Essay 1 Revision

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast, it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries, this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello (2009) called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy,” the world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article (2008) called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe,” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However, this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. When fish enter the turbine system the outcome is nearly always fatal for the fish (Carr 2012, Ferguson 2011, Keefer 2010). The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed then only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed then more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the world’s 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There are also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. A dam in the Nile River drainage displaced nearly 50,000 residents (Bosshard 2009). Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded, and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter (Demarty 2011). As these bacteria live, they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria, called anaerobic bacteria, do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter, they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net and water filter. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore, dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind (Roland 2010). However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network (2012) called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams,” as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankind’s warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network (2012) report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network (2012), hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally-friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal.” (International River Network 2012)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment (Grahm-Rowe 2005, Marriot 2010, Mourad 2011) around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. Continuious flooding of a seasonally flooded region upsets breeding, spawning, and migratory schedules of numerous species of aquatic wetland indigenous creatures. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding (Lopez-Pujol and Ming-Xun 2009). Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source (Welch 2008). The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash into the water system. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. Every method of electrical generation has downsides. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Every person can lead by example and cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Turning off lights after leaving a room, unplugging unused electrical appliances when not in use because many appliances contain clocks which are continuously drawing current. It is cutting down on the small uses of electricity that can add up to save large volumes of power. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

References

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/>.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W et al, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe et al, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, et al, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio et al, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Welch, David W. et al, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Research Part 5 Final Draft: The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast, it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries, this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello (2009) called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy,” the world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article (2008) called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe,” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However, this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. When fish enter the turbine system the outcome is nearly always fatal for the fish (Carr 2012, Ferguson 2011, Keefer 2010). The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed then only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed then more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the world’s 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There are also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. A dam in the Nile River drainage displaced nearly 50,000 residents (Bosshard 2009). Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded, and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter (Demarty 2011). As these bacteria live, they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria, called anaerobic bacteria, do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter, they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net and water filter. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore, dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind (Roland 2010). However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network (2012) called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams,” as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankind’s warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network (2012) report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network (2012), hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally-friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal.” (International River Network 2012)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment (Grahm-Rowe 2005, Marriot 2010, Mourad 2011) around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. Continuious flooding of a seasonally flooded region upsets breeding, spawning, and migratory schedules of numerous species of aquatic wetland indigenous creatures. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding (Lopez-Pujol and Ming-Xun 2009). Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source (Welch 2008). The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash into the water system. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. Every method of electrical generation has downsides. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Every person can lead by example and cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Turning off lights after leaving a room, unplugging unused electrical appliances when not in use because many appliances contain clocks which are continuously drawing current. It is cutting down on the small uses of electricity that can add up to save large volumes of power. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

References

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/&gt;.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W et al, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe et al, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, et al, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio et al, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Welch, David W. et al, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Responses #11-15

3 Articles

Article 1

1) Who is the audience?

This article, “How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals,” by Tom Philpott, is directed towards the general public and convincing them of the issues of releasing antibiotics into the environment. Most people are not aware of the issues associated with bulk food-animal farms.

2) What is the main point of the article?

This article is focused on alerting the general public to the issue of releasing antibiotics into the environment and the effect it has on oceanic mammals.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is effective because it does not drown the reader in a pool of facts and graphs. This article provides just enough information to entice the reader to learn more and study further.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

If people are not aware of this issue then no one will ever attempt to stop this. There are very dangerous and very real hazards to humans that can arise from this issue. The pandemic outbreak of antibiotic-resistant diseases is a very real possibility.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are not really any counterarguments. The meat farms simply deny the fact that there are any effects. They claim that there are no definite studies to back up the idea that there are hazards to dumping antibiotics into the waterways.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would delve deeper into information regarding the deaths of the sea life, including mammals, fish and invertebrates. On top of that I would research the amount of antibiotics and other chemicals dumped into the waterways and their effects on the wildlife.

Article 2

1) Who is the audience?

A Popular Science article called “Fast Food,” discusses the 2009 completion of a vegetable-based Formula One racecar. This article is directed towards the average person that reads average magazines. It is not directed towards scientists or environmentalists. It is simply directed towards the average reader.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to alert the average person to the new developments in green engineering. It alerts the average person to the new technology available to allow consumers to be green conscious.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

It is an effective article that shows the new technology for green engineering. It is not preachy and does not drown the reader in volumes of facts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications are huge. New green vehicle technology can revolutionize the automotive industry and overnight create a competitive market that can produce high quality vehicles that are less harmful to the environment.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are no counterarguments addressed. However, I do foresee difficulties in promoting this technology to aircraft manufacturers and the military.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would be curious what technologies have been developed. I would also be interested in the cost of manufacturing this technology for the average household vehicle.

Article 3

1) Who is the audience?

In the May 2009 issue of The Environmental Magazine, there is an article called “Eating Mercury.” This article is directed to the more healthy-eating population. This article is more likely to be overlooked by the average person.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to provide the reader with information regarding the consumption of Mercury that is found in corn syrup.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is a little dull to read, however, it is an interesting topic. The whole idea of corn syrup being the evil anti-Christ of society is rather overdone. However, Mercury being the culprit in corn syrup is a new take one it.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications from consuming Mercury are hazardous. Mercury consumption can affect nervous systems, fetal development and other developmental processes.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

No one argues that the consumption of Mercury is dangerous. However, recent studies have shown that the human body does no differentiate between the consumption of sugar cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. The body simply understands sugar.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would like to further understand the contamination of corn syrup by Mercury from factory processes. I would like to know exactly how much contamination there has been.

