Research Final Draft – Pure Power: Clean power needs clean delivery

While new sources of energy are often the focus of environmental discussions, little thought is given to the logistical infrastructure that is needed and how improving this system will bring about benefits just as much as a new power source. Some of the new challenges caused by alternative energy sources such as solar power that only produce power in daylight, can also be overcome with improved infrastructure for power grids. The electric grid of today is outdated and in desperate need of an upgrade (FitzPatrick, 2012). Old grids of simple wires and transformers designed to move power short distances will not be able to keep up with alternative energy sources. Storage needs to be a part of any truly efficient electrical network; today’s electrical supply has no storage. If companies and consumers can handle the upfront costs of rebuilding the grid; all parties will benefit greatly in the long run. Although new alternative sources of energy need to be found for the United States, the infrastructure that will handle and use that power must be upgraded as well because of old power grids, little storage capacity and economic benefit for all.

The electrical infrastructure today is a massive technical marvel of immense proportions. The problem of controlling the massive amount of power and complexity of “the grid” falls to groups called Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). These organizations are the current system of large scale movement of energy between companies. RTOs are nonprofit organizations that are responsible for connecting the individual networks of utility companies (Greenfield, 2011). These RTOs allow for electricity to be moved to where it is needed. When it is needed, this committee is finite and can only act on the limited information available today. The current power system doesn’t inform the supplier where the power is going. The only way to receive minimal information is by using smaller grids that don’t allow for long distance power transmission. So how can this information be gathered and how can it be used? What needs to happen is the grid needs to “smarten” up. A two-way system of electricity and data returns equals better usage of our resources. The so called “smart” grid adds a new dimension to the traditional one way system currently in place. Instead of blindly pumping power through the transmission lines and not knowing the use or waste of that power, the smart grid can inform the producers of who needs power and how much (Bushby, 2011). By using constant monitoring technology power companies can know what every user is using instantly. This allows for a computerized grid to react in real time. Power can be directed to where it would be most effective, and surpluses and shortages can be corrected. This will give RTOs a better chance of making good decisions regarding power production. Another possible solution is called “A day-ahead energy market simulation framework.” This network uses past data and future predictions to tell how much energy should be produced by a power plant (Palma-Behnke, 2012). These predictions will become more important as smaller, more decentralized generators come online. If everyone puts a solar panel on their roof, suddenly there is a varying amount of power being put in the grid that the power company can’t control. Knowing what will happen a day in advance will allow power companies to maximize profits and minimize waste. Besides prediction, a Smart grid allows for instantaneous transfers of power across states and countries. If the wind picks up in Utah and the grid realizes that there is a surplus, it can send that power to Oregon, where the solar plants are under cloud cover. This shuffling of resources saves a coal plant in Oregon from turning on to cover and saves the wind companies from losing money on power plants with no customers.

The solar radiation power plants and wind power plants offer great sources of renewable energy but the sun is not always shining when it is needed and the wind doesn’t blow consistently. The addition of storage to a wind or solar system can also make these technologies competitive with conventional technologies. The ability to control when power is produced greatly affects the ability to make profit (Sioshansi, 2011). For example, if a solar plant has no storage, it pours energy out during the middle of the day when energy is cheap and this makes the price fall more. When the sun goes down, people go home and start using power but the solar plant has no supply to meet the demand. By adding storage, plant managers can release power when it will create the most profit, making this alternative source more desirable for the capitalist market. There are many new options to store energy besides just hooking a lot of AAs together. While standard batteries are a good option, they break down, are inefficient, and are expensive. Some simple materials can be used in unusual ways.  Systems that use compressed air can be used exclusively for storage or for storage as well as production. A plain tank of compressed air has energy that can be put through a turbine and converted to electricity. Air that is compressed by the waves of the ocean not only creates clean, renewable energy but also storable energy. Waves are used to compress a chamber on the shoreline and the air in this chamber is pressurized then converted to power when needed. The technology to store air is available and well tested. High levels of efficiency, up to 85%, are possible with compressed air power systems (Garvey, 2012). Another simple solution is a tank of water stored underground. By heating the water with solar energy then storing it underground, its heat is preserved until it is needed to heat a building (Yumrutaş, 2012). While this is not a solution for mass energy storage, every house that uses this system does not need power from elsewhere for heating. Many complex systems can also be used with even greater success. Latent heat energy systems which use the energy storage potential of phase change (such as ice becoming water) to store up to 14 times more heat than non-phase based storage methods. Instead of heating water up and storing it as warm water, a material that has a low evaporation temperature is heated past its boiling point then stored. This technology utilizes the idea of latent heat which is that materials absorb much more energy when changing state. By exploiting the natural phenomena of latent heat, energy can be stored in quantities never thought possible before. Raising the temperature of water from 99 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees takes 500% more heat energy then heating water from 0 to 99 degrees. Using special materials that are selected for this purpose allows this method to do more than water and ice could ever do. Materials can be selected that have higher latent heat demands than water. The more energy a material needs to heat up the more heat it will release as it cools. By using chemicals such as lauric acid, large amounts of heat energy can be stored for many uses (Desgrosseilliers, 2011). Special artificial paraffin capsules have also shown promise as a material that holds heat to extreme temperature yet does not degrade after hundreds of recharging cycles (Su, 2012). The problem of storage can be countered by using chemical reactions to store the energy until needed. Instead of directly making electricity, solar heat is used to split water or drive other processes. Water can easily be broken down to hydrogen and oxygen, which can be used to create power with zero pollution. By coating electrodes in exotic metals, researchers have created solar power systems that can take sunlight and use it to break water into its base components. When power is needed and the sun is not shining the hydrogen and oxygen are reintroduced back into the water and this releases electricity on demand. (Myers, 2011) This new technology allows for clean, alternative energy that can supply electricity whether the sun is shining or not. The only byproducts are oxygen, which all life needs to live, and hydrogen, a fuel that burns perfectly cleanly. A motor running on hydrogen puts off water vapor as exhaust. Any technology that produces all good byproducts should be invested in heavily. One of the biggest advantages of breaking apart water or some other compound is that no insulation is needed. While a tank of superheated water or sodium will eventually cool, hydrogen and oxygen will keep their energy potential until they are remixed. Instead of using heat that naturally dissipates, the chemical bonds are what the energy is stored in. By not needing to be kept hot, chemical solutions allow for infinite storage times. The insane amounts of heat easily available from solar reactors, up to 2000K, make these chemical reactions possible and economical (Heintz, 2012). Two thousand degrees Kelvin is enough heat to easily melt steel and break down many chemical compounds, not just water. Every chemical bond that is broken takes energy and when the compounds recombine that energy is released. Flywheel Energy Storage Systems are another solution for storing energy to be released later. A spinning wheel contains energy that can be used later to turn a generator. While simple flywheels run on metal bearings and can lose energy to friction, new versions run on magnetic bearings inside a vacuum. With no mechanical resistance or air resistance, these wheels can hold energy for longer periods of time with minimal loss (Prodromidis, 2012). Massive banks of flywheels can wind up and store a huge amount of power for later use. By using storage to get the most out of our resources, the environment would benefit from reduced emissions while companies would benefit from maximized profits.

However, upgrading the United States utility grid to a smart grid and adding storage would not be easy. The large initial expenses lead companies to drag their feet.  The costs of upgrading are passed down to consumers who don’t like paying more; this causes public opinion to turn against this needed technology. Even though studies have shown that over a twenty year period the smart grid and storage will pay for itself, (Fox-Penner, 2011) no customer wants a higher bill and no company wants to lose profit. What people need to realize is the overall gains far outweigh the temporary costs. The smaller utility companies have a much harder time fronting the cash needed to upgrade their systems to a smart grid due to less capital and fewer customers (Chun, 2011). This problem can be solved with closer cooperation between large and small companies to share resources and increase profits even faster. By working together, everyone would benefit. Planning these new systems would be difficult, but humans don’t need to do it all. Bacteria can plan our power system better than we can; a method of planning networking reconstruction is to use a “bacterial foraging optimization algorithm” (Sathish Kumer, 2012). This equation is based on bacterial growth models and can find the network setup that loses the least energy. By studying the natural organization of bacteria foraging, scientists developed a mathematical formula that can create the optimal design for power distribution. Evolutionary algorithms are designed to solve non-linear problems that computers are not very good at solving. When single celled organisms can create better solutions then humankind, things need to change.

