbard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64, 939-946.

doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0909-0

 

Engelhaupt, E. (2009). Climate change and the arctic diet. Environmental

                Health Perspectives, 117(7), A292. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

Gillis, A. M. (1991). Polar bears preserve protein. Bioscience, 41(8), 537.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Howe, L. E. (2010). Temporality and reconciliation. Administrative Theory &

                Praxis, 32(4), 611-611-619. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Lee, O., Lester, B. T., Li, M., Lambert, J., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2007).  Conceptions of the greenhouse effect and global warming among

elementary students from diverse languages and cultures. Journal of Geoscience  Education, 55(2), 117-117-125. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

McCarthy, J. J., & McKenna, M. C. (2000). How earth’s ice is changing.  Environment, 42(10), 8-18. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Molnar, P. K., Klanjscek, T., Derocher, A. E., Obbard, M. E., & Lewis, M. A. (2009). A body composition model to estimate mammalian

energy stores and metabolic rates from body mass and body length, with application to polar bears. The Journal of Experimental

     Biology, 212, 2313-2323. doi:10.1242/jeb.026146

 

Murphy, K. (2011, January 29). Bear’s long swim illustrates crisis; with arctic sea ice shrinking, one female bear swims through open

water for 9 days before reaching a floe. Los Angeles Times, p. A.12. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Pechsiri, J. S., Sattari, A., Martinez, P. G., & Xuan, L. (2010). A review of the climate-change-impacts’ rates of change in the arctic.

     Journal of  Environmental Protection, 1, 59-69. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C., Wrona, F. J., & Reist, J. D. (2009). Implications of climate change for northern canada: freshwater, marine,

and terrestrial ecosystems . Ambio, 38(5), 282-289. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Schiermeier, Q. (2008). The long summer begins. Nature, 454(7202), 266- 269. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from

http://search.proquest.com/

Research Project Part 3: Lets recycle!

We, as the caretakers of our earth, must take seriously these three simple words: reduce, reuse, recycle. Many people believe that these three vital steps to improving our living and our world, are neither important nor very successful. What is reducing, reusing, and recycling exactly? Well to begin reducing, simply means to make less the amount of disposable products used in everyday life. This does not necessarily have to be a very dramatic change, all it takes to contribute to the silent movement is gradual and a clear decision to make an effort to become more aware of the waste produced by yourself. Reusing is a pretty self-discriptive word. People can make use of things that are made to reuse, things like sturdy grocery bags that would replace plastic ones. Plastic bags can even be reused for numerous jobs around the house, or in stores. The last “R” in the environmentally friendly steps, is recycle. Recycling is made easy for many people in cities and suburbs. There are many facilities that take recyclable trash, and some places even offer money for things like cans and plastic bottles. Some neighborhoods have programs that allow you to separate waste from recyclable items. The recycle-friendly trash is picked up weekly, this is probably the most convenient way to live a “green” life. For people, like myself, who live in secluded areas that have very little or even no existing recycling projects available, a simpler version of recycling could be used. This could be reusing items in creative and useful ways, this would help you save money and become more efficient. Although many people think that it does not matter if they do not reduce, reuse, and recycle they are wrong because, reusing items such as water bottles save money, recycling waste saves the environment, such as trees, and the world will be a little bit less polluted and degraded. 

Many Americans today feel that their own lives are much to hectic to be bothered with silly things such as recycling. They do not see the overall positive impact their contributions, no matter how small, to the green movement, could have on our environment and country. In some areas of the country recycling would cost more and use more energy then creating a new product. Other towns and villages do not even provide the equipment, or resources necessary to begin a recycling program. Many people are not informed of the ways creating a huge amount of waste has on the world around them. Trees are cut down, cities are littered with stray garbage, our oceans are filled with waste that contaminates sea life, too much waste is being distributed in our world, every effort to clean it up counts.

There are lots of ways to utilize the three Rs, some examples would be: using a water filter system in the place of store bought bottles of water, reducing the amount of disposable items you buy daily, and even purchasing merchandise that is completely made of recycled items. There are lots of websites that offer tips and even a quick and simple way to get rid of waste in a healthy way. Many of these sites require a membership, which is relatively easy to set up. This would be a great way for rural Alaskans, like myself, to contribute to the cleaning and conserving of our world and resources. People living in the city have much more recycling opportunities, even the car that a person chooses to drive can have a positive impact. Putting the car away and pulling out the bicycle and helmet would not only help clean up our air, it would also help with getting in shape and creating a healthier life. There are numerous options that allow everyday citizens to take part in the global movement towards a better world.

No person can make the excuse that they simply cannot take part in a cleaner world. Even people living in tiny villages are able to make the smallest contribution, such as picking up trash they see on the ground and getting more people to help. Picking up the litter does not cost any money, and it prevents wildlife from trying to consume this trash, not to mention the earth looks a lot prettier litter free. If everyone does their part to reduce the amount of waste they produce, reuse handy items they might throw away, and recycle waste, the world will become a much better place. The oceans will be cleaner, whales decontaminated, fish healthy, and trees will thrive. If you think you cannot, will not, or are not able to help with a cleaner earth, you are very mistaken.

 

Research Draft Part 3

Research Draft: Benefits of Choosing Organic

Choosing organic has its many benefits to local famers, the people that consume the food and the environment that it is grown in. Organic farming is healthier and provides more nutrients to the consumer and soil. Although consumers are paying more by purchasing organically farmed foods, it is healthier to the consumer and the environment.  Most consumers may not know the actual price that it costs the earth’s surface and the environment when purchasing goods that are not organic and filled with harsh chemicals. Although eating organic food appears to be more expensive it is actually cheaper in the long run because the food that is consumed has no preservatives, it lacks pesticides and chemicals that kill living organisms and erode the earth’s surface, and it uses less energy than conventional farming.

Often time’s people do not think of the effects of farming foods and the environment when shopping for their weekly grocery list. The organic section in the grocery store if often smaller than the rest and costs consumers a considerable amount more to purchase then food with a sticker or label that states, organic. What people fail to realize is the effect of farming foods that are not organic and the harm that it costs the environment versus industrialized farming. Organic means that you are purchasing a food or a product that contains no preservatives versus a food that does. Conventional farming uses large amounts of preservatives to keep food from rotting over longer periods of times. However, the side effects that is hard to the earth to produce mass quantities of food at a cheap price to the consumer come at a greater cost to the environment. There are antimicrobial food additives; other preservatives contain ethanol and methylchloroisothiazolinone, propionic acid, and MSG. These preservatives cause not only health concerns for the consumers but also kill the living cells of other plants or insects that surround them. MSG is a common preservative that causes major health concerns and is usually posted where it is commonly used. It can cause the consumer headaches, difficulty breathing, chest pain, drowsiness, and nausea. Long term health concerns for the use of preservatives also include respiratory problems, anaphylactic allergic reactions, cancer, and noted birth defects. Most packaging material for products also contains preservatives. Sulfide is a common preservative on packaging material. Many consumers are finding that they are allergic to the sulfide in the packaging. Now, the FDA has made it state on the packaging if the material contains sulfide.

Many foods that are not organic contain pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to the environment and harmful to the consumer. Many pesticides and chemicals kill livestock and other animals. Pesticides are used to destroy or prevent insects, weed, birds, and other things from killing the crop. However, pesticides are very toxic to consumers and very toxic to the land and other animals if consumed. Pesticides can cause water pollution and other contamination of soil and vegetation. Crop dusters often spray the pesticides on a field and further pollute the environment with the gases that hurt the ozone layer. Farmers use the pesticides to prevent their crop from being destroyed by insects and other weeds and plants. But, the pesticides are toxic to not just the insects and weeds that they are trying to prevent from ruining their crop. They are also very harmful and toxic to other agriculture and vegetation that does not need to be compromised by the chemical.

Pesticide drift is something that is people are starting to research and learn more about as well. While the crop dusters spray the area for the crop with the pesticides they do not take into consideration where the pesticides fall as long as the crop gets dusted with the chemical. Pesticides can often drift with the direction of the wind and can spread across several miles of land. This can also lead to contamination of the water table which can negatively impact the environment and water source for human consumption and animals. Pesticide drift can also cause toxic effects to other foliage and animals by contaminating their ecosystem. Spray drift is often a type of pesticide drift that is supposed to be sprayed directly onto the crop and can often times float to surrounding homes and forestry and other ecosystems. Volatilization drift is also dangerous and occurs when the pesticides vaporizes off the plant or soil several days later and then creates a cloud of vapor that can drift off into nearby neighborhoods and other plants and water sources. Not only can both of these types of pesticides make people, animals, and other ecosystems sick but it is also very toxic to the land and the plants and is often hard to recover. Regardless of whether pesticide drift is intentional or not, it happens. Pesticides cause more harm and deter healthy soil and land from growing.

Lastly, fossil fuels are used to create and make the pesticides that are used to spray the crop. Fossil fuels create green house and methane gases which pollute the earth and ruin the ozone layer. Pesticides are also distributed by airplane or a crop-duster and thus use fuel and pollute the earth, the air, and the air quality further. Pesticides then deplete the top soil. Depleting the top soil causes erosion to the land. This then creates poor soil and growing conditions and causes less nutrient in the food. Most consumers do not realize the effect that it causes on their food. Nor, do they realize that the growing conditions often have a negative effect on their food and create fewer nutrients for consumption.