1        Website

1) Who is the audience?

This National Geographic Society website is directed towards the average person. It provides simple methods any person can follow to save electricity, insulate your house and other small scale green ideas that make an impact on a large scale.

2) What is the main point of the website?

The point of the website is to provide environmentally sound ideas for the average person to follow. National Geographic is a trusted website that everyone knows about and has heard of. This website is a good method of conveying green ideas to the general public.

3) How is or isn’t the website effective?

This website is effective because it is not directed to the intense environmentalist. Not everyone wishes to go to a dedicated environmental website. However, by having this important information available to the common person on a well-known and trusted website, it is possible to draw in a new crowd of people that are environmentally conscious and at the same time not eco-nuts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

This is an environmentally beneficial method of getting green ideas out to the general public. Aside from National Geographic being a trusted website, there is no pollution from websites. There are no advertisement handouts or flyers to get blown off of telephone poles or news boards. There are zero negative impacts from websites.

5) How does this website propose to fill a niche?

There are plenty of dedicated environmental websites that focus on the eco-junkie and radical environmentalist. However, this website is focused on National Geographic, but it provides a stable and trusted medium to convey this information to the general public.

6) What are the pros and cons that you can see of this purpose?

It promotes environmentally safe practices and methods of going green in the society of today.

 

 

1 Video

The movie Food Inc. discusses the issues with commercially produced foods. The movie covers topics such as bulk produced corn that finds its ways into the food sources of cattle. Since cattle are not genetically designed to consume corn this creates issues such as producing E.coli. The movie also discusses the use of corn in nearly every food product in today’s market. It then covers the problems with genetically modified seeds such as corn and soy.

On top of making the viewer afraid to eat almost everything in today’s world, the movie covers the abusive methods corporations treat the company employees as well as the abuse the animals suffer throughout their lives prior to slaughter. It discusses how animals are genetically modified to produce larger breasts or grow from a newly hatched chick to a fully adult chicken in only 49 days rather than 60 days. It is from these genetically modified animals that a majority of our meat products come.

Finally the movie discusses methods that the average consumer can follow in order to purchase organic foods. It also discusses ways which people can insist on only purchasing and eating organic foods, and once the demand for organic is high enough then corporations will begin to require organics be produced. The power lies with money. Once organic products become the money maker then corporations will begin to produce organic products.

The movie is extremely informative and is very easy to watch. It is produced in an entertaining fashion as to keep the viewer entertained without drowning them in tons of facts. The movie is designed to be watched by the average person and be understood by the average person. Overall it is a very entertaining and terrifying movie.

 

 

 

Works Cited

The Green Guide. National Geographic Magazine. 23 April 2012. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/

 

Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Participant Media. 2008.

 

Philpott, Tom. “Factory Farms Are Killing Seals.” Mother Jones.24 February 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/how-factory-farms-are-killing-seals

Gross, Alexandra. “Eating Mercury.” The Environmental Magazine.  1 May 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=97ed8678-525d-4320-8878-4ab83e085e45%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=8

 

Rdsenwald, Mike. “Fast Food.” Popular Science. 1 August 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9c69530-7b33-4898-a6e2-d93e71d453af%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=8

Essay 3 Proposal- Genetically Modified Vegetables: Deadly Veggies

Imagine a world void of everything you know. Where beans, peas, corn and tomatoes once grew only mutant, invincible weeds now grow. Grocery store shelves that once help tortillas, chips, and vegetable soups are now barren. The store’s vegetable section is in a similar state. There is no more popcorn, cereal, soy sauce, potato chips, or pizza. Around the planet, millions of people that relied upon the staple crops of corn, rice and potatoes are starving or dead. Famine has struck the world. Those that continue to consume vegetables suffer from debilitating cancers and paralysis. Imagine a world without vegetables. In the decades preceding this apocalyptic scenario mankind had dabbled in genetics. Following simple processes, scientists had spliced vegetable genes with bacteria, viruses and the genes of other vegetables. The science progressed so fast; scientists focused on whether or not they could accomplish a task and whether or not they should accomplish a task. There had been no accountability for what they were doing. This is the path science has pushed us down. Although genetically modified (GM) crops can provide millions of people with food, local farmers should insist on only purchasing organic seeds for their crops because GM crops can cultivate herbicide resistant weeds, can cause fatal reactions, disabilities and paralysis in susceptible consumers, and can contain high levels of synthetic estrogen which has been linked to causing cancer.

Geneticists began tampering with vegetables back in the 1990s with a single task in mind. Their task was to create a vegetable that was resistant to the common household herbicide, Round Up. Scientists with a company called Monsanto succeeded in altering soy beans to resist this common herbicide (Frewer et al, 2004). This began a biological engineering gold rush. Companies produced GM crops that produce extremely high yield, resilient crops, vegetables that remain edible for months after harvest, and other GM products. Companies such as Monsanto battled each other in a space-race to create, patent and sell the next big-ticket genetically modified vegetable. The reason behind creating vegetable crops designed to withstand a batch of herbicide is simple: fly overhead and spray herbicide over the crops. The weeds all die and the vegetables live on. It is a simple idea with very serious consequences. Over time the weeds develop resistances to the herbicides as well. As the weeds become tougher the farmers are forced to resort to stronger and more potent herbicides. So the initial idea was to make killing weeds easier and now farmers have to resort to extremely dangerous herbicides to kill weeds that were once susceptible to Round Up (Invigorate360, 2009). Now consumers are eating vegetables that have been drenched in poisons that require the farmers to wear head–to-toe protective equipment just to apply.