Between new storage technology and better designed transmission systems, there are many ways the problem of an aging energy infrastructure can be addressed. If millions of dollars are being poured into new ways of creating energy, it only makes sense to improve the support system equally; otherwise all the work goes to waste. These ideas need to be used. Power companies need to research ways to upgrade and modernize their systems. When they do look closely at green solutions they will find that the company will benefit both environmentally and economically by upgrading their networks. The companies that first embrace this new technology will lead the way for the industry. When the industry begins to adapt the vital infrastructure needed, the ultimate winner will be the environment and therefore people everywhere.

References

Bushby, S. T. (2011). Information Model Standard for Integrating Facilities with Smart Grid. ASHRAE Journal, 53(11), B18-B22.

Chun, S., Sandoval, R., Arens, Y., Sarfi, R. J., Tao, M. K., & Gemoets, L. (2011). Making the smart grid work for community energy delivery. Information Polity: The International Journal Of Government & Democracy In The Information Age, 16(3), 267-281.

Desgrosseilliers, L., Safatli, A., Osbourne, N., Marin, G., White, M., Murray, R., & … Groulx, D. (2011). Phase change material selection in the design of a latent heat energy storage system coupled with a domestic hot water solar thermal system. ASHRAE Transactions, 117(2), 183-190.

FitzPatrick, K. (2012, January 23). Upgrading the electric grid. Retrieved from http://sites.duke.edu/sjpp/2012/upgrading-the-electric-grid/

Fox-Penner, P., Faruqui, A., & Grasso, D. (2011). Moving to the smart grid. Issues In Science & Technology, 27(4), 12-16.

Garvey, S. D. (2012). The dynamics of integrated compressed air renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 271-292. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.019

Greenfield, D., & Kwoka, J. (2011). The Cost Structure of Regional Transmission Organizations. Energy Journal, 32(4), 159-181. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vo132-No4-7

Heintz, A. (2012). Solar energy combined with chemical reactive systems for the production and storage of sustainable energy. A review of thermodynamic principles. Journal Of Chemical Thermodynamics, 4699-108. doi:10.1016/j.jct.2011.08.023

Myers, A. (2011, June 20). Stanford team devises a better solar-powered water splitter. Retrieved from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/solar-water-splitter-062011.html

Palma-Behnke, R., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Vargas, L. S., Handschin, E., Uphaus, F., & Hauptmeier, E. (2012). A day-ahead energy market simulation framework for assessing the impact of decentralized generators on step-down transformer power flows. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 35(1), 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.08.009

Prodromidis, G. N., & Coutelieris, F. A. (2012). Simulations of economical and technical feasibility of battery and flywheel hybrid energy storage systems in autonomous projects. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.041

Sathish Kumar, K. K., & Jayabarathi, T. T. (2012). Power system reconfiguration and loss minimization for an distribution systems using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 36(1), 13-17. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.10.016

Sioshansi, R. (2011). Increasing the value of wind with energy storage. Energy Journal, 32(2), 1-29.

Su, J., Wang, X., Wang, S., Zhao, Y., & Huang, Z. (2012). Fabrication and properties of microencapsulated-paraffin/gypsum-matrix building materials for thermal energy storage. Energy Conversion & Management, 55101-107. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.10.015

Yumrutaş, R., & Ünsal, M. (2012). Energy analysis and modeling of a solar assisted house heating system with a heat pump and an underground energy storage tank. Solar Energy, 86(3), 983-993. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2012.01.008

Revision – Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

Essay 3 Proposal – Recycling: Maybe a challenge but we are ready!

My dear Fairbanksans:

Fairbanks is a city that is not in the mind of too many people, either because they don’t care, they haven’t heard about it, or because we are too far.  It is time for us, Fairbanksans, to take action, we have to do our part, and save our state.  Although many think recycling is not economically feasible in Fairbanks, people should set up recycling collection points around businesses and workplaces because we need to raise concern in individuals, facilitate access to recycling, and educate them on the importance of recycling.

You may remember those times when recycling was really popular; currently recycling is not in everybody’s mind, so what about remembering those times while helping with a little recycling too?  There are states or countries where recycling is really important and has become a way of life, part of their customs, while there is others states or countries where recycling is not important at all.  We are trying to bring the recycling euphoria back, beginning in our state, which is why there will be a group of people setting up collection points.  These collection points will be accessible for everybody.  Look for the appropriate recycle bin and place the right items in there.  Every other day, or as deemed necessary, we will pick up the recycle materials and we would bring them to the Fairbanks Rescue Mission or to the correct collecting points.  There is even a program for electronics.  We would collect any electronic materials that you may have, and store them until pick up time, every third Friday of the month.

Awareness is the main point; if we reduce, reuse and recycle, we will do our part and we will reduce the amount of waste that is thrown in the world.  We don’t have to start big; we can start with our state, and after we see some results we will go from there.  People believe recycling is complicated and avoid traveling distances to get to recycling points.  Now there will be no excuse; with collection points around the corner of everybody’s job, or place of residence recycling will be easy and convenient.  By recycling aluminum cans, less aluminum will be needed since it will be used instead of going to waste, and cans once again will become, aluminum cans.  We will  used them as such, decreasing the amount of waste; by recycling paper we will save millions of trees that will help absorb carbon monoxide from the air, instead of creating six times as much by burning it.  By recycling plastic, there will be less waste materials in the oceans, and we will waste less energy; with the recycling of glass we will also save energy, and there will be less air and water pollution since glass takes a long time to break down.  Recycling will not just help some people; at the end it will help us all.

Help the earth, help the world, help your state, help Alaska, and most important of all help your city, help Fairbanks.  Fairbanks is where we live, where our children are growing and where we want to be.  Every person goes through plenty of plastic bottles, magazines, newspapers, sodas, beers, etc.  This creates large amounts of waste.  Don’t dispose of glass, aluminum, and plastics in just any container; classify them, keep them together, and bring them with you; you will see the right place to dispose of them while helping the environment too.  If our program works, we may be able to keep on adding collection points making it easier, little by little.

Remember, taking care of our world is not just somebody’s responsibility, it is everybody’s job.  Look for the collection points.  I can guarantee you that you will not need to look too far; they will be near you.  Talk to your friends and family members; tell them of the importance of recycling, and how easy it has become.  We know that it may be a little hard at first, but once we get used to it, this will be like anything else.  I remember how hard it was to drive my trash to the dumpsters.  Now we don’t even think about it; we just know it is time to go.  This would be the same thing, and one day recycling will be done without even thinking about it.  Come on!  Participate!  Let’s keep a cleaner world for all to enjoy.

We will welcome your questions, suggestion, and help.  Please don’t hesitate to contact “We Care, recycling group” at 907-xxx-xxxx.

Revision Essay 1 Cause Effect – Factory – Farmed animal agriculture: A source of water pollution

Essay 1 Cause/Effect – Factory-Farmed Animal Agriculture: A source of water pollution

Somewhere in the United States animals are being raised in confined pens, packed really tightly.  To prevent animals from getting sick they are dosed with antibiotics.  Some of the waste produce by these thousands of animals goes into manure lagoons that cause air pollution.  Several of these animals are fed with American corn that was grown with the help of millions of tons of chemical fertilizers.  When rain comes, the excess fertilizers are washed into the Rivers, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around.  By producing unlimited quantities of meat and grains, the agricultural industry can sell their products at apparent cheap prices, and a high cost to the environment, animals, and humans.  Dough Gurian-Sherman describes “The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us” (as cited in Walsh, 2009).  Although chicken sounds like a good idea for dinner tonight, eating factory-farmed chicken causes more harm than good to us and the planet because factory-farmed animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia, and is the world’s largest source of water pollution.

Thanks to chemical fertilizers American farmers are able to pull more crops from a field, which helps them produce about 153 bu. of corn per acre.  Is this really what we want?  When we know that after these fertilizers are washed out from the field of the Midwest they may reach the Gulf of Mexico, and that contributes to what is known as a dead zone.  According to Time Magazine Health the dead zone is approximately a 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and therefore almost no sea life (Walsh, 2009).  The dead zone fluctuates in size each year stretching over 7,700 square feet during the summer of 2010.  There are nearly 400 similar dead zones around the world.  Besides destroying the sea life, these fertilizers will kill one of our healthiest sources of protein.