Pesticides and fossil fuels also increase energy consumption. Organic foods are raised completely pesticide and chemical free. Organic food uses renewable energy sources whereas conventional or factory farming uses non-renewable energy sources.  Organic food also uses natural fertilizers. All of the fertilizers are naturally occurring such as manure, slurry, and worms. Organic fertilizers also have increased nutrient content. Therefore, it is better for richer soil and the environment as well as healthier for the consumer. Organic fertilizers also create healthier soil. It uses existing nutrients from the soil. Is also helps to prevent topsoil erosion whereas pesticides and other chemicals actually cause top soil erosion and create soil that is not good for farming. The costs for organic fertilizer are also a factor that should be considered. Pesticides and fuel cost a great deal of money whereas organic fertilizer is naturally occurring and cheap if not free. Cows are able to graze on land which then creates manure. The manure is then able to fertilize the land and creates great and rich soil that is ideal for growing crops and other vegetation for the land. Although naturally occurring fertilizers often take a longer time for the crop to grow it costs the land less because it does not damage the soil, the agriculture, the consumers, the plants, and the other animals that graze or live in that ecosystem.

Eating organic is more than a preferred choice of healthy eating. It costs consumers more financially but in the end it is less expensive to the environment and it pays for a healthier lifestyle. Factory farming contains a large amount of preservatives and pesticides. These chemicals kill living organisms, are toxic to the land, the soil, and the water table. Although eating organic may appear to be more expensive in the short run, it costs the environment and the ecosystem a great deal less in the long run.

References

Barnard, N. D. (2010). why go organic?. Vegetarian Times, (379), 26-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Cassetty, S. B. (2010). ORGANIC FOOD: what’s really worth it. Good Housekeeping, 251(5), 51-59. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chappell, M. (2008). strawberries. Vegetarian Times, (359), 96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer. Alternative Medicine Review, 15(1), 4-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dangour, A. D., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R. (2010, April). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods — using systematic reviews to question the available evidence. Indian Journal of Medical Research. pp. 478-480. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Garnham, P. (2009). organic approach: the soil food web. Horticulture, 106(2), 19. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hayes, S. (2010). The Organic Option. Scholastic Parent & Child, 18(2), 102. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Knoblauch, M. (2008). Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. Booklist, 104(15), 14. Retrieved from EBSCOhos

Lima, G. P., & Vianello, F. (2011). Review on the main differences between organic and conventional plant-based foods. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 46(1), 1-13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x

Moore-Thorpe, A. P. (2009). Organic 101. Essence (Time Inc.), 40(1), 147. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Palmer, S. (2010). An Ounce of Prevention against Toxins in the Food System. Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 2. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Price Perspective on Organic Foods. (2010). Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rich, D. (2008). Not All Apples Are Created Equal. Earth Island Journal, 23(1), 26-30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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

Tasiopoulou, S., Chiodini, A. M., Vellere, F., & Visentin, S. (2007). Results of the monitoring program of pesticide residues in organic food of plant origin in Lombardy (Italy). Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part B — Pesticides, Food Contaminants, & Agricultural Wastes, 42(7), 835-841. doi:10.1080/03601230701555054

Tesauro, C. (2010). Organic Food and Farming. School Library Journal, 56(7), 100-101. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Williamson, C. S. (2007). Is organic food better for our health?. Nutrition Bulletin, 32(2), 104-108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00628.x

Zevnik, N. (2009). the ORGANIC CONUNDRUM. Better Nutrition, 71(9), 44-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

Research Draft 1: Sit Down and Enjoy Your “Modified” Corn

Mattie Bly

Research Draft 1

Sit Down and Enjoy Your ”Modified” Corn 

As early as the 1980′s, dramatic advances in molecular biology research have transformed our agricultural industry.  Among these advances are
genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are ones that have been modified or enhanced to contain desired traits. These desired traits
can increase resistance to herbicides or even improve the plants nutritional value. Many Americans have grown on this hype of a more efficient and better way to grow crops, overlooking the potential risk of problems or negativity on themselves and the environment. Improvements and enhancements to these crops seem beneficial at first, but can cause long term negative impacts on the environment. Although many technological advances are environmentally helpful, genetic modification of crops causes negative effects on the environment because they increase the use in engineered viruses, they transgress species integrity, and they further the US from sustainability.

Molecular biologists have engineered genes and even viruses to create resistance in modified plants. Out of these many genetically modified plants, engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are becoming increasingly popular, soon to be commercially available. Herbicide tolerant crops are ones engineered to contain genes that help avoid the harmful effects of weed killers (Rissler, 1991). This in turn, will entice farmers to use more toxic chemicals on their herbicide-tolerant crops to kill unwanted weeds. Virus resistance genes are now also being used in GM crops as a way to protect the crops from disease. In the short term, there will be a reduced loss of crops due to viruses. Long term effects however, show that viruses will evolve resistance to theses genes and become stronger, making an easier attack on the GM crops (Rissler, 1991). In a recent study involving the use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promoter, results showed that this virus had potential of reactivating dormant viruses and even creating new viruses in the GM crops or other organisms it transferred to (“Institute for Science in Society, 1999).

For GM crops as well as other organisms, engineered genes and viruses can be troubling and harmful. As the use of virus and herbicide-resistant
crops increase, so does the use of toxic chemicals. This increase may result in high crop yields, but will also lead to contamination of food, water, and our environment (Rissler, 1991). For humans and other organisms, the increase in GM crops can not only pose a threat of contamination, but of new protein allergies with unknown symptoms or effects (Dearman & Kimber, 2009). A recent proposal involving the modification of Brazil nuts was published  but was quickly abandoned due to unknown allergenicities (Whitman, 2011). Contamination in organisms was also recently shown in a preliminary report on the effects of Bt corn’s pollen on monarch butterflies. The pollen from the genetically modified corn was toxic to some organisms including the monarch butterfly, which had the potential to threaten over 50% of its population (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). The viral effects or toxicity can also harm many other organisms that consume the crops such as birds or deer (Lemaux, 2009). In plants, risks
associated with GM crops involve GM plants themselves becoming “weeds”. This is due to reverse effects of modification and resistance, rendering them useless (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). Viruses and genes can also be transferred or spread to other plants leading them to become “weeds” as well. Potential effects on soil have also risen, which include decreased fertility as well as a decrease in the soil microorganism arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These AMF are critical among soil in providing benefits to the growing crops, and destroying these fungi would end up harming both the non-engineered and engineered crops (Liu & Lianfeng, 2008).

Diversity is among one of the most important aspects of our environment and our organisms. Genetic engineering of crops is threatening this diversity in the way of transgressing species integrity. With genetic modification, there is the introduction of new genes and modifications. The problem with this is horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is one of the most serious hazards of transgenic technology (Ho, 2002). It involves the spread of genes between organisms without reproduction (Suurkula, 2004). Transgenic DNA in GM crops can be spread by being taken up by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animal cells (Ho, 2002). What makes Transgenic DNA different from ordinary DNA is its optimization for horizontal gene transfer. DNA from GM crops have the potential to cross species barriers and construct new combinations of genes as well as amplify newly existing gene products (Ho, 2002). The most common form of a horizontal gene transfer is through bacteria.
Bacteria has the potential to uptake DNA directly from its surroundings, obtain genes from infecting viruses, and also take up genes through mating (Suurkula, 2004). The easiest method for the bacteria to obtain DNA is through direct uptake from its surroundings. In previous studies, bacteria can uptake this DNA through debris of GM crops and even through dead cells of excretions of GM foods, both of which survive in their surroundings for many hours (Suurkula, 2004).

At first, this transfer of genetic material seems beneficial in that it spreads the “good” genes involving resistance. This horizontal transfer can actually cause long term harmful risks to the environment. These risks include antibiotic resistant genes, disease associate genes, and even the spread of transgenic DNA into human cells (Winter, 2008). Disease associate genes can spread and recombine to form new viruses and bacteria that can cause disease among the crops and other neighboring organisms. The spread of transgenic DNA into human cells can have lethal effects involving the triggering of cancer and other harmful diseases (Ho, 2002). The transfer of transgenic DNA into human cells has been shown in recent research involving the consumption of hamburgers and milk shakes. Human consumption of these foods, which include GM soya flour, lead to transferred DNA in the bacteria of the intestine (Ho, 2002). Looking at horizontal transfer as a whole, it crosses boundaries and could lead to all plants becoming engineered plants.

Conventional farming involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, and synthetic fertilizers. Today it also involves genetically modified
crops. This “conventional” way of farming drives farmers away from living off of the natural environment. It also drives the US away from sustainable agriculture. With sustainable agriculture, farmers use a variety of cultural, biological, and mechanical methods to avoid or reduce pest problems (Rissler, 1991). This is done with the help of ecological, biological, and agronomic information. Genetic engineering of our crops drives us away from this sustainability. It continuously keeps the US dependent on chemicals, viruses, and technology to keep our agriculture strong.