In addition to herbicide resistant weeds, humans can also suffer severe effects from consuming genetically engineered vegetables. Often vegetables are spliced with genes from other vegetables. Imagine consuming a tomato that has been spliced with nut genes. People that are allergic to nuts can have severe, if not fatal, reactions from eating a simple tomato. People in the Philippines have suffered adverse effects such as developing resistance to antibiotics meaning that human biology has been altered by the GM vegetables that they consume. During the 1990s, 1500 people were paralyzed, over 5000 people were temporarily paralyzed and 37 people died from a syndrome that was linked to genetically modified vegetables (safe-food.org, 2001).

Some GM crops contain Glyphosate, which is added to make vegetables resistant to weeds. This however increases the estrogen contained in the vegetable (Invigorate360.com, 2009). Once consumed, this estrogen can lead to elevated levels in humans which can cause developmental harm. Synthetic estrogen has been linked to numerous types of cancer.

Aside from the obvious hazards of genetically engineered vegetables, there are some hidden dangers as well. Scientists have engineered GM vegetables with a suicide gene. This is a method of forcing farmers to purchase seeds every year instead of harvesting seeds from their own crops and reusing them next season. The way this suicide gene works is it makes the 2^nd generation seeds sterile efficiently killing off the crop after one season. Imagine what happens if this crop breeds with organic and wild crops of vegetables. If GM corn, for example, breeds with unaltered crops and this suicide gene is passed on, the world could see the extinction of corn. This is possible with any crop that is engineered with this suicide gene (globalhealingcenter.com, 2012). There are other issues as well. GM crops all share identical genetic blueprints. This means that should a virus, bacteria or fungus attack the crop it could wipe out the entire crop. There is no genetic diversity to ensure the survival of at least a portion of the crop.

There are vast amounts of money to be made from genetically modifying vegetables. This poses numerous problems when one decides to stop or even limit the modification of foods. Any action taken on a large scale such as lobbying senators or writing petitions to politicians would be met with armies of lawyers, add campaigns, and GM-owned experts claiming all these dangers are exaggerated and untrue. Therefore, stopping GM crops has to be done on a small scale.

Fortunately this is not only more effective, but it is also infinitely easier to facilitate. Every farmer from the largest bulk producer to the backyard veggie gardener can participate. Very little effort is required. In fact the only thing needed is for the grower to insist on only buying organic seeds. Home gardeners can purchase unaltered organic seeds locally and grow healthy vegetables in their own backyard. When purchasing vegetables in markets, consumers can insist that they only purchase organic vegetables. This ensures the consumer is not getting vegetables that could potentially harm their families. This simple action creates a situation where it does not pay to genetically enhance vegetables. It will soon pay to produce organic instead of modified. Often foods purchased at the supermarket are produced from or are fed GM crops. Consumers can insist on purchasing organic meat and organic products such as popcorn, and ice cream. Consumers can also insist on purchasing hempseed oil and olive oil instead of canola oil or vegetable oil which often contain GM products. Consumers can shut down the production of genetically modified vegetable products by simply going organic. Insist on organic seeds, plant organic vegetable gardens, use organic products and eat organically raised meat products. Edmund Burke once claimed that “The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” Nothing can by more true in the world of GM crops. All the dangers of GM crops can be stopped by people simply insisting or organic products. There is no voting, or petitioning, or lobbying, or relying on politicians to make the genetically modified crops vanish. Every person must make a personal decision to purchase organic products.

References

Group III, Dr. Edward F. “Genetically Modified Foods”, Global Healing Center. http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/nutrition/genetically-modified-foods

Invigorate360. “Top 10 Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods”, Invigorate360. http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food/

L. Frewer, et al, “Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, no. 42 (2004). http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Frewer-Societal-Aspects-2004.pdf

Mothers for Natures Law. “What are the Dangers”. http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/dangers.html

Reseach Project Part 4: Rough Draft #2

The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast, it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries, this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello (2009) called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy,” the world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article (2008) called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe,” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However, this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. When fish enter the turbine system the outcome is nearly always fatal for the fish (Carr 2012, Ferguson 2011, Keefer 2010). The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed then only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed then more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the world’s 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There are also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. A dam in the Nile River drainage displaced nearly 50,000 residents (Bosshard 2009). Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded, and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter (Demarty 2011). As these bacteria live, they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria, called anaerobic bacteria, do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter, they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore, dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind (Roland 2010). However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network (2012) called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams,” as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankind’s warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network (2012) report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network (2012), hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally-friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal.” (International River Network 2012)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment (Grahm-Rowe 2005, Marriot 2010, Mourad 2011) around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding (Lopez-Pujol and Ming-Xun 2009). Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source (Welch 2008). The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash into the water system. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

References

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/&gt;.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W et al, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe et al, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, et al, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio et al, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Welch, David W. et al, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Myles Jellison: Research Draft 1 Workshop

1. What does the author do particularly well? Be specific.

The article is easy to read. Not filled with super complicated text.

2. Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

Was there a particular component of this essay that you had issues putting together?

Thesis

3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis?

Yes.

4. Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support). Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph?

Yes on both.

Content

5. How many words is the draft, not including References?

Essay is 587 words, not including the references.

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest!