The food industry counts with what is called concentrated-animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  Large numbers of animals that are kept in close concentrated conditions and fattened up for fast slaughter that contributes to more sales and lower prices.  This is all great for our pocket, but is it really?  There are some questions that we may have to ask ourselves to be able to come with a real solution that will help not just our pockets, but our environment, and as a consequence our own health.  Where does all the manure from the concentrated-animal feeding operations go?  According to Time Magazine Health, a pig produces approximately four times the amount of waste a human does, and most of their waste is disposed of in open-air lagoons.  These lagoons may overflow and contaminate streams and rivers. (Walsh, 2009)

Assuming our dinner is just good, and safe to eat may be an understatement.  Giant livestock farms produce vast amounts of waste, often equivalent of a small city.  California officials identify agriculture as the major source of nitrate pollution in polluted groundwater.  In Oklahoma nitrates from Seaboard Farms’ hog operations contaminated drinking water wells.  In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots; in May 2000, 1300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported as a result of E. coli contaminating drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario.  Health authorities believed the most likely source was cattle manure runoff.  Manure from dairy cows is thought to have contributed to the disastrous cryptosporidium contamination of Milwaukee’s drinking water in 1993.  In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River, killing 10 million fish, and closing 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shell fishing.  Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland, and North Carolina is believed to have contributed to outbreaks of pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish, and causing problems in local people.  Ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen, released in gas form during waste disposal can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before being dumped back onto the air, or into the water; where it cause algal blooms and fish kills.  (Natural Resources. 2011)

Ten large companies produce more than 90 percent of the nation’s poultry.  How can anybody say that all these farming practices are not affecting our environment?

 

References

Walsh, B., (2009). Getting real about the high price of cheap food (Eds.), Time Magazine Health.  Retrieved from https://classes.uaf.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?content_id=_1466397_1&displayName=Walsh%2C+Brian.+%22Getting+Real+About+the+High+Price+of+Cheap+Food%22&course_id=_103307_1&navItem=content&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C1917458-1%2C00.html

Natural Resources Defense Council, the Earth’s Best Defense. (2011).  Environmental Issues.  Facts About Pollution from Livestock Farms.  Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

Research Project – Final -Food Industry

There are many factors that contribute to water pollution, but the one that would be discussed is animal agriculture.  We are not talking about small farms; we are talking about industries whose only purpose is to raise animals for profit.  These animals are raised in large quantities, and in the past, in some places, they have been found in inhumane conditions.  These types of farms create large amounts of waste and pollution that is transferred to the water, to the earth and even to the same air we breathe.  Every time we consume products we should probably wonder where are these products coming from and what we are sustaining. Although chicken sounds like a good idea for dinner tonight, eating chicken causes more harm than good to us and the planet because animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia, and is the world’s largest source of water pollution. 

In animal agriculture even though pollution is one of the main concerns, there are other factors that are as important and in some cases are being disregarded.  There are some instances where it has been noted that, in some of this agricultural farms, there is little or no regard for the animal’s well-being.  According to Deemer and Lobao (2011), few U.S. studies examine specific quality-of-life concerns regarding on-farm practices such as use of gestation crates for sows and battery cages for egg hens (p. 184).  There are several factors that influence human behavior towards farm-animals, religion, politics, and sociodemographics.  Studies were conducted within different groups separated in different categories such as race, religion, marital status, employment status, gender, vegetarian, no vegetarian, childhood residence.  There was no significant difference within all of the groups, but it was observed that “Catholics, mainline Protestants, and those with no religious preference hold less dominionistic views than evangelical Protestants, as shown by significant coefficients. As noted, insofar as religious traditionalists read the Bible more literally, they may have a stronger belief in human superiority over animals. Similarly, religiosity as measured by frequent church attendance is significantly related to higher dominion orientation. Those who reflect on the place of animals in their belief system hold somewhat less dominionistic views” (Deemer and Lobao, 2011, p. 184).  During this study it was found that people that care less about human well-being are the ones who tend to be more concerned with animal welfare (Deemer and Lobao, 2011, p. 184).

There are still debates about animal’s well-being, how they should be kept, bred, moved, used and slaughtered. EU and British governments count with the minimum standards on animal welfare (Woods 2012, p. 14).  Since the early 1960s concerns about livestock farming grew, “particularly in pig, poultry and calf production” (Woods 2012, p. 16).  Farmers were trying to sustain larger numbers of animals in smaller spaces, and to make use of tighter control over their health, and productivity.  “By the early 1960s, 35% of the nation’s laying stock was located in densely stocked battery cages, with another 50% in indoor deep litter houses.  Two thirds of broiler chickens were kept indoors in units of more than 20,000 birds” (Woods 2012, p. 16).  Since then de-beaking in chickens was a common practice as well as tail docking in pigs to prevent cannibalism.  Small spaces where there was not even enough room to turn were also popular; veal were also kept in small crates and fed with milk (Woods 2012, p. 16).   Today some of these practices still being used “however, the tension between scientific and ethical perspectives remains unresolved.  Consequently, the question of how animals should be kept on farms continues to be a highly contentious and a highly political problem” (Woods 2012, p. 21).  A growing popular literature has portrayed “commercial animal production as 1) detrimental to animal welfare, 2) controlled by corporate interests, 3) motivated by profit rather than by traditional animal care values, 4) causing increased world hunger, 5) producing unhealthy food, and 6) harming the environment” (Fraser,. 2001, p. 634).  Both, scientist and ethicist must take in consideration complex, and ethical issues as problems that are worth investigating, and analyzing.  (Fraser,. 2001, p. 634).  There are always different perspectives, but animal abuse is animal abuse, and anything that will cause suffering is abuse.

Genetically engineered livestock has become a recent topic particularly with respect to welfare concerns.  This work is not only to increase animal productivity, increase growth, and feed efficiency, but also in more important factors such as studying the same to reduce environmental pollution from animals “and to improve both animal and human health” (Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., 2010, p. 1588).  Animal welfare was affected in some instances in the past, but presently the well-being of these animals is as important as the well-being of any other animals used in modern production systems (Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., 2010, p. 1588).  Fahrenkrug et al (2010) explains that “indirect modification of animal genomes” has been used over more than 10,000 and that “improvements in the efficiency and precision of genetic technologies will enable a timely response to meet the multifaceted food requirements of a rapidly increasing world population” (p. 2530).  If there would be animals that produce greater amounts of resources, less animals would be required decreasing their footprint (Fahrenkrug et al, 2010, p. 2533).  Another scientist goal is to create species that would be more resistant to diseases.

Pollution is the real cost we pay for negligent farming practice, that is why pollution is one the main concerns in agriculture.  Giant livestock farms produce vast amounts of waste, often equivalent of a small city, this threaten humans, fish and ecosystems (“Facts,” 2011).  There has been a rapid increase in pollution from agriculture due to the rapid growth in livestock farming, particularly in pig, poultry and dairy.  The most notorious contaminants caused by agriculture are nitrate, phosphorus, pesticides, soil sediment, salt and pathogen pollution of water (Parris, 2011, p. 33).  “Water pollution from agriculture has associated costs in terms of removing pollutants from drinking water supplies, as well as damage to ecosystems and commercial fishing, recreational, and cultural values associated with rivers, lakes groundwater and marine waters”  (Parris, 2011, p. 33).  Monitoring networks have been established to measure pollution of water bodies, but these are not found in all the countries, neither tracks all the pollutants.  Pollution levels can vary depending on the region, conditions, climate, policies and farming practices.  Pollutants, even when they take longer, tend to leach through soils into aquifers, contaminating them.  Agriculture is a major cause of surface water pollution and the major growing source of groundwater pollution (Parris, 2011, p. 33).

It used to be water pollution, now they are dead zones. The nutrients found in animal waste are responsible for algal blooms, which use up the oxygen in the water.  This contributes to a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  When this happens there is not enough oxygen in the water to support aquatic life.  The dead zones fluctuate in size each year, “extending a record… 7,700 square miles during the summer 2010” (“Facts” 2011). ”Estuarine and coastal agricultural nutrient pollution is also an issue in some regions causing algal blooms (i.e. “red tides” or “dead zones”)” (Parris, 2011, p. 39).  These chemicals damage marine life, to include commercial fisheries neighboring Australia, Japan, Korea, the United States and Europe.  The damage produce by these chemicals, is clearly visible in the common problem of the depletion of oxygen in the water reported across countries, and the damage caused to other aquatic organisms as a consequence from the pesticides (Parris, 2011, p. 39).  Two great examples of agricultural water pollution (coastal) are in the Great Lakes of North America and the Australian Great Barrier Reef.