Apart from being unsustainable, conventional farming of GM foods is less productive than organic farming. Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developing countries, agricultural yields could double or even triple using organic methods over genetic engineering
(Bailey, 2007). In addition to greater yields, production could be accomplished using existing organic fertilizers, without using additional farmland. This research has potential to help not only the US, but developing countries in increasing their crop yields. Organic farming is sustainable, and helpful for the environment. Genetic modification of crops can be very detrimental to the environment. In the case of herbicide and pesticide resistant crops, the increase in toxic chemicals can create dead zones. These dead zones are low oxygen areas where organisms cannot survive (Bailey, 2007). GM crops can also contribute to soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, and loss of biodiversity (Bailey, 2007). Genetically modified crops in combination with conventional farming, is only a quick fix to the US’ agricultural problems. With organic farming, there is no need for processing, genetic updating, or planning ahead.

Genetically modified crops have and will continue to cause nothing but problems for humans and the environment. With misleading initial results of these “successful” crops, the US has fallen into its hype. The US should really be looking at the long term effects of GM crops and GM
foods as a whole. Herbicide and virus resistant crops can lead to stronger viruses and widespread diseases, hurting both organisms and
the environment. These transgenic genes can also spread, harming other plants and humans, as well as decrease the diversity among our environment. Modification of crops also drives the US farther away from sustainability, causing us to rely on the constant update of its technology. The US should stop looking for quick fixes to its agricultural problems and stop promoting its nutritionally “enhanced” foods and start promoting what the US desperately needs, natural sustainability.

Works Cited

Bailey, L. (2007, July 10). Organic farming can feed the world, u-m study shows. University of Michigan News Service. Retrieved October 3,
2011, from http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936

Dearman, R. J., & Kimber, I. I. (2009). Animal models of protein allergenicity: potential benefits, pitfalls and challenges. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 39(4), 458-468. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03194.x

Ho, M. (2002, July 22). Recent evidence confirms risks of horizontal gene transfer. The Institute of Science In Society. Retrieved October 03, 2011, from http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php

Institute for Science in Society. (1999, November 1`). Dormant viruses can be reactivated with genetically modified organisms [Press release]. Retrieved October 01, 2011, from http://www.psrast.org/camvmahopr.htm

Lemaux, P. G. (2009). Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part II). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 60(1), 511-559. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013

Liu, W., & Lianfeng, D. (2008). Interactions between Bt transgenic crops and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a new urgent issue of soil ecology in agroecosystems. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, 58(2), 187-192. doi:10.1080/09064710701478339

Mellon, M., & Rissler, J. (2003, June 12). Environmental effects of genetically modified food crops- recent experiences. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

Rissler, J. (1991, January). Biotechnology and pest control. Global Pesticide Campaigner. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.psrast.org/herbic.htm

Suurkula, J. (2004). Horizontal transfer – an introduction. Genetically Engineered Food – Safety Problems. Retrieved October 03, 2011,
from http://www.psrast.org/hrtrintr.htm

Whitman, D. B. (2011). Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful? In CSA Discovery Guides. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from
http://www.fhs.d211.org/departments/science/mduncan/bioweb/Biotechnology/Genetically%20Modified%20Foods.pdf

Winter, G. (2008). Nature Protection and the Introduction into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Risk Analysis in EC Multilevel Governance. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 17(2), 205-220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2008.00599.x

Reaserch Project Part 3 – Improper Disposal of Medications

Improper Disposal of Medications

Zach Bohan

Eng 213

Academic Writing Social and Natural Science

 

Throughout the history of mankind, humans have simply disposed of something when there was no way to consume or use it. The Native Americans would use every part of the animal that they could including the bones, but there was always something that could be thrown away. Modern Americans are more willing to dispose of things that they do not want to use such as containers and trash. These types of things usually end up in landfills or in the sewage, which in turn pollutes the earth and oceans. One of the biggest threats to the environment that people throw away is unused medications. People used to think it was ok to flush away unused medications because that was what the FDA, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and doctors would recommend since they did not know any better. Today, however, that is no longer the case. Although once recommended to flush, safer and more modern forms of disposal for unused medication are necessary due to the risk of chemicals polluting the environment, killing different forms of life on Earth, and creating dangerous superbugs through strain resistant mutations.

Since the day of modern medicine, people have assumed it was ok to dispose of their medication by flushing it away. The medication was thought to have no impact on the planet. Since people have began to become more environmentally aware, however, they have begun to take a second look. It has been proven that the medication stays in the water and affects the marine life once it reaches the ocean. The medication also drains into the earth killing off local fauna and affecting the animals that drink the water. Finally, modern methods of mass water purification are unable to dilute any of the chemicals that enter the water, thus forcing anybody who drinks the recycled water to also be exposed to the medicine. It is very easy to see how simply flushing medication is having adverse effects on all forms of life in the environment through a very slow poisoning process.

Any amount of chemical can be very harmful to fauna and flora at any level. Simply a dog peeing in the front yard will kill the grass in that spot for several years due to the acidity of the urine being too high for the plant to survive in. This is similar to the nuclear situation of Chernobyl, although not nearly as severe. If an acidic or basic medicine is continually flushed then it will have the same effect on the life it touches that a dog’s urine would have on the grass. It may not seem like a big deal to flush a few pills, but it cannot be viewed as a singular act of pollution. It must be viewed as another variable in a very complex equation whose answer will total up into death for all. If one person flushes their pills then they are adding their chemical to what everyone else is flushing. If everyone is flushing medicines then the chemical build-up becomes so great that the effects grow exponentially over time.

The larger animals and plants may be able to take a bit of pollution in their system since their systems are designed to fight off unnatural chemicals and produce antibodies. The same cannot be said for their prey or the forms of life on the lowest rungs of the food chain. It has been proven that the random chemicals that are being dumped into streams are affecting and mutating fish such that male trout are able to produce eggs, basically destroying the very basic of ecosystems, but it goes even further than that. Small bacteria, insects, plankton, and other forms of life at the bottom of the food chain cannot handle the huge changes that the chemicals bring to their ecosystems due to the fragile nature of their bodies and systems. This is not true for all forms of bacteria however. The especially nasty ones, the bacteria and viruses that adapt and become immune to and resistant to modern medicines are also the ones that people are constantly adapting cures for or still searching for. If these bacteria and viruses are exposed to all the types of medicine mankind has to offer in the water supply then they have a chance to adapt preemptively before the ever even reach the human race. By the time they do, they will have prepared for sciences counter methods and can ravage without anything to stop them. This is one of the scariest things about polluting the water is creating some sort of superbug that will be able to hit modern populations with the same magnitude as the bubonic plague from the dark ages. This is already happening however as recent tests have found that flushed medications have ended up in over 80% of the rivers, streams, and bodies of water that have been tested.

It is not just creating a superbug that is dangerous about flushing medications. If people are drinking old chemicals from broken down meds then they are going to have those chemicals running through their systems. This is where things can get dangerous. For example, say Steve from Ohio flushes old ibuprofen down his toilet. This ibuprofen gets into the water system and ends up in the water supply as recycled water where Tyler in Ohio decides he is thirsty. If Tyler is currently taking aspirin to prevent heart attacks or any other type of medicine that shouldn’t be taken with a blood thinner then he could be put at serious health risk. If aspirin and ibuprofen are taken together and Tyler is at high risk of heart attacks then the ibuprofen will cancel the aspirin out and Tyler could die. Aspirin is used to help the blood flowing smoothly and to not clot too quickly, but is ineffective if ibuprofen, a blood thinner, is taken because it will make the blood too thin to clot correctly. These two drugs together also could cause someone to bleed out or give them an increased chance of getting stomach ulcers. This is simply one dangerous combination that is possible when medicines are mixed out of the thousands of medications that are available and this risk is greatly increased when any medicine could be in the very water people think is safe.

So how should these medicines be properly disposed of? The FDA has recently launched new programs trying to spread the word about proper disposal. They recommend that no medication be flushed unless it specifically says on the container that it is safe to flush. If it has specific instructions for disposal than these instructions should be followed. Otherwise people should either consult a pharmacist or put the medication in a sealed container with other things that are undesirable to be ingested such as kitty litter. In Conclusion, if we all do our part and pay attention to what we put in our water, then we can still try to save the planet from what is supposed to save ourselves.

Research Draft: Deadly Air: Making it through Childhood

 

Deadly Air: Making it through Childhood

By Kimberly Johnson

English 213

Academic Writing Social and Natural Sciences

 

Surviving through childhood is dropping even in the United States due to air pollutants. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment — contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems (Cornell, 2007). Each year 3 million people are killed due to related air pollution exposure. Air pollution has been linked to respiratory damaging effects. Children are greatly affected by air pollution in their physical development and long-term health.  Children exposed to ozone and particulate matter (PM) are more likely to have asthma and/or a recent asthma attack. It has also been suggested that chronic (12-month) exposure to ozone and particles is related to asthma outcomes among children in metropolitan areas throughout the US (Akinbami, 2010). The amounts of air pollutants in the environment effect human health. Air pollutants are increasing around the world.  Although, current programs are in place to lower air pollutants current levels of air pollutants such as PM and ozone are too high causing more damage to children then adults because of greater exposure, weaker immune systems and physical development.