I would give the paper a 6. But I would also give the topic a 9. I was really interested in the compressed air storage system, and would be interested in other forms of green storage systems. If additional information or descriptions about those systems and how that technology works was included it would make this paper more interesting.

7. Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader?

Describing the current storage methods and comparing them a little more in depth to greener and more efficient methods in detail would be good.

8. What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise?

Obtaining money to reconstruct the national power grid; where does this money come from? Are small power providers going to go bankrupt attempting to convert? Is the technology available today to completely transition to the smart grid?

9. Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them.

The topic of expenses is somewhat addressed. However, aside from large initial expenses where is this money coming from? Is it going to come from an already beleaguered national budget-government payout? Or is it going to be fronted by consumers? Or is the company going to foot the bill and extend the costs to the consumers later? The technology aspect could be addressed if the author decides to include current transmission and storage methods/ alternative methods and the in depth explanations of how they work.

10. Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

Its clear.

11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

I found the transitions jumpy. Also I found the paper just ended without a real summary.

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title?

Like I said above this topic is interesting. I like how the author noted that most energy topics delve into the realm of sources of energy rather than making efficient methods of storing and transferring what energy we already have. I liked how noting that in the first paragraph lets the reader know that this isn’t going to be another run of the mill green energy paper. Some facts about the amount of lost energy would be very interesting and grabbing. Example: 60% of energy sent through current transmission lines is lost. Something similar to that-I made that fact up, but you get the idea. Facts to tell the reader that our current methods are indeed inefficient would be helpful.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restates the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C).

I thought the paper just ended. I didn’t feel any real wrap up or summary-it just ended.

Research

14. Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from Ebsco Host or another database).

18 Sources

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

Author used several different sources.

16. Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting?

Sometimes.

17. Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not).

Direct quotes were quoted. However I do not believe every source was used.

18. Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report.

I thought it could have used more facts, and some more statistics.

19. Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines?

No.

20. Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays.

Quotations were fine, and in good locations to back up his paraphrasing.

21. Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was. 

There were comments afterwards however the paper didn’t have enough information. Needs more overall explanations about the topic, with more facts etc.

Other? 

Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy?

I liked the topic and I am super interested in the storage and transmission methods. I think explaining the inefficiency of the old and efficiency of the new, and to some extent (basic ideas) how the technology works would be awesome.

Research Project Rough Draft 1: The Dark Side to Hydroelectric Dams

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy?” The world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed than only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed than more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the worlds 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There is also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter. As these bacteria live they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria called anaerobic bacteria do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind. However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams”, as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankinds warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network, hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal. Philip Fearnside, of Brazilian government research institute INPA, estimates that in 1990 the warming impact of hydropower dams in the Amazon was equal to that of between 3 and 54 natural gas plants generating the same amount of energy. Although hydroelectric dams provide millions of people cheap electricity they have their own dangerous effects on global warming.” (International River Network)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding. Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source. The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities, that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

Works Cited

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy?” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/&gt;.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W and others, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe and others, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, and others, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio and others, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Sovacool, Benjamin K. and L. C. Bulan “Behind an Ambitious Megaproject in Asia: The History and Implications of the Bukan Hydroelectric Dam in Borneo,” Energy Policy 39, no 9 (2011) 4842-4859. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=26&hid=14

 

Welch, David W. and others, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large

Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Essay 2 Book Review- Song for the Blue Ocean

The sun rises as a lone plane banks into a tight turn over the cold waters off the Northeast Coast of the United States. The plane is circling to observe a school of tuna. Tuna, which once roamed nearly every submarine shelf and drop-off and toured the choppy waters in shoals numbering in the thousands, are now elusive with their miniscule schools quick to dart to the safety of the depths. Thousands of miles to the west, salmon struggle up warming and polluted rivers. They struggle to summit dams and evade fishermen’s nets in their instinctual drive to spawn upstream in their disappearing ancestral spawning grounds. Further westward, deep in tropical archipelagos of the South Pacific innumerable species of fish struggle to survive as the water and their habitat are poisoned and the coral metropolis’ they rely upon disappear. These are the pathways followed in this book. Although the fish of the oceans were once thought to be an unlimited resource, Carl Safina’s book Song for the Blue Ocean shows that this resource has reached its limit and is in danger of being lost forever because of improper fishery management techniques, environmentally dangerous harvesting methods, and poor watershed protection habits. Safina’s book is a three part book that, though entertaining, depicts the dark and foreboding future of the oceans of planet Earth.

The first part of this book takes a look at the dark waters off the coast of the Northeast United States and the shrinking tuna fisheries struggling to survive in a growing tuna economy. In this portion the book the reader journeys over the Gulf of Maine in a plane with a pilot whose job it is to spot tuna shoals and report their locations to fishing boats below. Safina travels with and discusses the tuna fishing techniques, fishing technologies and future of the tuna fisheries with the men whose life depends on harvesting these fish. Safina also discusses the impact of foreign fishing fleets on the local fish populations:

Then the Russian fleet came in. And the Poles, the Bulgarians, the East Germans, the West Germans-. They caught three hundred and forty thousand tons of mackerel here in one season-that figures to over half a billion fish! Pretty soon the mackerel gave out (Safina 71).