Excess fertilizers, farm nutrients, pesticides and soil sediments that are being washed into rivers and oceans are threatening recreational as well as sustainment activities, and raising the costs of treating drinking water.  Water pollutants not only affect humans, they affect different species habitats, and there are no bodies of water being spared. There is now a better understanding that water policies should be consistent throughout different phases of the decision-making process; from the farm to water catchment; through national and international levels, and also between the different users, and uses of water (e.g. aquatic ecosystems, recreational uses).  The need for policy consistency is also important across environmental, agricultural, and water policies, particularly to avoid “conflicting signals and incentives to farmers in achieving sustainable water management” (Parris, 2011, p. 43).  Water is the most important substance on earth; without water there is no life.  Polluted water has to go through extensive, and expensive purification process before it can be consumed.  Water is vital not only for humans, but also for other animal species as well as entire habitats.  When water resources get affected there is a chain reaction that will affect everything surrounding the area, and not only that, but with the help of air, and wind pollution will travel for miles affecting more than we can even imagine.

Current data usually suggests that the major source of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and the transportation industry, but in reality industrial farming is also a major contributor.  Not only do the animals themselves produce methane through decomposition, and respiration, but when combining all areas of the industrial farming sector (e.g. production of feed, rearing, transportation and processing), large volumes of carbon dioxide is being produced, as well as methane and nitrous oxide (Bristow, 2011, p. 205).  Schiepanski and Bennett (2012) reported that “Agriculture covers more than one-third of the world’s ice-free land area and is a large component of human perturbations to global biogeochemical cycles” (p. 256).  Gases, odour, and dust constitute the three major types of air pollution from Industrial farming. “High concentrations and emissions of agricultural air pollutants are related to human and animal health, ecological damage, loss of nitrogen as fertilizer, and malodour emissions” (Ni et al. 2010, p. 5918).  Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are among the gases that cause the greatest environmental concerns from industrial farming.  “Hydrogen sulfide is considered the most dangerous gas in animal buildings and manure storage” (Ni et al. 2010, p. 5918).  This gas has been responsible for many animals, and human deaths in animal facilities

Animal manure is a significant source of environmental pollution.  Carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide from animal manure are released to the environment.  It has been proven that besides the release of gases on its own there are bigger emissions during removal of manure due to the agitation of the manure during storage emptying.  It has also been noted that buildings with poor ventilation contain a higher concentration of gases; these gases are harmful for the animals.  Population has grown, as a result of this growth “meat consumption nearly doubled… As a result, a growing global livestock population now annually produces seven to nine times more manure than the global human population” (Galloway et al. 2007; Steinfeid et al. 2010, as cited in Schiepanski and Bennett, 2012, p. 257).  Schiepanski and Bennet (2012) explained that the “livestock waste is increasingly concentrated in confined animal feeding operations,” they also mentioned that usually this operations are not near areas where there is a significant crop production (p. 257).  This is important because in some of this areas manure could be used as a fertilizer and at least serve one good purpose.

Another major concern is the acid rain, “Sulfur dioxide is one of the six criteria pollutants defined by the U.S. EPA and is a major precursor to acid rain.  It contributes to the acidification of soils, lakes, and streams and the associated adverse impacts on ecosystems” (USEPA, 2003 as cited by Ni, J. Et al, 2010 p. 5919).  Lagoon manure storages are also a big concern, and they are widely used in industrial animal agriculture.  These open-air waste lagoons could be as big as several football fields, and they are prone to leaks, and spills.  For example, in 1995 a hog-waste lagoon, in North Carolina, burst spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River.  This spillage killed about 10 million fish and closed about 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shell fishing (“Facts,” 2011).

Antibiotics are extremely important for treatment of bacterial infections in humans as well as for the efficient production of food animals.  Most of the antibiotics used in humans have also been used in animals.  Alexander Fleming, discovered penicillin, over 50 years ago.  Fleming warned that bacteria could develop resistance to antibiotics.  He also mentioned that this resistance would diminish antibiotics effectiveness over time.  That has proven to be true, as each new class of antibiotics has been released, resistance has emerged sooner or later in pathogenic bacteria.  “Historically, the principal strategies to cope with resistance were twofold:  develop new or altered drugs to which target pathogens are susceptible, and/or take steps to delay the onset of resistance by limiting use”  (McEwen, 2006, p. 239).  There is some concern in the ability of bacteria to become resistant to certain antibiotics, but the main concern “is the ability of bacteria to acquire resistance attributes through genetic mutation or transfer of genetic elements from other bacteria of the same or even completely different species and genera.”   (McEwen, 2006, p. 241).   There is evidence that demonstrates that with antibiotic exposure the likelihood of prevalence resistant bacteria will increase. There have been many instances in which the increasing frequency of “resistant microbial strains jeopardized the continuing effective use of the respective antibiotics in clinical medicine.  In addition to resistant infections that occur in health-care establishments, one of the recent challenges is the emergence of pathogens, such as MRSA” (Stain, 2011, p. 314).  Since the use of antibiotics in healthy animals contributed to their growth rate, this became a common practice.  Cooking usually destroys bacteria found in food products.  Pathogens can become a significant threat under certain conditions (Stain, 2011, p. 317).  The more resistant the bacteria become the bigger threat it poses eventually causing an ecological disaster.

Human health is or should be everybody’s priority.  Modern agriculture seemed to have become more aware or more interested of these issues.  “Our lives are sustained by consumption of foods that are produced almost exclusively by modern agricultural practices. Ideally, these foods are of high nutritional value and free of potentially deleterious compounds or agents (e.g., toxins, pathogens, parasites, chemicals)” (Frank, 2011, p. 835).  Frank (2011) explained that in reality, we are usually exposed to pollutants, infectious agents and degraded resources “as a result of livestock and crop production” (p. 835).  “Practices that disturb the microbiots, such as antibiotic use or dietary manipulation, can lead to dysfunction and increased susceptibility of livestock to infectious diseases” (Frank, 2011, p. 840).  Even though several changes have been made, we still need to be educated and learn more about acceptable means of modifying livestock and food products to improve human’s health (Frank, 2011, p. 835).

There are different countries like Ireland, where agriculture “utilizes 63% of total land area and has a big environmental impact accounting for 70% of phosphorus and 82% of nitrogen in surface waters, and for 97% of ammonia, 81% of nitrous oxide and 86% of methane emissions to air” (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  Ireland’s most serious pollution problem is Phosphorus loss to water.  In 2006 a new set of regulations governing agricultural practices was implemented.  To achieve environmental targets ruminant livestock population had to decrease as well as manufactured fertilizers (Humphreys, 2008 p. 36).  This is just an example of how a county can overcome pollution, but the way we farm now is not only destructive for us, but it is also destroying the soil, and the environment. According to the growing population demand for meat, and poultry will rise 25% by 2015, but the earth can no longer deliver. “Unless there is a radical change in the way we grow and consume food, we face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs, and bland taste. Each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants, and if we don’t take care of our land, it can’t take care of us.”  (Walsh, 2009 p.1).

Changes do not always occur as fast as we would like them, and sometimes the results are not what we really expected, but there is always a starting point.  Feeding habits could be one of the little changes that will add up to a bigger benefit.  One of the concerns during feeding is bloating; if animals are bloated they could die.  There is a plant that has attracted some attention.  This plant is “sanfoin”.  Sanfoin contains tannin, which inhibits bloat, and it is a really attractive plant for several animals.  Sanfoin never causes bloat.  Plant tannins are also effective against intestinal worms.  “Sanfoin tannins are more effective than other plant tannins for lowering total worm burdens and egg excretion” (Mueller-Harvey, 2009 p. 23).  Mueller-Harvey explained that Sanfoin is also tolerant of drought and alkaline soils, provides an efficient use of nutrients in ruminants, and produce lower emissions of environmental pollutants (Mueller-Harvey, 2009 p. 23).  Lower emissions will help with water contamination, air pollution and obviously acid rain.  If more resources like this are found and other little steps are taken, little by little we will not just help the environment, we will also help ourselves.

There are several factors that threaten our ecosystems.  One of these factors is the pollution produced by industrial farming.  We are not talking about little farms; we are talking about the growing industry of raising large amounts of cattle, poultry or pig for profit.  The kind of farm that will not care about animal’s well being or pollution.  Those farms that will overlook the overuse of antibiotics without any public concern.

So, before people eat their dinner, they need to ask themselves: where did their dinner come from?

 

References

Bristow, E., (2011).  Global Climate Change and the industrial animal agriculture link:  The construction of risk.  Society & Animals, 19(3), 205-224.  doi:  10.1163/156853011×578893.