The damaging effects of ozone and PM are exposed to children at greater levels.  Ozone is a gas that we don’t see breathing in. Ozone is three oxygen( O₃) molecules covalently bonded together which cause many health effects. Troposphere is the level of atmosphere where we breathe from and is the level where the damaging ozone air pollutant is.  Ozone comes from car exhausts and industrial emissions. When Nitrogen oxide gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds  (VOC) are brought together with contact with the sun the man-made unhealthy ozone is formed. These components NOx and VOC that form ozone come from industrial living.

Another harmful form of air pollutant is PM 2.5. PM 2.5 is the particle matter that extremely dangerous. Particulate Matter goes into the air from exhausts, aerosols, factories, power plants and other man-made systems (Boen, 2007).  PM 2.5 is a naming mechanism for identifying PM. PM 2.5 means that the particles that are in the air are 2.5 microns or smaller. The problem with PM 2.5 is that it is particles that are small enough matter to be inhaled by humans and cause damage. PM 2.5 is inhaled deep into people’s lungs and does not exhale easily. This level is dangerous to the health of people. PM 2.5 is so easily inhaled that when PM levels are 2.5 or lower outdoor activity becomes dangerous and even outdoor exercise should be avoided.  Children have greater exposure to outdoor pollutants such as ozone and PM. Children are more likely to do outdoor activities.  This creates greater exposure to the air pollutants Ozone and PM.

Not only are children exposed more often for outdoor pollutants. PM is also a major health risk indoor as well.  It was found that there is a significant risk factor for infant wheezing for developing infants in this urban population (Hunt, 2011). Elevated levels of indoor PM are also dangerous to the health to people around the world especially children. PM is affecting the health of the young around the world. The American Lung Association released a report stating about 154 million Americans, or half the country’s population; live in areas where sometimes it is dangerous to breathe (Hutchison, 2011). These high levels are often unknown to many inhabitants in major cities. Due to how ozone and PM is formed major cities are the highest risk of dangerous air to breath. These high levels effect a large amount of the population. Due to smaller cities having less damaging cars and factories to produce the air pollutants and have less people to be exposed to the high levels those living in major cites are impacted with more air pollutants daily. With these dangerous levels children are affected indoors and outdoors which affects their health and development.

A major concern of air pollutants is the health effects it has to the children. Children are greatly impacted in development due to air pollutants such as ozone and PM.  Air pollution starts effecting children as fetuses. It was found that levels of air pollutants such as ozone and PM have been correlated to reduce birth weight of newborns in mothers in late pregnancy (Darrow, 2011). Particulate matter has also been suggested to that there is a long-term effect due to the exposure to particulate at the levels that are at major cities worldwide can alter affective responses and impair cognition (Fonken, 2011). Major cities are affecting children’s health due to air pollutants. It has been found that there are higher rates of wheezing, excessive phlegm and other asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children that live in and go to schools in neighborhoods with higher levels of motor vehicle pollution compared with other children in the study (Kay, 2004).

The degree of health effects that are caused to children due to air pollutants is still unknown. Many effects start with the mother breathing in the air pollutants during pregnancy. There have been multiple birth affects that have been suspected to be in part to the mothers exposure to air pollutants. Some effects that have been suggested as air pollutants exposure to the mother are inflammation, as well as direct toxic effects to the fetuses and placenta, DNA formation errors and more due to exposure to air pollutants. PM has been directly related to exposure to mothers causing low birth weight babies, premature births and higher infant mortality rate (Shah, 2011).

Regulations of ozone and PM are still to high affecting the health of the young. It is becoming increasingly difficult for pollution to be controlled. Controlling pollutants such as ozone and PM with the increase population and more emitted vehicles used daily makes it difficult to keep up with current air quality standards as well as future standards. More people are becoming aware to the effects air pollutants are having on citizens. Creating a greater push for better regulation programs to be implemented is being sought after more and more as more research is showing that effects current levels are having on citizens especially children. Current regulations for ozone are 75 parts per billion. A new proposal was requested to make the standard of ozone allotted to be between 60 and 70 parts per billion (Shaw, 2011).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to raise awareness of air pollutants such as ozone and the health effects. Tightening the standards for the amount considered safe to breathe of ozone continues to be attempted to pass into a new standard of regulation. Industries are the major component for resisting a tougher standard of ozone, as there companies would have to find solutions to lower the emissions resulting in an increased financial burden on these companies just under current standards.  Through EPA studies it is found that the current federal standards are not healthy enough and should be changed.  But companies do not want to have to implement costly emissions lowering equipment. EPA has found that with current levels young children are especially vulnerable as we as even healthy adults that are outdoors exercising and working (Wertheimer, 2011). This proposed level control for ozone was not passed. President Barack Obama decided not to allow the tougher standards to be implemented.  It is clear that current levels are affecting the health of children and adults. Currently federal regulations have not been changed in response to current studies showing current standards as insufficient of healthy breathable air to people.

 

Reference List:

Akinbami, L., Lynch, C., Parker, J., & Woodruff, T. (2010). The association between childhood asthma prevalence and monitored air pollutants in metropolitan areas, United States, 2001-2004. . Environmental Research, 110(3), 294-301. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/EVC5J5J7KBG3YVMDRXHYJ4B9F7KDT3LE86Y16HFS7CVM2JSNU4-29419?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001460&set_entry=000009&format=999

Boen, J. (2007, June 1). Residents get air quality warnings: susceptible children, adults should take steps to lessen risk, officials say. . News-Sentinel. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-22841?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001336&set_entry=000012&format=999

 

Cornell University (2007, August 13). Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study

 

Darrow, L. A., Klein, M., Strickland, M. J., Mulholland, J. A., & Tolbert, P. E. (2011). Ambient air pollution and birth weight in full-term infants in Atlanta, 1994-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(5), 731-737. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/QPXTB1KUN569I56X8SBCJVG5CYTSFV1UQ19FKDS5IIU16VSEUM-81486?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001429&set_entry=000048&format=999

 

Fonken, L., Xu, X., Weil, Z., Chen, G., Sun, Q., Rajagopalan, S., & Nelson, R. (2011). Air pollution impairs cognition, provokes depressive-like behaviors and alters hippocampal cytokine expression and morphology. . Molecular Psychiatry, 16(10), 987-995. Retrieved from http://p8333 metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-10552?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001242&set_entry=000010&format=999

Hunt, A., Crawford, J., Rosenbaum, P., & Abraham, J. (2011). Levels of household particulate matter and environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the first year of life for a cohort at risk for asthma in urban syracuse, ny. Environment International, 37(7), 1196-1205 . Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-02186?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001226&set_entry=000009&format=999

 

Hutchison, J. (2011, May 18). Area air quality improving. News-Herald. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-21103?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001336&set_entry=000005&format=999

 

Kay , J. (2004, October 10). Bay area / respiratory ills in kids linked to traffic pollution. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-78481?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001145&set_entry=000003&format=999

 

Shah, P., & Balkhair, T. (2011). Air pollution and birth outcomes: a systematic review. . Environment International, 37(2), 498-516. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-23751?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001360&set_entry=000007&format=999

Shaw, M. (2011, September 29). Officials plan ahead to control ozone pollutants. Standard-Examiner. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-00380?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001214&set_entry=000002&format=999
WERTHEIMER, L. (2011, July 24). Epa seeks to tighten ozone standards. Weekend Edition Sunday . Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-13007?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001266&set_entry=000003&format=999

 

 

 

 

Research Draft Part 3: Ethanol is Not Cool

Ethyl alcohol, more commonly known as Ethanol, is the most widespread type of alcohol you will find on the market. Today, it is often used in fuels, beverages, and solvents. A desire to lower our need for foreign oil has driven the demand for this alcohol and its use as a biofuel. Producing ethanol from corn is a complicated and costly process involving converting starch into sugar, fermenting, distilling, and separating. There are two common blends of ethanol fuel in use today. E10 is composed of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. E85 is composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Running a vehicle on pure ethanol is not conventional. Ethanol is incredibly common in Midwestern states because of the agricultural sector in the surrounding areas. Ethanol is also produced in other areas around the world from different crops such as sugar cane. The seemingly increased popularity of these fuel blends is largely due to new government mandates in the United States requiring its use. Although the use of corn based ethanol in vehicles may seem like a good idea, the actual benefit to the environment and vehicles is almost nothing. Ethanol production is wasteful, bad for vehicles, and too expensive.

One of the most important things to consider in any production process is the efficiency of the process. An inefficient process should be examined and fixed. Ethanol used in the US largely comes from corn. Corn is also a food. Food under no circumstance should ever be used to fuel vehicles. What is basically happening when we use ethanol to power a vehicle is we are burning food. Burning food to power vehicles is unsustainable. Right now, a large percentage of corn is also used for livestock feed. Together, corn that is destined for ethanol manufacturing and livestock feed raises the price for the corn that is sold as food. False demand for ethanol creates an inflated supply which would not exist without mandates.