Safina writes in a manner that deliver’s factual and vital information to the reader like a grandfather telling his grandchild a story. Listening to this story can take the reader on a journey from the deck of a tuna fishing boat across the world to Japan where finely harvested tuna meat is considered a delicacy rather than something to be found in a can in your local grocery store. The reader can follow the journey of the harvested tuna from the Gulf of Maine to Japan:

The 117-pound giant was to be reduced to 2,400 servings of sushi, which, because of the exceptional quality of this individual fish, would be served to elite businessmen and government officials for $75 per serving, bringing in, altogether, and estimated $180,000. One fish (Safina 14).

In the second part of this book Safina travels to the Pacific Northwest where he discusses the declining populations of salmon. Safina discusses how nearly every part of the Pacific Northwest economy from logging to farming has some effect on the dwindling salmon populations. He discusses how once salmon populations are killed on from a particular river and it’s unique ecosystem because of dams for example, they are gone for good:

With Grand Coulee, we lost the populations adapted to breeding in forested uplands. With Hell’s Canyon we lost fish adapted to an arid ecosystem. Those two groups were very different…, when we lose fish that were genetically adapted to specific conditions on specific rivers-as is happening up and down the coast-we may not be able to reestablish runs with hatcheries in those rivers even if we try (Safina 215-216).

Safina also discusses the possible actions that could be taken to prevent the total extinction of salmon and other fish. Safina delivers information to strengthen the idea of placing certain species of fish currently exploited or mismanaged onto the endangered species act. The book looks at political, social and the economic aspects of these fisheries and the substantial impact the loss of these fisheries would wreak on the environment and humans alike.

In the third and final section of this book Safina travels to the tropical archipelagos of the South Pacific. Here he interacts with harvesters and protectors and dives deep into the threats to the coral reefs and their dependent fisheries. Safina discusses overfishing as well as the process of fish collection using cyanide to stun the fish. He explores the coral reefs that are quickly suffocating beneath large scale algae blooms:

It coated the coral, killing it. New coral larvae had no place to settle recolonize. New fish coming in to gain a foothold found no sanctuary, either; the fish traps were relentless. The reefs went from coral-and-invertebrate-dominated systems abundant in fishes to algal-dominated, fish poor systems (Safina 356).

This book is a wonderful read. Although the book is filled to the bursting point with important facts and information it does not come across like a text book. This book is so mesmerizingly written it takes the reader directly to the exotic locations Safina has visited in his journeys. The book reads like a fictitious novel never-endingly pulling the reader to the next page. Safina’s methods of describing what his senses are seeing, hearing, feeling, and even tasting are so well done the reader ends a chapter feeling as though he just returned from the deck of a fishing trawler or has just surfaced from a dive at some Indo-Pacific island whose name is only known to its inhabitants. Safina delivers his messages of preservation in a manner that educates and alarms the reader to the plights of the ocean’s fisheries without coming across as preachy or panicky. The book is well researched and adequately outlines Safina’s feelings towards preservation while discussing the plight of those that rely on fishing as a means of survival. Overall the book is interesting and educational and deserves its place among the best of the best of books.

Works Cited

Safina, Carl. Song for the Blue Ocean. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 1998. Print.

Final Draft of Research: A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

We say something is as dead as a dodo. What is a dodo? It’s a kind of bird that has extinct. The same thing is happening to various birds around the world. Although birds we see may be abundant in amount, at the present they are jeopardized because of alien species and diseases, pollution and unlimited logging, and cats’ threat.

The species distribution around the world has been restricted by the vastitude of oceans and other natural barriers keeping species from invading other species’ environment for eons. However, activities conducted by human beings have circumvented these natural barriers, and, as a result, species are invading other species’ habitat, leading to major disasters. Alien invasions can lead to bad disturbance to forest ecosystems. It can even cause severe socioeconomic impacts.

As is told in Lebbin ‘s book, an invading organism does not always turn into a pest. Though people bear considerable worry over alien species, certain animals, such as the brown tail moth, never became a pest that generated severe impacts in USA.  Some pest’s impacts are overestimated. For example, the scleroderris pathogen that was discovered in the Northeastern U.S. led to impacts to local environment, but the pathogen never spread beyond the area due to climatic restriction.

Some of alien species lead to tremendous impacts on forest resources. The way they generate ecological and economic impacts are similar to that of native pests. Tree growth, mortality, and reproduction can be significantly affected by forest pests. Some alien pests can even impose long-term effects on forest ecosystems, which is spectacular. For example, the chestnut blight fungus has eliminated American chestnut that was a dominant species throughout the eastern U.S. The elimination has forever changed forest ecosystem in America.

As is told in Pimentel‘s article, the invading forest pests’ threat lies in their ability to die out endangered species or endangered ecosystems where endangered species live. We can take the balsam woolly adelgid for example. Feeding by this pest and interactions with atmospheric deposition has caused dying out of Fraser fir in the southern Appalacian Mountains. If the impacts go on, those firs will extinct finally. This kind of fir is favorite habitat for certain birds, especially when these birds are incubating babies. Great decrease of this kind of fir can contribute to the decrease of birth rate of bird babies.

Birds are threatened by diseases around the world. As is told in Di Mauro’s article, West Nile Virus has been closely connected to jays, crows, hawks and other birds. Bird flu is also a common bird disease that can be infected to human beings. It is also called avian influenza technically. Avian influenza is flu infection among birds. The mutation of the virus can start a deadly worldwide epidemic. As is told in Gurjar’s article, the first avian influenza virus emerged in Hongkong in 1997.  The virus has spread around the world till now. Hundreds of people have become sick with this virus, with 60 percent of which died. Diseases such as avian botulism, West Nile Virus and avian influenza that have been mentioned above can spread quickly and may put birds to death in a rather short period.