Deemer, D. and Lobao, L. (2011).  Public concern with farm-animal welfare:  Religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector.  Rural Sociology, 76(2), 167-196.  doi:  10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00044.x

Fahrenkrug, S.C., Blake, A., Carlson, D.F., Doran, T., Van Eenennaam, A., Faber, D., Galli, C., Gao, Q., Hackett, P.B., Li, N., Maga, E.A., Muir, W.M., Murray, J.D., Shi, D., Stotish, R., Sullivan, E., Tay1or, J.F., Walton, M., Wheeler, M., Whitelaw, B., (2010).  Precision genetics for complex objectives in animal agriculture.  Journal of Animal Science, 88(7), 2530-2539.  doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2847

Frank, D.N., (2011).  Growth and development symposium:  Promoting healthier humans through healthier livestock:  Animal agriculture enters the metagenomics era.  Journal of Animal Science, 89(3), 835-844. doi:  10.2527/jas.2010-3392.

Frasier, D., (2001).  The “new perception” of animal agriculture:  legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis.  Journal of animal science, 79(3), 634-641.  Retrieved from http://www.animal-science.org/content/79/3/634.full.pdf+html

Humphreys, J., (2008).  Nutrient issues on Irish farms and solutions to lower losses.  International Journal of Dairy Technology, 61(1), 36-42.  doi:  10.1111/j.1471-0307.2008.00372.x.

Maga, E.A., Murray, J.D., (2010).  Welfare applications of genetically engineered animals for use in agriculture.  Journal of Animal Science, 88(4), 1588-1591.  doi:  10.252/jas.2010-2828

McEwen, S. (2006). Antibiotic use in animal agriculture:  What have we learned and where are we going? Animal Biotechnology, 17(2), 239-250.  doi:  10.1080/10495390600957233.

Mueller-Harvey, I., (2009).  ‘Holy hay’ – re-inventing a traditional animal feed.  Biologist, 56(1), 22-27.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff8a6e1f-891a-4f8a-afc5-cca76d8caac3%40sessionmgr4&vid=12&hid=17

Natural Resources Defense Council, the Earth’s Best Defense. (2011).  Environmental Issues.  Facts About Pollution from Livestock Farms.  Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

Ni, J., Heber, Albert J., Sutton, A. L., Kelly, D. T., Patterson, J. A., Kim, S., (2010).  Effects of swine manure dilution on ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide releases.  Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5917-5923.  doi:  10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.031

Parris, Kevin (2011).  Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD countries:  Recent trends and future prospects.  International journal of water resources development, 27(1), 33-52.  doi:  10.1080/07900627.2010.531898

Schipanski, M. E. And Bennett, E. M. (2012).  The influence of agricultural trade and livestock production on the global phosphorus Cycle.  Ecosystems, 15(2), 256-268.  doi:  10.1007/s10021-011- 9507-x

Stein, R.A., (2011).  Antibiotic Resistance:  A global, interdisciplinary concern.  American Biology teacher, 73(6), 314-321.  doi:  10.1525/abt.2011.73.6.3

Walsh, B., (2009). Getting real about the high price of cheap food (Eds.), Time Magazine Health.  Retrieved from https://classes.uaf.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/contentWrapper.jsp?content_id=_1466397_1&displayName=Walsh%2C+Brian.+%22Getting+Real+About+the+High+Price+of+Cheap+Food%22&course_id=_103307_1&navItem=content&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C1917458-1%2C00.html

Woods, A. (2012).  From cruelty to welfare:  the emergence of farm animal welfare in Britain, 1964-71.  Endeavour, 36(1), 14-22.  doi:  10.1016/j.endeavour.2011.10.003.

Research Final Draft-The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

What would we do without plastic? There wouldn’t be any single-use water bottles, plastic wrap, plastic grocery bags, 6-pack holders, lawn chairs, packing “peanut” material or sandwich bags. Just one generation ago, we used recyclable materials such as paper, glass and metal to store food. Now we use petroleum plastic. This is a convenient and useful product that is very popular with our “throw-away” society, but it’s what happens after we are done with it that’s the problem. These items are supposed to go to the local landfills where they breakdown and decompose. However, they are making their way to the Earth’s largest landfill, which isn’t actually on land; it’s out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in an area called the Great Pacific garbage patch located between Japan and the United States. Although plastic products have made life easier in the world, they are contaminating the oceans because litter is finding its way out into the ocean, the materials are then breaking down and allowing toxic chemicals to leech into the water, and plastic pieces are being ingested by maritime birdlife.

There are several types of plastic that we use in our daily life. We use hard plastic, plastic bags and a product called Styrofoam. Polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, is a petroleum-based plastic that has been combined with styrene monomer (Senegalese, 2012). Large amounts of these plastics are turning up in our oceans. The majority of ocean trash comes from cruise and cargo ships. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that ocean-based sources, such as cargo ships and cruise liners, dumped 14 billion pounds of garbage into the ocean (California Coastal Commission, 2011). This garbage gets caught in ocean currents called gyres and will circulate in the water until it either breaks down or is eaten.

A gyre is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes together causing a spiral effect in the current. There are five major gyres in the world (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008). The North Atlantic, North Pacific, South Atlantic, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean gyres all have their own sources of pollution. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is the most researched, so we are more aware of the extent of the great Pacific garbage patch. This particular gyre is roughly double the size of the United States. The other gyres are just as polluted and, while not as big, they are equally as dangerous to the environment (5 Gyres Institute, 2012). The process of trash getting from one side of the gyre to the other is a slow process. It can take as long as five years for a piece of trash to make it from the beaches of California to the Eastern Pacific garbage patch (National Public Radio, 2008). This current changes during different times of the year due to El Nino. During the summer, the gyre is located more north, and in the winter it is located just above Hawaii. The Atoll islands, just Northwest of Hawaii is an area that is greatly affected by the great Pacific garbage patch. It has been shown that marine animals tend to congregate here (Pichel, et al., 2007). This are is where animals build their nests, lay their eggs and raise their babies.

Countries around the world have had to come up with ways to combat the pollution in the gyres closest to them. The Mediterranean’s surrounding countries have adopted bans on dumping in the ocean. They have realized that when something is dumped in the ocean, it winds up on shore and soils the beaches. The cruise ships are now only allowed to dump food overboard. The remaining garbage is taken off the ship when in port and sent to a local landfill. The Caribbean has not adhered to these same standards, mainly because the surrounding islands do not have the capacity to take the garbage from the cruise ships. When Grenada tried to tax $1.50 per head to Carnival Cruise Line so they could pay for a new landfill, Carnival withdrew and will not go back to the island (Melia, 2009).  Under the Caribbean guidelines as of 2009, ships can dump metal, glass, paper, and other trash three miles from shore but only if it’s smaller than an inch. Beyond 25 miles they can dump anything (Melia, 2009).

The cruise lines and cargo vessels are the biggest contributor to the garbage patch, but they’re not the only one’s at fault for this mess. Another way that trash is getting to the great garbage patch is from rain and wind carrying litter to local rivers that eventually dump into the ocean. Trash on the street accumulates in gutters and washes into nearby storm drains. Most storm drain systems empty directly into local rivers, which flow into the ocean (California Coastal Commission, 2011). Once in the Pacific Ocean, it gets caught up in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, also known as the great Pacific garbage patch.

One of the ways that plastic is harmful is that it breaks down and releases toxins into the water. There is some debate as to where the plastic is breaking down though. In the right conditions, the plastic could break down in the water due to the sun and rain. A recent study showed that it would take as little as one year for the decomposing of Styrofoam to start. This would release bisphenol A and styrene trimer into the water (Saido, et al., 2009). Charles Moore, the man responsible for discovering the great Pacific garbage patch, doesn’t think that the breaking down of hard plastic is as likely due to the plastic being heavier than water, so it would sink. There is less sun at the bottom of the ocean, so no photosynthesis would occur. Also, the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is colder than the water in the test. Moore does point out however, that if the marine animals eat the plastic, it would digest inside of them and these chemicals would be released into their bodies (Leggett, 2009). Charles Moore also stated that the plastic is found in every shape and size. Even the smallest zooplankton is feeding on microscopic pieces of plastic (Greenberg, 2009). This is dangerous for us because we are eating these animals that have consumed plastic and these chemicals in our bodies are having ill effects on our health.