Growing corn requires vast amounts of land. The amount of land required to produce a single gallon of ethanol is staggering. A crop of corn must be planted, grown, harvested, processed, and then be turned into ethanol. Each step involves time, money, and energy. The total cost which is required to produce ethanol is higher than comparable fuels, which is why the government must subsidize the production in order to keep the price competitive. These subsidies result in the desire to keep the price of ethanol down and the need to support the agricultural sector. One gallon of ethanol only contains about 1905 BTUs while a gallon of gas contains about 2830 BTUS (Wald, 2007). When we look at the amount of energy required to produce ethanol is becomes clearly apparent that it is not an efficient process. Simply heating ethanol in the various steps of production requires 36,000 BTUs of energy which only produces 80,000 BTUs of energy in the resulting barrel of ethanol (Wald, 2007).

Ethanol is not good for vehicles. An internal combustion engine that is designed for gasoline cannot run pure ethanol. Most conventional modern new vehicles that are sold in the US today are capable of running with at most a 10% ethanol blend. Any vehicle that is over 15-20 years old and uses a carburetor cannot run anything more than a 10% ethanol blend. These types of vehicles will usually be able to run an ethanol blend of about 5%. Engines must be designed to run on different fuels. Burning ethanol blends in vehicles is not efficient compared with conventional petrochemical fuels. E10 and E85 especially contain less energy and will result in increased fuel usage and more frequent refueling.

State government mandates requiring the manufacture and sale of ethanol compliant engines have resulted in an increase in availability of these types of vehicles. Many people buy a new vehicle not realizing it is a “flex-fuel” vehicle and can run on E85 or gasoline. The majority of the existing vehicles on the road are not E85 compatible. Research and development costs of E85 compatible engines are passed directly onto the consumer who buys the vehicle. Because ethanol has a lower energy density compared with gasoline, fuel efficiency is lowered and every gallon of ethanol will give you less miles traveled.

Ethanol is more expensive than other fuels. Compared with a gasoline powered car, a vehicle running E85 will achieve 15% less miles per gallon. All together E85 will be 8% more expensive (“True” 2006). The entire process of producing ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. Consumers may not be able to tell the difference when pumping fuel into their car but if the total costs over the long term are looked at it is readily obvious because of lower miles per gallon.

Environmental damage and health issue are other issues which must be considered. With government mandated corn-based ethanol production, a false demand is forced on the economy. While ethanol is technically a sustainable fuel, the entire process involved in production is just as bad if not worse than any other petrochemical process. Plants that manufacture ethanol produce methanol, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens which are pumped into the atmosphere (Miller, 2007).

A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that if every vehicle in the United States was running on E85, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ozone levels in the atmosphere would increase. Butadiene and benzene levels would decrease (Hampton, 2007).  Ethanol is not any safer or cleaner than regular gasoline. Many people submit to a false sense of approval over the use of this fuel because it is renewable. Subsidies are enough of an incentive for farmers to switch from growing other types of food and start growing corn targeted for ethanol production.

The cost to our economy is enormous. Creating subsidies and paying them to corn farmers destroys the natural balance of the agricultural sector’s supply and demand. These subsidies result in an artificially low price for this commodity. Government subsidies are paid for by taxes, just like any other spending. Therefore, this artificially low ethanol price is not really low; we are all paying for this, even if we choose not to use it. These kinds of subsidies should be ended immediately.

Blending ethanol into gasoline is an inefficient method of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. While we have not reached peak oil yet, oil reserves are not sustainable and will eventually run out. There are other methods available today that can help lengthen the availability of oil. With increased fuel economy standards today’s engines are more fuel efficient than ever before. Other technologies such as electric propulsion, hydrogen, natural gas, and biodiesel are better alternatives. There is absolutely no good reason to use ethanol in fuel blends that are destined for vehicles. If there is another option when comparing ethanol to another fuel source, the other source is usually the better choice. Ethanol production is expensive and wasteful. We must end these subsidies and government mandates which require ethanol use. Until there is a better option than gasoline, diesel, or other petroleum based fuels, ethanol should be kept out of our fuel supply.

Aillery, M., Weinberg, M., & Malcolm, S. A. (2009, November). Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR86/ERR86.pdf

Brasher, P. (2011, September 19). Tight grain supplies bring calls to weaken ethanol mandates. USA Today, p. 06b.

Cavalcanti, M., Szklo, A., Machado, G., & Arouca, M. (2012). Taxation of automobile fuels in Brazil: Does ethanol need tax incentives to be competitive and if so, to what extent can they be justified by the balance of GHG emissions?. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 37(1), 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.005

Cooper, C., Huff, S., Knoll, K., Orban, J., Thomas, J., & West, B. (2009). Effects of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends on Conventional Vehicle Emissions. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46570.pdf

Dalidd, J. (2010, November 30). Al Gore admits supporting corn ethanol subsidies was a mistake [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/30/al-gore-admits-supporting-corn-ethanol-subsidies-was-a-mistake/

Davidson, S. (2004). Ethanol what’s it all about?. Ecos, (119), 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Demirbas, A., & Gupta, R. B. (2010). Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol Biofuels from Grasses and Plants. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Glynn, M. (2011, September 16). Future of biofuels seen as hinging on long-term strategy. The Buffalo News, p. 5b

Hampton, T. (2007). Ethanol-Fueled Vehicles Could Pose Health Risk. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(19), 2068. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Hilton, B. B., & Duddy, B. B. (2009). The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle emissions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part D — Journal of Automobile Engineering (Professional Engineering Publishing), 223(12), 1577-1586. doi:10.1243/09544070JAUTO1188

Kim, S., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Environmental aspects of ethanol derived from no-tilled corn grain: nonrenewable energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass & Bioenergy, 28(5), 475-489. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.11.005

Loveday, E. (2011, September 30). U.S. ethanol output dips to lowest level in 2011 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/30/u-s-ethanol-output-dips-to-lowest-level-in-2011/

Miller, S. (2007). E85 is Running on Fumes. Brandweek, 48(32), 28. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Thomas, C. (2011, September 25). Biofuels from boom to bust to business. St. Joseph News-Press, p. A2.

True or False: Ethanol Is Cheaper. (2006). Money, 35(9), 24. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Wald, M. L. (2007). IS ETHANOL FOR THE LONG HAUL?. Scientific American, 296(1), 42-49. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Research Paper Rough Draft 1: Are Environmental Factors Causing the Decline in Returning Salmon?

Are Environmental Factors Causing the Decline in Returning Salmon?

By David Mondok

English 213

Academic Writing Social and Natural Sciences

After years of discussions about the decline in returning salmon, I have begun to contemplate about the reason for the decline in returning population of salmon. With all the research that has been done on the harvesting numbers and trending the decline of returning fish, we have seen poor numbers in the returns; even with the Emergency Closures on harvesting seasons. Being a fisherman, I have seen and experienced some of the environmental factors that may be impacting fisheries. How do these factors impact the fisheries? Although salmon harvests maybe contributing to the decline of returning numbers, environmental factors having a larger effect on the salmon fisheries, because with the increased human activity and the introduction of invasive species of predators the  number of returning salmon continue to decline.

While there is no way to have exact numbers in the salmon populations, we can provide rough estimates of population numbers and annual averages allowing us to make informed decisions on the management of our natural resources. To narrow down this topic I am going to focus on three rivers across Alaska; Kenai River, Copper River, and Deshka River. These rivers receive steady pressure throughout Alaska’s salmon fishing season and also have commercial fleets that fish the ocean near the mouth of these rivers. They have also been monitored for several years with fish counters to provide biologist with relatively accurate information on the types of fish as well as the numbers.

All of the following salmon run calculations were gathered from the Alaska Fish and Games website.

On the Deshka River, fish biologists have been counting the returns of salmon to determine a 15 year average of 26,170 Chinook salmon and a 14 year average of 27,846 Coho salmon. Over the last 5 years the Chinook population has fluctuated from 18,800 in 2007 to 19,100 in 2011, but dipped as low as 7,550 in 2008. Chinook salmon’s life cycles usually run 4-5 years which likely means that the Chinook run in 2012 will have a very poor outlook. The Coho runs over the last 5 years have seen similar fluctuation from 10,600 in 2007 to 7,550 in 2011, but had a spike in 2009 at 27,400. Coho salmon’s life cycle usually span 3-4, so with the 5 year average being below 15,000 the Coho salmon has lost nearly 50 percent of its’ population in the last 10 years.

The Kenai River has been monitored very similar to the Deshka River, however due to receiving multiple runs of the same species the data is more difficult to keep concise, so I am going to convert the data into an overall sums of the species runs. The 23 year average of Kenai River Chinook salmon for the early and late run combined is 57,935. Between 2007 and 2010 the Chinook runs average was 37,950 but due to no longer having an early run count I cannot accurately provide an average for 2011, the late Chinook run count for 2011 was approximately 35,000 fish. The Sockeye salmon 21 year average is estimated to be 1,273,388. Over the last 5 years Sockeye salmon runs have been remaining fairly steady ranging from 1,230,000 in 2007 to 1,599,300 in 2011, with 2008’s run being the lowest at 917,200. The Kenai River also receives runs of Coho salmon but their numbers are not monitored as extensively as the Chinooks and Sockeyes.