In the era of globalization, infectious disease thrives due to the movement of goods, labor, and transportation. Epidemics and the diseases started long ago, but they never transmitted as fast as today. As the global economy ties countries closer together, it becomes easier for diseases to spread over borders and cross vast oceans. Those alien virus may be more deadly than domestic ones, which can lead to elimination of local birds.

Pollution is common today, and we can see it all around us. We can find it in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Bird, as a major resident on the earth, is in crises due to pollution.

Many people prefer peaceful and quiet environment. In terms of this, birds are similar to human beings. Scientists have proved that noise do have effects on birds’ habits. When there is too much noise, birds’ ability to communicate will be significantly weakened. Birds that communicate at low frequencies always find that their voice are drowned out by noise, which can lead to behavior of disturbance.

Water birds are greatly affected by oil pollution that takes place due to oil spill. As is told in Al-Azab’s article, the oil covers the feathers of the birds and sticks feathers together. When the feathers are covered in oil, their original ability to provide waterproof for water birds are weakened. As a result, the water birds’ skin is exposed to sea water and oil that may jeopardize them. When the birds feel uncomfortable, they will try to clean their feathers, but they end up taking in oil and may die from that. Pesticides and heavy metals that are washed into water can also contribute to decrease in the amount of birds. Fishes take in toxic particles in water. Once they are eaten as food of the water birds, those toxins will accumulate in the birds’ body, which eventually poisons the birds to death.  What’s more, as is told in Al-Azab’s article, water pollutants can reduce oxygen rate in waters, and, as a result, the amount of fishes will decrease. Then the water birds hunting fishes will migrate to other areas, causing natural unbalance.

Due to industrialization, people are generating air with poor quality by emitting poisonous gas into the air. The air mixed with smog and noxious gases have a devastation effect on the bird population in industrial areas. Moreover, as is told in Bhaskar ‘s article, these pollutants have even lifted up to arctic region. Birds lived in arctic region can be greatly affected, especially those birds bearing high respiratory rates because high respiratory rates make them more susceptible to pollutants in the air and to airborne impurities.

As we all know, forests are birds’ favorite habitat to live. Birds can’t live without forests. It’s common sense. However, we human beings also need forests as resources for products like paper and furniture. In many areas around the world, due to the absence of watchdog, unlimited hagging activities happen. To make things worse, a protection afterwards to recover forests doesn’t get executed. People even cut down original trees to grow new species of trees that can produce more wood, but birds won’t live on the latter trees. As a result, birds lost their resource of food and their habitats, and a lot of them migrate to other areas, and a lot of them dies due to incompatibility with new environment.

Cats are also a factor playing an important role in birds amount decrease. Cats, as people’s favorite pets and excellent hunters, have been brought to every continent and island humans have set foot in and they survived in most cases. The first recorded domestic cat was in Egypt, 3,600 years ago. In the words of researcher William Reville, “Cats witness the prosperity of Egypt and then they reached Greece, from where they spread throughout the Roman Empire. They spread to the east about 2,000 years ago along trade routes. The Mayflower brought cats to the US and cats reached Australia with European explorers in the 1600s” (Reville). Despite our familiarity with cats, they were actually introduced species to many continents.

Cats have become pests to a good many countries on every continent, due to their survival skills and superior fertility. Cats are pests because they cause ecological disequilibrium through killing and diversion of resources from native species. Cats’ instincts of hunting are extremely strong. Unlike some endangered species, for example panda, cats’ strong curiosities enable them to learn fast and dependently. Owners may have noticed that their lovely baby cats are becoming a sufficient hunter only by following its hunter’s natural instincts. Cats are species that will still hunt even though we dote on them.

Cats kill whether or not they are feral or someone’s pet. It is undeniable that owned domestic cats kill large numbers of birds. The originator and coordinator of the “Cats Indoors!” campaign, Linda Winter, argues that at estimate, hundreds of millions of birds and more than a billion small mammals are killed by domestic cats each year in the US alone (Winter). Also, a questionnaire survey of the numbers of animals brought home by domestic cats Felis catus was conducted by a group of biological scientists of University of Bristol in Britain, which revealed that birds were a primary food resource for cats: “A total of 14,370 prey items were brought home by 986 cats living in 618 households. Mammals made up 69% of the items, birds 24%, amphibians 4%, reptiles 1%, fish<1%, invertebrates 1% and unidentified items 1%. A minimum of 44 species of wild bird, 20 species of wild mammal, four species of reptile and three species of amphibian were recorded” (Woods et al).

In the United States, there are over 66 million pet cats (Winter). Also, even in a country like Australia where cats are mainly pests, there were 2.6 million pet cats in 1.8 million houses households (26% of households in Australia) in 1998 (woods et al). What influence could domestic cats have on the native environment in such large population? Ornithologists had noticed the declining of bird population years ago. Lepczyk has also noted, “Since the mid-1960s, long-term data on breeding birds have indicated that many species are declining or fluctuating throughout the Midwest and Eastern United States” (Lepczyk et al 191). And a new study shows that one of humans’ specific behaviors that could negatively impact breeding birds is allowing domestic cats to go outside.Cats frequently kill birds and the combined impact of predation by millions of cats may have a substantial effect on the amount of birds.