Another reason plastic and Styrofoam is harmful to the environment is that BPA, styrene and PS oligomer have now been found in small quantities in the ocean, which has been shown to cause hormonal imbalances in animals and humans. The immediate effects of low doses of these chemicals are largely unknown at this time, but these chemicals and other man-made chemicals have been found in the blubber of whales and bottlenose dolphins. A study of 300 blubber samples, from 14 geographic locations, from the years 2000-2007, was completed with surprising results. The closer the dolphins lived to large cities, the higher the contaminant in their blubber. The dolphins that lived in rural areas still had some pollutants, but not nearly as high as the dolphins closer to the cities (Sohn, 2011). There is again, some debate as to where this is coming from. It could be because the food they are eating is contaminated, or they are eating the plastic thinking that it is food, or it could even be that the water they are living in is contaminated. No one has been able to conclusively determine what is the cause. The point is that there has been chemicals found in animals, no matter what is concentration it is not a good sign.

We also have the problem of the plastic debris washing up on shore. While it seems like this would be easier to clean up than out in the middle of the ocean, the huge quantities are not easy to deal with. In one year, Japan has found as much as 150,000 tons of plastic and Styrofoam debris washed up on its shores (American Chemical Society, 2009). Plastic grocery bags are found all over the oceans. Whales and other animals eat them thinking they are jellyfish. Scientists have noted 177 different kinds of marine life that have been injured by plastic debris (Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J., 2012).

Some of these bags come from the dump. They blow around and get to the ocean. Recycling is a great alternative, but it requires work. When you recycle plastic, you must know that there are rules to follow or the plastic will be sent on to the dump. Once a water bottle is used, the cap must be removed along with the circle of plastic that was attached to the cap. These are a different plastic than the bottle, so even if the bottle is deposited in the recycle can, if this cap is still on, the bottle will be sent to the landfill. Also, like plastic grocery bags and polystyrene, not all plastics are recycled at the same plant. If these are placed in a recycle can, they will be taken to a local landfill. In order to get them where they need to go, they must be taken to a drop-off site. To find a local drop-off site, you can go to earth911.com.

When items do not make it to the proper facilities for disposal, they may end up on our beaches. A major problem with shoreline plastic debris is that every year thousands of albatross chicks are dying from starvation and choking because their parents are feeding them plastic that looks like food. On the shores of Kure Atoll, northwest of Hawaii, the Albatross forage for food in the Western Pacific garbage patch. They are looking for flying fish eggs that are attached to floating object. New studies have shown that up to 50% of the undigested material in an albatross’ intestinal tract is plastic (Mayer, 2003). Even though the chicks are being fed, they are full of plastic, which can cause blockages and starvation. The plastic that does digest releases harmful toxins that can poison the albatross. Some of the most obvious plastic on beaches are cigarette lighters. In two-and-a-half months, volunteers collected 1000 lighters while they worked on the Atoll (Mayer, 2003). These lighters were found inland, away from the water, closer to the nesting areas. This means they are not only washing up on shore, but the Albatross are picking them up and bring them to their nesting areas.

The best way to clean up this problem is to stop using plastic. Plastic bags are an immediate concern due to their inability to be recycled easily. Several countries have banned the use of plastic bags or made them less desirable by placing taxes on them. While the United States has made no attempt to stop the use of plastic bags, environmentally-conscious stores, such as Trader Joe’s and Albertson’s, as well as the cities New York and San Francisco, have taken steps to help the reduction of plastic bag use. San Francisco has completely banned the thin plastic bags (Carlson, Wendy, 2008). Bangladesh, Australia, France, Italy and China have also banned them. While several European countries, as well as Taiwan have imposed a tax on plastic bags.

We are a very lazy society. There used to be a time when we had to get up from the couch to change the channel on the TV, we had to cook dinner from scratch in a cast iron pan, and we had to walk or ride a bicycle to work. This was a much cleaner time. Now we need ten plastic bags to take our groceries home, we have to drink water from a new bottle every time, and we drive everywhere, even if it’s a block down the street. We are lazy and we are destroying our planet. The Great Pacific garbage patch is just one of the many examples of what we have done and we have to fix this mess we are creating. The use of post-consumer recycled paper, bamboo, and corn plastic is a great place to start. These are biodegradable and can be composted. We also need to be more conscious about what we are throwing into our landfills. There are many items that can be recycled that are not being properly disposed of. There’s no good way, as of yet to clean up the great Pacific garbage patch, but if we can start cleaning up our country and not contribute any more debris, we can prevent it from getting bigger. That’s a good place to start.

References

5 Gyres Institute. (2012). Retrieved 2012, 10-04 from 5 Gyres Institute: http://5gyres.org

American Chemical Society. (2009 19-08). Plastics in the Oceans Decompose, Release Hazardous Chemicals, Surprising New Study Says. Retrieved from ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819234651.htm

Carlson, W. (2008, September 28). Westport First in State To Ban Plastic Bags. New York Times. p. 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/connecticut/28bagsct.html

California Coastal Commission. (2011). The Problem With Marine Debris. Retrieved from Public Education Program: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/marinedebris.html

Greenberg, N. (2009). Captain Charles Moore. Earth Island Journal. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 24. Issue 1. p47-50. 4p

Leggett, H. (2009, 19-08). Toxic Soup: Plastics Could Be Leaching Chemicals Into Ocean. Retrieved from Wired Science: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/plasticoceans/

Mayer, B. (2003). Marine Debris: Cigarette Lighters and the Plastic Problem on Misway Atoll. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midway/Midway_Atoll_NWR_Cigarette_Lighters.pdf

Melia, M. (2009, 01-03). Caribbean A Dumping Ground For Garbage From Cruise Ships. Retrieved from LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/news/adfg-cruise-dumping1

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008, 03 28). Surface Ocean Currents. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from NOAA Ocean Service Education: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/05currents3.html

National Public Radio. (2008, 03 26). Garbage Mass is Growing in the Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89099470

Pichel, W. G., Churnside, J. H., Veenstra, T. S., Foley, D. G., Friedman, K. S., Brainard, R. E., et al. (2007). Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 54, pp. 1207–1211.

Saido, K., Itagaki, T., Sato, H., Kodera, Y., Abe, O., Ogawa, N., et al. (2009 йил 26-08). New contamination derived from marine debris plastics. Washington DC. http://5gyres.org/media/Saido_etal_plastics_break_down_in_ocean.pdf

Senegalese, B. D. (2012). Polystyrene Foam Report. Earth Resource Foundation: http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-styrofoam.html

Sohn, E. (2011). DOLPHIN, WHALE BLUBBER HARBORS CHEMICALS Since we tend to eat the same fish as these marine predators, this is bad news for humans, too. From Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/animals/dolphins-whales-chemicals-blubber-110520.html

Research Final Draft: All Shall Have Their Ancient Liberties

The Appalachian mountain region is home to an old culture devoted to tradition, storytelling, and in many places coal mining. The hills themselves are said to be among the oldest mountains on the planet. These ancient and worn ridges of the Appalachian region don’t project the magnificence of the Rockies but are uniquely humbling to behold. For a long time, communities across Appalachia have made their livelihoods in valleys where generations of people raised their families around and in the coal mining industry. These communities and ancient hills are now threatened by innovation in coal mining that is able to not only assess if a coal seam is near the top of a ridge, but actually blow that ridge off of the mountain itself in order to expose and mine its coal. Commonly called Mountaintop Removal Mining (MTR), this technology has created a desperate need for more research into the effects of such a land changing system and is causing outrage among activists, both for the environment and for the well being of Appalachia. With alternative energies constantly being researched, attempted, and utilized, it seems shameful to destroy this valuable region, its animals, flora, streams and culture to produce electricity so regularly wasted in broader culture. Although coal is a trusted source of generating energy, mining operations using MTR in the Appalachian mountains are tragically destructive to the natural environment in that region because of water pollution, negative effects of the changing landscape on streams and animals, and the ways that pollution destroys the area and hurts its inhabitants.

Photographs of either mining operations or locations that are supposedly in a reclamation phase offer tragic visual evidence of what happens geologically to Appalachian mountaintops during and after MTR mining. The scene is shocking, as in the middle of pristine forest, MTR mining operations appear to be deeply scarred amputees of mountains, crippled by their loss of rock and timber. Emma Marris, the author of one review of two recent documentaries on the topic of MTR mining for Nature magazine describes the visual: “Both films feature aerial shots of the mines, which look as if someone has skinned the top halves of mountains down to the rock, then snapped off the peaks (Marris, 2008, p.158)”. Her assessment is accurate.