The Sockeye run is the only run that is counted on the Copper River. The 11 year average for the Copper River Sockeye salmon run is 786,825. Over the last 5 years 3 of the runs have stayed fairly steady from 926,500 in 2007 to 914,300 in 2011, but in 2008 and 2009 the salmon numbers were poorly recorded to sonar counter operations. With the 3 of the last 5 years runs being over the 11 year average, it appears that the Copper River Sockeye population is doing well or is at least able to sustain steady numbers.

Out of the 3 different rivers across the Alaska and 3 species of salmon, it appears that the Deshka River Coho salmon have seen the most drastic decline in numbers. There may be several reasons for this ranging from harvesting to invasive species of fish in the water ways. Throughout Alaska salmon are harvested for personal and commercial use, both of which are regulated by Alaska Fish and Game by maintaining an open season, however of the 3 species of salmon on two of the species have set date for an open and a close of season and those species are Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Across most of the state it is legal to harvest Coho salmon during the entire year, leaving high harvest numbers by sports fisherman. Commercial fishing is regulated by the length of fishing season, hours during the day, and days of the week that salmon can be caught.

There are also factors other harvesting that may be causing the decline in salmon populations from human activities and predators. Humans have been utilizing the same streams and rivers that the salmon spawn in for rafting, boating, fishing, gold mining and even off-roading.  These activities disturb the stream beds kicking up rocks, silt, and even salmon eggs, which are either covered by the dislodged debris or eaten by the native fish that live in the waterways all year long. If even one salmon redd is destroyed nearly a 1,000 eggs could be lost, lowering the returning population even more.

In the river salmon fry or smolt’s natural predators in most of Alaska have been trout, birds, and some mammals like river otters. In some areas of Alaska they face a new predator in the ecosystem and that is the Northern Pike, a very aggressive predatory fish that can consume over half a dozen smolts in one day. In areas where pike have started to show up salmon numbers have begun to decline, the Deshka River is one such area. Pike tend to prefer slower more vegetated waterways that also happen to be the habitat for the salmon fry. Pike have very few natural predators, the largest threat to pike are other larger pike. With pike consuming large numbers of smolt in the rivers it reduce the number of salmon that will face the open ocean and reach mature spawning age.

While it is an ever revolving cycle of life, the age old adage holds true “which came first the chicken or the egg”. As harvesting salmon target the mature spawning fish reduces the number of eggs that turn into smolt, the factors that reduce the number of smolt that make it to the ocean reduces the return of spawning fish. While it is important to have a healthy escapement of adult salmon, it may be even more important to reduce the disruption of the salmon redds were large numbers of eggs are vulnerable.

Over the last decade the amount of salmon that is harvest of the coast of Alaska has grown drastically. With the entire world looking to have a piece of this nutrient rich food the demand for salmon has increased. Commercial companies are not just harvesting salmon by the ton but by thousands of tons a year. By placing a limit on the amount of fish one company can harvest and have processed or shipped from Alaska the massive quantities of fish that are caught and sent around the world would be reduced. It may seem to be a selfish act, but these companies are taking away from the resources of Alaska and reducing the population of salmon across the board. In order to enforce this would cost Alaska millions of dollars in enforcement but would also create more jobs along the coast, bringing more stability to Alaska’s economy.

While reducing the number of salmon harvested may be important, the state would have to impose seasonal catch limits on salmon species similar to those that regulate Chinook salmon harvests. By putting a seasonal limit on sportsman harvest instead of just a daily limit, the state could regulate the number of salmon each individual harvests during the year. In subsistence areas of Alaska this would be difficult to implement without allowing for an additional supplement. The other factors that would arise from a seasonal limit is determining the number of fish that would be allowed by one individual to harvest and how to enforce the recording of the harvests, which would cost the state more money supporting wildlife enforcement.

The most important aspect of preserving any species is allowing for a large number of the population to breed. By placing restriction on the use of the waterways that are used by the salmon to build their redds, the species receives the greatest chance for their numbers to rebound. It will be difficult to get the approval of Alaskans in order to put restrictions on the waterways, but the easiest way to gain approval is by doing a trial phase on rivers across the state; were the activities that cause the most disruption to the river bed are restricted to certain parts of the river and times of the year. By running a trial phase of around 5 years on the selected river it would be possible to see how the restrictions have benefited the population of salmon in the area over 2 or possibly 3 life cycles of salmon.

The only ways to begin controlling the outbreak of northern pike in Alaska’s salmon streams is by offering a bounty on the fish or encourage kill-or-capture movement in those areas. By enlisting the help of the anglers in the state and offering an incentive, the state may be able to reduce the number of pike affecting the salmon population. With pikes aggressive nature, they are a very entertaining fish to seek because of their explosive power on top-water lures and their fighting strength. By drastically reducing the number of pike that live in the salmon streams, the prey on which they feed will begin to rebound. Unfortunately, the only way to completely remove pike from these waters would be to conduct a fish kill which would decimate ecosystem along the rivers and even in to the ocean, of course removing this as a viable option.

The regulations that we have in place to protect the salmon population have been enough to prevent a complete failure of the ecosystem but have not been as effect as they need to be. Through having harvest regulations for the entire state of Alaska and utilizing Emergency Orders to either close areas that salmon runs have been weak or encourage more harvesting in areas with high salmon returns, the state has been able to slow the downward spiral of one of its vital resources. However, I do not feel that it has been successful enough to sustain the population and the resource indefinitely. The Alaskan government needs to do more to ensure the survival of its greatest renewable resource.

The key may be the implementation of waterway restrictions of human activities and encouraging the killing and/or harvesting of pike. With restricting the activities that humans can do around salmon spawning streams comes few redds that will be disturbed and fewer eggs that may be compromised or consumed by the native fish. With pike being a species of fish that has been introduced in the most of the salmon streams that they are affecting, their removal only seems to be in the better interest of the salmon. By the changing human activities and trying to reduce the effects of human mistakes in the past we may give salmon a fighting chance.

 

Abrahams, M. V., & Healey, M. C. (1993, April). A Comparison of the Willingness of Four Species of Pacific Salmon to Risk Exposure to a Predator. Nordic Society Okios, 66(3), 439-446. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3544938

Alaska Salmon Project. 1 Oct. 2011. http://fish.washington.edu/research/alaska/index.html

Dalton, R. (2002). Pike pests ravage Alaska’s salmon. Nature, 418(6901), 907. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R., & Wisseman, R. W. (1996, June). Assessing Invertebrate Responses to Human Activities: Evaluating Alternative Approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society,  15(2), 212-231. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1467949

Irvine, J. R., & Fukuwaka, M. (2011). Pacific salmon abundance trends and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science / Journal du Conseil, 68(6), 1122-1130. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsq199

Kekäläinen, J. J., Niva, T. T., & Huuskonen, H. H. (2008). Pike predation on hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts in a northern Baltic river. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 17(1), 100-109. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00263.x

Lawson, P. W., Logerwell, E. A., Mantua, N. J., Francis, R. C., & Agostini, V. N. (2004). Environmental factors influencing freshwater survival and smolt production in Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 61(3), 360-373. doi:10.1139/F04-003

Levasseur, M., Bergeron, N. E., Lapointe, M. F., & Bérubé, F. (2006). Effects of silt and very fine sand dynamics in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) redds on embryo hatching success. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 63(7), 1450-1459. doi:10.1139/F06-050

Pacific Fishery Management Council (2008, February 4). Salmon Population Declines In California, West Coast. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129210349.htm

Ward, D. M., Nislow, K. H., Folt, C. L., & Osenberg, C. (2008). Predators reverse the direction of density dependence for juvenile salmon mortality. Oecologia, 156(3), 515-522. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1011-4

Willette, T., Cooney, R., Patrick, V., Mason, D., Thomas, G., & Scheel, D. (2001). Ecological processes influencing mortality of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ) in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fisheries Oceanography, 1014. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

(1992, March 20). SALMON IN DECLINE OFF WEST COAST. New York Times. p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

 

First Rough Draft: We Don’t Need Any Poisoned Salmon

We Don’t Need Any Poisoned Salmon

 

By

Michael McNulty

English 213

Academic Writing For Social And Natural Science

 

 

           

 

            Even if you live out of Alaska, you must have heard something about the issue called Pebble Mine; if you haven’t, congratulations, you live in a very sheltered world. As we must all know by now, the prospect of Pebble Mine is among the upmost talked about and debated environmental issue facing the state of Alaska’s public and its wellbeing. Every day we, as Alaskans, view multiple advertisements either for or against the project, condoning it or saying it will help the state’s economy. The view that can be gathered by just asking around a town in any area of the state will most likely be a very one-sided statement. “It must be stopped immediately to save the environment” or “The mine will create jobs and revenue” are the base statements for either one respectively. An interesting thing about this topic though, is that there seems to be no neutral stance on it. It’s a very right or wrong, which side you’re on type of debate. To the basics, Pebble Mine is a proposed open pit mine situated in Bristol Bay near Lake Illiamna and is twenty miles from the villages of Illiamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. (Coordinates of the mine site are 59°53′50″N 155°17′43″W).  While the heavy mining is a few years off, it is being postponed by heavy opposition, lobbying, laws, acts, groups, and discontent in general. Even overseas companies have voiced their opinion, in roundabout ways.