Too many cat lovers mistakenly believe their animals are innocent bystanders in the slaughter, says Erin Luther of the Toronto Wildlife Centre (Kalinowski). And they probably don’t have much chance of noticing their own putty tat from going after the birds at the neighbour’s feeder either, says Erin Luther (Kalinowski). These bird feeders are placed in order to help native bird and migrating bird populations recover, but turned out to be a slaughter place. Cats just need to hide behind the feeders and wait, and what a trap! Domestic cats are savaging the North American songbird population, with some U.S estimates suggesting cats kill 1 billion birds a year (Kalinowski). We brought our pets to a place where they don’t deserve to be. We once promised that we will never abandon them, but cat owners are abandoning cats when they can’t afford to give them a warm home. In the US alone, hundreds of cats are being abandoned every day, nowadays (CCTV). We are in common with cats at the point of inconstancy in some degree. We still hope our pet cats can make a living by themselves and they have, but the costs are heavy. Cats can survive without our care and flourish their lineage due to their prolificacy. An owner may never think of what kind of problem could be caused by abandoning a cat, especially when it hasn’t been desexed. One female can breed 30 baby cats at most in one year. Only in 7 years her descendants will exceed 3 million (CCTV).

Measures must be taken before it’s too late. According to the discussion above, birds are jeopardized by us. Birds lose their habitats because of pollution and unlimited logging. We human beings are also generating global warming, which is another disaster for birds. Birds are adept to certain environment, but, at the present, we human beings are destroying it. We may not realize that because our negative effects on birds are not direct, but we actually significantly impact their life and jeopardize them due to the things we are doing. Cat is also a source of jeopardy. Cats are born predators. They may be killing birds when we thought they are wandering cozily outside. Cats like predating birds and they are of large amount, so it is quite reasonable that cats are great threat to birds. It’s time to limit our behavior and to make some change. Only by doing this can we save those lovely birds.

Works Cited

Al-Azab, M.; El-Shorbagy, W.; Al-Ghais, S. (2005). Oil Pollution and its Environmental Impact in the Arabian Gulf Region. Elsevier Science. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Behavior & Traning.: Spend the Day with a Behavior Counselor.” Cats magazine.  01 April.         2000: 18. ArticleFirst. OCLC. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Bhaskar, P. (2009). Air Pollution and Plant Biotechnology. Mangalam Publishers. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Blackburn, Tim M.; Lockwood, Julie L.; Cassey, Phillip (2009). Avian Invasions : The Ecology and Evolution of Exotic Birds. OUP Oxford. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Cat.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 1 Oct. 2009: 1-2. Academic Search Premier.     EBSCO.

Di Mauro, Filippo; Dees, Stephane; Lombardi, Marco J (2010). Catching the Flu from the United States : Synchronisation and Transmission Mechanisms to the Euro Area. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Gurjar, Bhola R. (2010). Air Pollution : Health and Environmental Impacts. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Keep Cats Inside — and Entertained.” USA Today. Aug 10.2009. Academic Search            Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Krautwald-Junghanns, Maria-Elisabeth; Pees, Michael; Reese, Sven; Tully, Thomas (2010). Diagnostic Imaging of Exotic Pets : Birds, Small Mammals, Reptiles. Schlutersche GmbH. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lebbin, Daniel J.; Parr, Michael J.; Fenwick, George H.; Franzen, Jonathan (2010). The American    Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lepczyk, Mertig, et al. “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.”           Biological Conservation 115.2 (2004):191.

Michael Calvera, Sandra Thomasa, Stuart Bradleya, Helen McCutcheonb. “Reducing the             Rate of Predation on Wildlife by Pet Cats: The efficacy and practicability of    collar-mounted pounceprotectors.” Biological            Conservation 137.3(2007):341-348.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.

Pimentel, David (2011). Biological Invasions : Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Reville, William. “Evidence Suggests It was Cats Who Chose Humans.” Irish Times 16 July.           2009. Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 20 Nov 2009.

Rock, Michael T. (2002). Pollution Control in East Asia : Lessons from Newly Industrializing Economies. RFF Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Sims Victoria, Karl L. Evans, Stuart E. Newson, Jamie A. Tratalos and Kevin J. Gaston

“Avian Assemblage Structure and Domestic Cat Densities in Urban Environments.”          Diversity & Distributions 14.2 (2008):387-399. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.          19 Nov. 2009.

“Speak to your cat: Never abandon.” CCTV: Podcast community Sep 3. 2008. Nov 20.2009.         (http://search.cctv.com/tv/tv.php?type=video&q=%E8%AF%B7%E5%AF%B9%E4%BD   %A0%E7%9A%84%E7%8C%AB%E8%AF%B4%E6%B0%B8%E4%B8%8D%E9%81        %97%E5%BC%83.)

Tess, Kalinowski. “Outside Kitties a Catastrophe for Birds.” Toronto Star. 24 Aug.2009.     Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Tameka Brockbank. “Importer Set for a Cat Fight to Claw; Back Compensation for Pet Ban”       Gold Coast Bulletin, 04. Aug. 2008. Print.