In order to gain access to the coal at or near a mountain’s peak, a mining company removes part of the mountain itself. This is done by explosion or industrial shovel, and the displaced earth removed must then be dealt with. The term used for rock and dirt blown from the ridge by the intrusion is called overburden. Overburden is moved from the place nature put it to any valley below. The crumbled rock of different sizes is then referred to as mine spoil. Settlements of mine spoil form a new geological landscape which differ in degrees of stability and are sometimes used as created space to develop buildings and roads, though the integrity of these settlements in terms of safety vary (Karem, Kalinski and Hancher, 2007, p. 345). Proponents of MTR mining suggest that potential development once a mining operation has gone through reformation is good for the region, and that it is even an opportunity for sustainable economic development. Reclamation of mined land in Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia can include or have included the development of golf courses, hospitals, Walmarts and housing developments (Gardner and Sainato, 2007, p.50). While the Appalachian region is stereotyped in our consciousnesses as being desperate for economic development, there is far more evidence to suggest that the region overall maintains attitudes that prefer the hills to be untouched, rather than have a new space for a Walmart.

From their harmless state where nature intended them to be, the tops of mountains after removal termed overburden and then mine spoil cause an array of problems. In their paper titled “Settlement of Mine Spoil Fill from Water Infiltration: Case Study in Eastern Kentucky,” Karem, Kalinski and Hancher describe the three primary causes of mine spoil settlement that would cause damage or danger to structures built atop. They are creep, dry crushing, and hydro-compression, where hydro-compression is the most dangerous. The paper describes hydro-compression as the wetting of the mine spoil which would cause it to crumble and settle, the causes of this are seeping of rain water, septic systems, and infiltration of groundwater into the mine spoil settlement. They note that this material can and often does settle to a significant degree which provides a fragile foundation at best (p. 346). Claims that development of offices and roads on valleys filled with mine spoil are economic opportunities are then invalidated when considering the perspective that these areas are often dangerous due to settlement.

While the above research focuses on the risks posed by water systems to the displaced mountaintop known as mine spoil, it could be suggested that this man-made problem is evidence to the fact that the unnatural valley fill becomes intertwined with surrounding water systems, the consequences of dislodging spoil and it’s settlement in surrounding valleys include the burial of at least 2,000 streams and headwaters that all flow, or used to flow, into the Mississippi River (Holzman, p. A477).

Overburden caused by MTR mining causes an even still wider spectrum of destruction. One of many concerns about this destruction is related to the area’s water systems. The integrity of the region’s water systems is in jeopardy because of displacement of overburden from the mountain’s ridges to the valley, which threaten to bury headwaters and streams. This is adjoined with the toxic realities of what is known as slurry. In essence, slurry is soap scum. Created during the process of cleaning mined coal, slurry must be disposed of, and that is done by injecting it into old and abandoned mine shafts or otherwise plunging it into the ground where it is likely to leach toxic chemicals into ground water (Holzman, 2011, p.A477).

David Holzman reports in Environmental Health Perspectives about the potential for pollution regarding slurry. He states that there are several opportunities for the complex and varying combinations of chemical deposits to enter water systems, whether by spoil or slurry. Holzman cites Professor of Environmental Science at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, Scott Simonton, who reports that there is little to no dispute among players in the coal mining industry as well of course among its critics that mining does effect groundwater and contaminates it, and that this contamination will travel from the immediate area of the operation. Essentially, slurry invades water systems surrounding mining operations, but claims made to defend this widespread conclusion are based on the idea that the impact of slurry on water systems is harmless (Holzman, 2011, p. A478).

However, of particular concern when it comes to the certain impact on watershed downstream of spoil fills is a known chemical toxin, selenium (Lindberg,et al., 2011). Selenium poses a significant threat to aquatic life in Appalachia’s water systems, as well as aquatic plant life. Regarding human’s safety in fishing their long trusted rivers and streams, researchers advise caution in consuming fish from mountaintop-removal affected areas because of the dangers involved in selenium consumption for humans (Palmer, et al., 2011, p. 148).

Dr. Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council makes a case in the recent documentary, The Last Mountain, that tens of millions of people in areas where rivers and streams originate in coal mining country are also being affected, while geographically they may live in seemingly non-impacted areas. The film includes a graphic explaining this effect. Mining operations in West Virginia or Kentucky have potential to affect water quality for citizens of Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, or Florida through intricate webs of streams and rivers (Bingham, Grunebaum, and Haney, 2011). That means that mine spoil, slurry, and associated toxins as well as known and unknown effects of those toxins on all life are not necessarily isolated in Appalachia, but carry environmental harm throughout the southeastern United States.

Appalachian households who have long trusted their drinking water have begun to report a barrage of health related difficulties and other clearly observable problems with their water. Something called slurry syndrome is reported, a combination of symptoms believed to be caused by toxic slurry infiltrating the drinking water in mining communities. Ailments include rash and diarrhea, and even changes to the victim’s dental health (Holzman, p. A480).

Pollution pathways specifically into water systems are significant culprits in the decline of well being for residents of MTR mining areas, but they are not the only ones. Research affirms that the consequences of the disaster is more far reaching than pollutants in water systems. There is also danger in confirmed hazards to air quality caused by dust from surface mining operations. Airborne pollutants are linked to increased chronic medical issues in surrounding communities. These include but are not limited to higher blood pressure, higher mortality rates, heart disease, lung disease, and kidney disease (Palmer, et al., 2011, p. 149).

In retrospectively studying the 2006 national Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, researchers Keith J. Zullig, PhD, MSPH, and Michael Hendryx, PhD, report on the “Health-Related Quality of Life Among Central Appalachian Residents in Mountaintop Mining Counties,” finding that when controlling for factors such as smoking or obesity, residents in areas where mining by MTR consistently report on their own health as being worse than those who do not live in those areas. Additionally, Zullig and Hendryx claim that that self-rated health is a mortality indicator and therefore is considered a reliable way to measure the health of a population by organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. They report that according to research in the self-rated health of residents where MTR mining takes place, there is an increased mortality risk. These residents self report that on average they experience 18 additional unhealthy days per year than respective averages in other populations. When multiplied across years in the average American lifetime, those extra unhealthy days account for close to four years, and this is associated directly with living in an area where there is MTR mining taking place. The authors are insistent that their findings suggest a major decrease in the health related quality of life for Appalachian residents (Zullig and Hendryx, 2011, p. 852).

There has been a surge of awareness regarding this issue and its far reaching effects in the last decade, and in March 2006, National Geographic published “When Mountains Move,” explaining to readers the difference between strip mining and what is truly happening in the Appalachian mountains, providing pictures to prove the drastic changes in landscape. Explanations of mining politics, cultural impacts, deforestation and the grief of Appalachian communities are all available in the documentation of writer John Mitchell and photographer Melissa Farlow’s visit to a West Virginia mining community. This article is just one available illustration of the depth of loss communities dealing with MTR mining experience.

Among the various tragedies associated with MTR mining are effects on the hilltop’s primary inhabitants, plant life. Appalachia is a wonderland in terms of medicinal plants such as ginseng and goldenseal. These have become more widely used in alternative medicine across the world and are harvested regularly in the region. While the harvesting of these plants is regulated to prevent poaching and species endangerment of these fragile, wild plants, the same careful standards are not applied to mining operations who are allowed to systematically destroy large areas of the herb’s natural habitat (Myles, 2007, p.4). While reforestation efforts are being made in Appalachia to restore valuable hardwoods and other vegetation, many concerns arise due to the reformation of the land and soil. Restoring ecosystems in these areas is extremely dependent on the success of reforestation, and the viability of the methods being used are not known for sure to be dependable as these replanted forests are too new to tell (Zipper and Burger, et al., 2011, p.751-753).
The movement by student activists and diverse members of Appalachian communities to put an end to MTR mining include the moving words and actions of any major social justice movement. Well known fiction writer Silas House is an outspoken advocate for the health and strength of the Appalachian people and their land. In one speech titled “A Conscious Heart,” given as the keynote for a conference on Appalachian studies, House advocates for the region’s citizenship to reclaim their identity as a people, to develop new pride in this identity and to not continue to tolerate mountaintop mining and the devastation it brings. According to House, this devastation includes a wearing down of the region’s sense of itself, their self esteem, and traditions. He urges Appalachia to consider the issue not only in environmental terms, but to look beyond the tangible evidence of danger to land and health, and peer deeply into the ways that MTR is threatening Appalachia in a holistic sense (House, 2008, p.7).