             With good reason, many opponents of the mine are involved with Bristol Bay’s many, large, productive salmon runs. Plans for Pebble currently say that all the waste material will be held behind three large earth made dams. This includes all mining waste which will stay there forever. In this essay, I will go over every aspect of the mine I can think of; and research the land that it will sit on itself, the wildlife in the area, the people living there, and the Pebble partnership’s plans during and after the mine. There will be a pros and cons for both sides; but ultimately I will be saying that the Pebble Mine should be stopped before it goes any farther than it already has. Our natural resources depend on the Bristol Bay watershed too much to risk it for a load of ore. In the end, it will be a question of natural resources that can provide indefinite pay and food for many people; or a shorter term mine that will benefit only a few compared to those who depend on the salmon.

            The mining at the Pebble prospect, as it is currently being called, dates back to even before it became a major issue. Back in 1986, the land rights belonged to CAE (Cominco Alaska Explorations) and surveys done using aircraft and basic geology observations judged the Pebble west prospect to be an area worth drilling. In 1988, CAE began their first drilling campaign that lasted until 1992; the Pebble west was then calculated to hold about three million tons of copper ore and eleven million ounces of gold trapped within one thousand million tons of ore. After this initial drilling, a decade passed before any other major work in the area commenced again. In 2001, enter the current mine owners, Northern Dynasty Mining Ltd. NDM put in a bid for the Pebble claims with Teck Cominco; Teck Cominco had succeeded CAE in the decade when Pebble wasn’t being mined. The following year, NDM began their own drilling exploration of the pebble prospect and came up with a new calculation of four thousand one hundred million tons of ore of resources in pebble west. In 2005, NDM gained full ownership of the mining rights and also discovered what is now known as pebble east. Pebble East was projected to surpass pebble west in possible ore body that could be profitably mined. In 2007, NDM was close to finishing a preliminary feasibility study with an actual feasibility study which commenced in 2011. By the end of 2007, NDM has about two hundred and twenty-five million sunk into the project with a supposed eighty-five million into socio-economic and environmental studies alone. To date in 2011, ninety-one million dollars has been budgeted for completion of feasibility studies which will then lead to permit applications. If everything goes right for them, NDM plans to begin building and mining in 2015.

            Now here is where we do some math. Pebble mine has sixty-seven billion pounds of copper, eighty-two million ounces of gold, and four million pounds of molybdenum. At 2008 to 2010 market prices, these ores combined to make an estimated profit of three hundred and seventy five to five hundred billion dollars. These estimates would make the entire pebble prospect the second most valuable ore body of its type; second after the Grasberg Mine in Indonesia.  The Bristol Bay Salmon industry alone brings in over one hundred and ten million a year. With last year’s prices and an estimated one hundred and eighty-six million salmon caught, the value upon the fish alone was just under five hundred and thirty-five million. This was the state wide harvest for last year’s season, the eleventh best season since statehood. Back in 2009, the total value of Alaska’s landings was about on point three billion dollars, the closest competitor of that year was Massachusetts with four hundred million dollars. In 2009, fishing revenues from every area of the industry brought in seventy-nine million. Looking at these numbers alone, pebble is the bigger payoff in the short run; yet the mine is estimated to be profitably productive for about one hundred years.

            The Bristol Bay watershed area is located in an area that is prone to all kinds of natural events that can potentially damage any building or structures sitting on it. The mines and dams would face hazards that include earthquakes, volcanic activity, permafrost upheaval/collapse, snow avalanches, and stream icing. The area that is being planned for mining sits in the 2B seismic zone, which was rated at moderate seismic activity. The International Building Code specifies moderate seismic activity as ground motion ranges from 25 to 60% gravitational acceleration for 0.2 seconds to 12 to 25% gravitational acceleration for 1 second. This rating is equivalent to magnitude 5 earthquakes. There have been records of magnitude 7 earthquakes in the area. The nearest volcanoes are about 100 miles away but are still very active, especially in recent years. Illiamna, the Katmai group, Ukinrek Maars, Ugashik-Peulik, and the Togiak Lava Fields are all listed as active volcanoes with eruptions occurring from Illiamna, Augustine, and Ukinrek within a century. Augustine alone last erupted in 2005 while Illiamna in 2003 and 2005, had non-eruptive activity. Currently, the Alaska Volcano Observatory has all these volcanoes listed as Green, meaning current activity or lack thereof is deemed normal for them. However, these volcanoes do lie on or near the Aleutian Arc; this arc makes up the northern border of the Ring Of Fire. Meaning these volcanoes are prone to activity. Threats from volcanoes by themselves can create pyroclastic flows, ash fallout, and lava flows. Geologist that did study in the area consider volcano induces mudflows (lahars) and volcanogenic floods to be the biggest threats. Any one of these natural occurrences could easily, in the least, cause minor damage to the facilities at Pebble. Another threat that could be devastating is tsunamis. An extreme example would be the 2009 Indonesia Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed as many homes. Given, Bristol Bay is more protected from tsunamis and not as many people live in the area. The Pebble Mine would also be inland possibly far enough to be safe. The only tsunami threat to Bristol Bay would have to come from the Bering Sea. However, not as protected is the proposed deepwater dock that ships would come tie up to take on cargo and ore from the mine. The proposed dock is planned to be built at Iniskin Bay in Cook Inlet.  The 1964 Good Friday Earthquake generated a tsunami that struck even into Kachemak Bay, which is pretty well protected. Iniskin Bay is more out in the open, but is located on the west side of Cook Inlet.

            Pebble Mines current plan calls

Stevens , S. P. A., & Craw , P. Stat Of Alaska Department Of Natural Resources, Division Of Geological & Geophysical Surveys. (2003). Geological hazards in and near the northern portion of the Bristol Bay Basin (Miscellaneous Publication 132). Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Division Of Geological & Geophysical Surveys.

Parker, G., Raskin, F., Woody, C. A., & Traskin, L. (2008). Pebble mine: fish, minerals, and testing the limits of Alaska’s “large mine permitting process”. 25(1), 50. Retrieved from http://www.fish4future.com

Sherwonit, B. (2008). Alaska’s pebble mine: fish vs. gold. 1(1), Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu

Schmitz, O. J., & Graedel, T. E. (2010). The consumption conundrum: driving the destruction abroad. 1(1), Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu

Kennedy Jr., R. F., Reynolds , J., & Cousteau, J. M. (2010). Pebble mine: foreign mining companies’s schemes would poison america’s paradise. Huff Post Green , 1(1), 6.

Maxwell , M. L. (2011, August 24). With billions at sake in bristol bay, mining company spends big. 6. Retrieved from http://indiancountrtodaymedianetork.com

Creamer, M. (2011). Anglo-american in thick of great alaska pebble mine debate. Mining Weekly, 1(1), 2. Retrieved from http://miningweekly.com

Mattera, P. (2008, July ). Anglo american’s track record: rhetoric or reality? Eye on Pebble Mine, 1(1), 34. Retrieved from http://eyeonpebblemine.org

Zamzow, K. (2009). Acid rock drainage and metal leaching at the pebble project. Pebble Science , 1(1), 3. Retrieved from http://pebblescience.org

Northern Dynasty Mines Inc. (2005, October). Response to the nushagak-mulchatna watershed council. Paper presented at ’180 questions about the pebble project

Research Draft: Fish on a Farm

Fish on a Farm: The Result of a Fish Farmer

While fishing concerns are prominent in the state of Alaska, aquaculture is a hot topic all across the world.  With the dangers it causes and effects it has on both the environment and human health, it seems appropriate for such a topic to be frequently discussed.  Both positive and negative outcomes are deliberated, but fish farming continues to take place.  Although many nations rely on aquaculture as a source of food production, the fish farming industry is a continuous threat because of the pollution it creates in inland and coastal waters, the negative impact the farming has on natural fish stocks, and the health hazards it creates for humans.

One of the harshest effects from fish farming lie directly in the waters fish call home.  Through many actions, inland and coastal waters are polluted to the point that fish are continuously breathing in unhealthy and risky water.  The overfeeding of fish can cause threatening changes in the water including benthic community structure.  The increase of mineral and organic nutrients, a process known as eutrophication, has also been shown to harm fish culture.  The fight to control the pollution of inland and coastal waters continues, but with much struggle to protect these fish.

Farmed fish are constantly being overfed.  Moreover, they are being fed unhealthy food.  At a closer glance of artificial and natural feeds, it is easily seen how the food alone can create an unhealthy fish.  According to Craig Emerson, Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic (1999), “many species of fish depend on a diet of artificial feed in pellet form.”  While fish may depend on this type of food, the harm is found within these pellets.  Toxins and chemicals are included in the feeding of fish in order to enhance their coloring.   In addition, it has been found that a fish will ingest between 5 and 10 kilograms of the same type of fish (as cited in Sabaut, 2002).  This unhealthy diet causes disease in the populated fish as well as its consumers: the human race.  Unfortunately, overfeeding results in much of the food going uneaten.  As food is added to the surface of the water, fish begin to consume it as the food makes its way down through the water.  After the fish have eaten what they need, the excess food continues to the seafloor.  It is here that organisms, known as benthos, decompose the remaining food.  Emerson (1999) notes that this change of the natural food web structure can greatly impact the environment of fish.