Winter, Linda “Cats indoors!.” Earth Island Journal 14.2 (1999): 25. Academic Search       Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Woods, Michael, Bobble. Mcdonald, and Stephen Harris “Predation of Wildlife by            Domestic Cats Felis Catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review 33.2 (2003): 174-188.    Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Research Final Draft: Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Ashliegh M. Ariss

English 213X

Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Choosing organic has its many benefits to local famers, the people that consume the food and the environment that it is grown in. Not only is the consumer supporting healthy eating but they are supporting a healthy earth. Eating organic foods used to be a way of life before science and conventional farming methods were introduced to mass produce larger quantities of goods to consumers. Preservatives were introduced as a method of keeping food fresher for a longer period of time. Preservatives change the structure of the food that is packaged for resale in order to get to consumers in groceries stores before spoiling and having longer shelf life. What some consumers fail to realize is that preservatives kill other living cells. 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. Industrialized farming methods cause a great deal of harm to the ecosystem and surrounding habitats. 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. Cassetty (2010) states that “organics are generally pricier than conventionally produced food” (p.51) and therefore, can become an increasing expense in a household budget for food items. The organic section in the grocery store is often smaller than the rest and costs consumers a considerable amount more to purchase then food with a sticker or label that states, organic (Crawford, 2010 p. 102). 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 additives aimed at increasing the shelf life of a product, whereas  non-organic foods often have extra ingredients aimed at helping the product last longer or appear more attractive to the consumer, (Barnard, 2010, p. 26). Zevnik (2009) states that “the basic requirements for organic labeling are avoidance of synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge, farmland that has been free of chemicals for a prescribed number of years; detailed written records; and periodic on-site inspections” (p. 45). Chappell (2008) states that “Strawberries are on the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” list of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that contain the most pesticide residues” (p.96). 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 (Masjedi, 2003, p. 149). 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 (Moore-Thorpe, 2009, p.147). Long term health concerns for the use of preservatives also include respiratory problems, anaphylactic allergic reactions, cancer, and noted birth defects (Palmer, 2010, p. 2). 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 the food industry 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 (Crinnion, 2010, p. 6).  Dangour (2010) states that “certified organic farmers produce foods according to a strict set of specified standards, which control the use of chemicals in crop production and medicines in animal production, and are required to pay particular attention to the impact of their farming practices on the wider environment” (p. 1). 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.  “Price Perspective” (2010) states that “ the non-profit organization Environmental Working Group published its “Dirty Dozen” list o the conventional produce mostly highly contaminated with pesticides: celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale/collard greens, potatoes, grapes (imported)” (p. 3). Pesticides can cause water pollution and other contamination of soil and vegetation. Rich (2008) states that “chemical pesticides dampens the mobilization of a plant’s own defenses” (p. 27). 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 (Williamson, 2007, p. 104).

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. Spedding (2006) states that “‘organic’ is better nutritionally and that their production methods are better for ‘the environment’ and especially wildlife” (p. 187). 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. Conner (2003) states that “the NOP requires organic producers to maintain buffer zones of sufficient size or other features (e.g., windbreak or diversion ditch) to prevent contamination of their fields (p. 5). These methods seem not only difficult to maintain but also almost impossible to enforce. 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 (Spedding, 2006, p. 189). 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. Soil erosion can be life threatening to the habitats that live within that ecosystem and can also be irreversible. Once some ecosystems are gone, they can never be recovered. Nor, do they realize that the growing conditions often have a negative effect on their food and create fewer nutrients for consumption. Soil is the safety net for many different ecosystems. When the soil has been polluted by pesticides it causes friction for those life forms and their inhabitants (Castelo-Grande, 2010, p. 439). The chemicals from the pesticides causes an ecosystem or habitat that other life forms are unable to survive in and therefore ends up killing everything except for that crop or vegetation.

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. For instance, some vegetables and other crops are able to be grown in a green house which absorbs energy from the sun. Whereas, other conventional farming methods grow their crops by using non-renewable electrical energy to boost their grow rates and rapid marketing. 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. Natural compost contains more vitamins and minerals which then are able to provide it to the vegetation and the land without compromising other habitats. Due to the fact you are using existing nutrients from the soil rather than an artificial influx brought on by pesticides and preservatives. 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 great dust bowl of the 1930’s is a perfect example of what can happen to top soil that is harvested carelessly. 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. For instance, 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 (Scollan, 2006, p. 43).

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 for people and surrounding ecosystems. Factory farming contains a large amount of preservatives and chemical pesticides. These chemicals kill living organisms, are toxic to the land, the ecosystems, plants, wildlife, the soil, and the water table. Pesticides are not a chemical that only affects the plant or organism that has been sprayed. It affects the entire ecosystem and cannot be washed away after harvesting that plant for the season.  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. Pleasant (2010) states “systemic pesticides are in the plant not on it When we make the plant itself poisonous to predators, one has to wonder what (or who) else it’s poisoning” (p. 16). Before consumers go to their local market and purchase goods that do not state organic, they should stop to think what their wallet is really paying for and who pays for it.

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.

Castelo-Grande, T., Augusto, P. A., Monteiro, P., Estevez, A. M., & Barbosa, D. (2010). Remediation of soils contaminated with pesticides: a review. International Journal Of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 90(3-6), 438-467. doi:10.1080/03067310903374152. 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.

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

Masjedi, K. K., Ahlborg, N. N., Gruvberger, B. B., Bruze, M. M., & Karlberg, A. T. (2003). Contact Dermatitis and Allergy Methylisothiazolinones elicit increased production of both T helper (Th)1- and Th2-like cytokines by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from contact allergic individuals. British Journal Of Dermatology, 149(6), 1172-1182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2003.05750.x. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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.

Pesticides and Genetic Drift: Alternative Property Rights Scenarios. (2003). Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues, 18(1), 5-7. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pleasant, B. (2010). Systematic Pesticides: Chemicals You Can’t Wash Off. Mother Earth News, (242), 16-18. 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.

Scollan, D. (2006). Beyond Organic. E: The Environmental Magazine, 17(1), 42-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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

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