Hand in hand with overfeeding, a process known as eutrophication endangers farmed fish and its waters.  Eutrophication is the increase of phytoplankton in a body of water, which in this case, is the water in which farmed fish are living.  Nutrient levels are raised when excess food and fish fecal matter combine.  As a result, a suitable environment for algal blooms is created.  As more excess food and fish excretion is produced, more algal blooms form, further harming the fish environment.  As algal blooms die, they settle to the seafloor and deplete oxygen as they are decomposed.  In addition, toxins are likely to emitted into the waters before death.  Unfortunately, these toxins are deadly to fish and their consumers – humans.

As overfeeding and eutrophication continues to play a role in fish farming, pollution control strives to do its part, as well.  Because inland and coastal waters are so diverse, separate measures must be taken.  Inland waters are easily to control because of the outflow management.  Waste treatment systems are more convenient to set up in order to reduce the fish waste found in the water.  Coastal waters have a different way of controlling its pollution.  Sea cucumbers can be used to feed on the organisms causing the pollution.  Various plants and water creatures can spread other nutrients, as well.  Another effective way of reducing water pollution is by reconstructing the feeding systems for fish.  Emerson (1999) mentioned, “feed pellets are designed to stay longer in the water column,” which slows them down from reaching the bottom before fish are able to eat them.  He also notes the vaccination of individual fish may also take place, rather than adding drugs to the feed pellets.  While pollution is impossible to avoid entirely, these small steps can become huge in controlling the amount of pollution farmed fish are exposed to.

While inland and coastal waters remain a threat to farmed fish, these fish are endangering the natural fish stocks, as well.  Through farmed fish, parasites and disease are becoming a larger risk to natural fish culture for various reasons.  Sea lice are a dominant threat to both farmed fish and natural stocks due to the overcrowding within farms.  Furthermore, farmed fish feed is jeopardizing the lives of natural fish stocks by taking natural fish out of waters in order to provide for the farms.  All in all, both fish stocks are suffering primarily from the farms themselves.

Farmed fish are being infected with parasites and disease left and right.  After taking a look at all they are exposed to, it only makes sense.  Sea lice have been found in most fish farms and are not specific to salmon farms; however, The Pure Salmon Campaign (2010) claims that they are the most infectious parasite found in salmon farms.  Sea lice attach themselves onto fish and feed on their flesh.  They weaken the fish, making the fish unable to balance their salt-to-water ratio.  Unfortunately, sea lice are the cause of death for most farmed fish.  Likewise, this harmful parasite attacks natural fish, as well.  Because fish farms are located near natural fish routes, sea lice are easily able to escape the farm and attach themselves to small juvenile fish that have yet to develop scales to protect them.  They are then the cause of sea lice transportation into natural waters and are easily killed. Studies continue as researchers find the various types of sea lice found in farmed fish.  In a 2007 article, authors Saksida, Constantine, Karreman, and Donald write about a study taken place from 2003 to 2005 where two types of sea lice were found: Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus clemensi.  These reports continue to concern researchers in finding ways to cure this problem.

In addition to sea lice, farmed fish are also the result of other diseases spread to natural fish stocks.  The most prominent cause of these diseases is the overcrowding taking place in farms.  Thousands of fish are trapped in small areas to grow and live for years.  As the fish grow larger, the space for them to swim and survive becomes tighter.  Their individual space is limited, causing stress and aggression in the fish.  Compassion in World Farming (2011) states that, “overcrowded fish are more susceptible to disease […] and physical injuries such as fin damage.”  Their bodies rub against each other as they struggle to move and weakness arises which creates opportunity for disease to step in.  Grescoe (2009) writes in his periodical about a salmon anemia outbreak in Chilean fish farms caused by overcrowding.  In addition, reducing the quality of the water decreases their oxygen and the fish begin to fight for survival.

Despite sea lice, this is not the only issue natural fish stocks face.  Unfortunately, natural fish are easily snatched from their waters and become feed for the farms.  Emerson (1999) explains, “fish meal and fish oils from natural stocks are the primary components of artificial compounded feed.”  Unfortunately, this means that natural fish are being pulled from their waters to feed hungry farmed fish.  Commercial fishermen catch thousands of unwanted fish in their nets called bycatch.  Bycatch has become a large controversy among sport fishermen as they argue what is done with these extra fish.  They are unable to be returned to their waters so a decision must be made.  Fish meal for fish farms comes from bycatch, meaning that farmed fish consume their own kind.  In the end, this results in a loss of protein, unhealthy to consumers.  The fight for artificial feed continues as natural fish struggle to remain in its waters.

Farmed fish are endangering themselves, as well as natural fish stocks.  Nevertheless, the main concern is the danger to its consumers: the human race.  In the lifespan of one farmed fish, it is exposed to so many deadly toxins, chemicals, parasites, and diseases.  Consumers remain concerned as to what these effects may have on them.  Some studies claim that farmed fish cause cancer while others promote antibiotics and vaccines.  When it all boils down to it, consumers are scared of the health hazards farmed fish may present.

As mentioned earlier, many toxins and chemicals are pumped into farmed fish.  Color-enhancing chemicals are only one of the many chemicals farmed fish ingest.  These chemicals are packed within the feed pellets provided to the fish in order to boost their coloring, making them more appealing to buy when put in the market.  Due to disease and weakness caused by the farming, fish would look grey and unpleasant to the eye if not for these chemicals.  In a way, these chemicals are used to hide the evidence of the actual health in farmed fish.  In addition to color-enhancing chemicals, antibiotics surround farmed fish.  Like those chemicals, antibiotics can also be found in feed pellets, used to control the spread of parasites and diseases.  Sadly, this does not always work.  The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform claimed, “escaped fish caught in a Broughton Archipelago stream carried bacteria known to cause a range of human maladies that were resistant to 10 different antibiotics” (as cited in Georgia, 2011).  Because these fish are resistant to antibiotics, they continue to carry disease and parasite outside the farm and onto the plate of its consumer.

The effects of chemicals and antibiotics injected into farmed fish have claimed to be harmful to the human race.  The Georgia Strait Alliance (2011) discusses the threat of PCBs being “cancer-causing chemicals.”  In addition, higher levels of soy in feed pellets for farmed fish have been reported dangerous, a cause of heart disease in humans.  Antibiotics in fish have shown negative effects, as well.  While fish may be resistant these antibiotics, humans have also been seen to resist antibiotics.  Sorum observed furunculosis, or boils, in a 1999 study and reported, “36% of furunculosis bacteria were resistant against one or more antibiotics” (as cited in Bellona, 2009).  Bellona (2009) states that this turn off to antibiotics will grow to “create new problems for human health.”

Fish farming will never come to complete halt; many rely on it for their source of fish.  On the downside, fish farming will continue to harm the environment and the people living within it.  Its pollution of inland and coastal waters caused by overfeeding and eutrophication, its impact on the natural fish stocks through parasites and fish meal, and the health hazards it creates for humans such as diseases and antibiotic resistance are only a few of the dangers it can generate.  It is important that people recognize these threats and do all they can to decrease the risk that is upon them.  Fish farming is a growing industry and people need to be warned.

References

Bellona. (2009). Antibacterial agents in farm fishing. Retrieved from http://www.bellona.org/aquaculture/artikler/Antibiotics

Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, The. (2011). Sea lice. Retrieved from http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/environmental-impacts/sea-lice/

Compassion in World Farming. (2011). Welfare issues for farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/fish/welfare_issues.aspx

Emerson, C. (1999). Aquaculture impacts on the environment. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/

Findlay, D. L., Podemski, C. L., & Kasian, S. M. (2009). Aquaculture impacts on the algal and bacterial communities in a small boreal forest lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 66(11), 1936-1948. doi:10.1139/F09-121

Fish Site, The. (2010). Impacts of fish farming on marine ecosystems. Retrieved from http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/858/impacts-of-fish-farming-on-marine-ecosystems

Frazer, L. (2009). Sea-cage aquaculture, sea lice, and declines of wild fish. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 599-607. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01128.x

Georgia Strait Alliance. (2011). Impacts and issues: Threats to human health. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/442

Grescoe, T. (2009). THE TROUBLE WITH SALMON. Best Life, 6(4), 90. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Mansfield, B. (2011). Is fish health food or poison? Farmed fish and the material production of un/healthy nature. Antipode, 43(2), 413-434. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Organic Guide. (2010). Conventionally farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.organicguide.com/organic/food/conventionally-farmed-fish/

Pure Salmon Campaign. (2010). Disease and parasites in farmed salmon. Retrieved from http://www.puresalmon.org/diseases_parasites.html

Remick, Page. (2007). Seven reasons to avoid farm raised salmon. Retrieved from http://www.purezing.com/living/food_articles/living_articles_7salmon.htm

Sabaut, J. (2002). Feeding farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.feap.info/production/feeds/sabautcipa_en.asp

Saksida, S., Constantine, J., Karreman, G. A., & Donald, A. (2007). Evaluation of sea lice abundance levels on farmed Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar L.) located in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia from 2003 to 2005. Aquaculture Research, 38(3), 219-231. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01651.x

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A. R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., & Lawrence, R. (2008). Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities. Environment International, 34(8), 1215-1226. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.