Heated frustration over the rights of communities and property entitlement fill any quiet moments in the study of this issue. Anthropologists, social theorists, and others in academia debate on concepts of common land and privatization, and what is best for a people. Some argue that when a people collectively hold rights to the natural world around them, that due to human nature itself some will successfully exploit it (Hasler, 2005, p.96). Others have watched in horror as their family’s centuries old cemeteries are bulldozed and the bones of their ancestors are then considered overburden (McGlynn, 2012, p.29).

A long time advocate for environmental justice, Robert Kennedy, Jr., visits Appalachian coal mining country in 2011′s The Last Mountain. With the eloquence of his family’s legacy, Kennedy speaks of a people’s right to protect their own land. He affectionately references a public’s just right to preserve their land as the film quotes the Magna Carta: “We decree that all shall have their ancient liberties by land and by water” (Bingham, Grunebaum, and Haney, 2011).

Other inspiring stories of people’s dedication to this cause, as well as information about the science associated to that dedication can be found at social justice-oriented websites like iLoveMountains.org and mountainjustice.org. These sites provide headlines about the latest demonstrations or protest, and stories of people’s changed lives because of mining by MTR. The destruction that lies in the paths of these irresponsible mining operations makes it seemingly impossible to not feel grief for the Appalachian region and its people. To some degree our greed for energy is at fault for such ancient and beautiful areas to be so drastically scarred. Power to the people who insist that it stops and that the Appalachian mountain region can rest and heal from this devastation.

References

Bingham, C. Grunebaum, E. Haney, B. (Producer), & Haney, B. (Director). (June 3, 2011). The Last Mountain. [Motion picture]. United States: Dada Films

Gardner, J. S., & Sainato, P. P. (2007). Mountaintop mining and sustainable development in Appalachia. Mining Engineering, 59(3), 48-55.

Hasler, R. (2005). THE TRAGEDY OF PRIVATIZATION: MOVING MOUNTAINS IN APPALACHIA, A SOUTHERN AFRICAN CRITIQUE. Journal Of Appalachian Studies, 11(1/2), 95-103.

Holzman, D. C. (2011). Mountaintop Removal Mining. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(11), A476-A483.

House, S. (2008). A Conscious Heart. Journal Of Appalachian Studies, 14(1/2), 7-19.

iLoveMountains.org-End Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining. (n.d.). iLoveMountains.org. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://ilovemountains.org

Karem, W. A., Kalinski, M. E., & Hancher, D. E. (2007). Settlement of Mine Spoil Fill from Water Infiltration: Case Study in Eastern Kentucky. Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities, 21(5), 345-350. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:5(345)

Lindberg, T., Bernhardt, E. S., Bier, R., Helton, A. M., Merola, R., Vengosh, A., & Di Giulio, R. T. (2011). Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 108(52), 20929-20934. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112381108

Marris, E. (2008). Mountains into molehills. Nature, 453(7192), 158. doi:10.1038/453158b

McGlynn, D. (2012). MOVE NOT THOSE BONES. Sierra, 97(2), 28-33.

Mitchell, J. (2006). When Mountains Move. National Geographic. Retrieved fromhttp://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html

Mountain Justice. (n.d.). Mountain Justice. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://mountainjustice.org

Myles, D. (2007). Saving Wild Ginseng, Goldenseal, and other Native Plants from Mountain Top Removal. Herbalgram, (73), 4.

Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Schlesinger, W. H., Eshleman, K. N., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. E., Hendryx, M. S., & … Wilcock, P. R. (2010). Mountaintop Mining Consequences. Science, 327(5962), 148-149.

Zipper, C. E., Burger, J. A., Skousen, J. G., Angel, P. N., Barton, C. D., Davis, V., & Franklin, J. A. (2011). Restoring Forests and Associated Ecosystem Services on Appalachian Coal Surface Mines. Environmental Management, 47(5), 751-765. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9670-z

Zullig, K. J., & Hendryx, M. (2011). Health-Related Quality of Life Among Central Appalachian Residents in Mountaintop Mining Counties. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(5), 848-853. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300073

Final Draft: Eat Organic, or All Is Lost

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, either for the good or the bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices ranging from foods with organic labels to foods that are not organic.  There is a large gap between the number of choices that are organic and those that are not, and the majority of those choices are not organic. Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are very different forms of agriculture, but both provide the foods available in grocery stores.  Conventional agriculture is, at this time, the dominate way of farming.  The way animals are held and raised for consumer consumption can be differentiated as either inorganic or organic as well.  In both forms of agriculture, crop and animal, organic farming provides a healthier alternative means of production for the environment.  Although there are many choices in a grocery store, organic foods should be seriously considered over inorganic produced foods because organic farming reduces chemical pollutions, animal pollutants, and preserves our lands and plants species.

Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we choose foods that are not labeled as organic, we may not only be getting more than we bargained for with chemical covered foods, but we also contribute to the continued use of chemicals for the production of food products.  In crop agriculture farmers face challenges, in areas of weed control, pest control, and fertilization of crops for the purpose of greater yield. When it comes to growing crops, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture use different methods to help get the best possible results.  For the control of weeds, conventional agriculture uses chemical herbicides.  Weeds can become resistant to herbicides, rendering the herbicide, or combination of herbicides, less effective as time goes by (Mortensen et al., 2012).  Mortensen et al. (2012) asserts that more a greater amount of herbicide is the result of better resilience against the chemicals of the herbicide.  Mortensen et al. also argues that the use of combined herbicides, the use of two herbicides instead of just one, can also result in herbicide resilience in weeds.  Due to the fact that organic agriculture does not implement the use of chemicals for weed control, organic agriculture must rely on other forms of management (Gomiero et al., 2011).  According to Howard (1943), Altieri (1987), Lamplin (2002), Lotter (2003), Altieri & Nichols (2004), Koepf (2006), Kristiansen et al. (2006), Gliessman (2007), practices to control weeds in an organic manner include “appropriate rotation, seeding timing, mechanic cultivation, mulching, transplanting, flaming, ect.” (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Since organic agriculture methods do not involve the use of chemicals for weed control it helps keep harmful chemicals from entering the land in which the crops grow and in turn offers environmentally friendly methods of weed control.

Pest control is another factor that farmers must take in account in managing their crops.  Again, solutions for pest control in conventional farming involve the use of chemicals.  Crops are treated with chemical pesticides to kill pests that would otherwise cause damage to the crops.  Kabaru & Gichia (2001) report that, synthetic pesticides have been the primary solution for pest control for around the last 50 years (as cited in Shrivastava et al., 2010).  Pesticides do not distinguish between the species of pests on farm land that harmful to crops and the natural enemies of those pests that damage crops (Pimental et al., 1992, 1997; Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994; Pimental, 1997; Barbosa, 2003; Altieri & Nicholls, 2004; Perfecto et al., 2004; Bianchi et al., 2006; Crowder et al., 2010) (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Solutions to pest control in organic agriculture without the use of pesticides are prevention and biological control (Shrivastava et al., 2010).  In organic agriculture, there are organic pesticides that are allowed in the treatment of crops to eliminate pests (Shrivastava et al., 2010).    Shrivastastava et al. (2010) asserts that the majority of organic pesticides “have low residual activity” but does also concede that the use of the approved organic pesticides is still controversial and debated over whether or not they are truly environmentally safe.   Unfortunately, it cannot be said with complete assurance that every product on the grocery store shelves has not be subjected to any kind of pesticide; however, in organic agriculture pesticides are not heavily relied upon nor are they the only means of pest control.

Fertilizers are used as an aid for crops.  Fertilizers are meant to help plants grow bigger and produce more and better results than a plant would on its own.  In Araujo & Melo (2010), it is reported that conventional farming uses synthetic, or chemical, fertilizers.  Chemical fertilizers are said to lead to degraded soil and increases the toxicity of the soil (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Conventional agriculture depends on chemical solutions for weed control, pest control, and for the purpose of growing food better all at the expense of the environment of the lands in which the farming is done.  Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers which promote sustainability (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  There are different practices for fertilizing the soil for crop growth in organic farming.  Employing practices such as “crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, covering crops and mulching” (Araujo & Melo, 2010) are all organic means of fertilization without using synthetic fertilizers.  Although organic farming may permit some usage of organic pesticides, it uses far less chemicals for weed control and fertilizing than does conventional farming.  The significantly higher usage of chemicals on conventional farming lands leads to increased amounts of chemicals into the environment.  These chemicals pollute the land and are not sucked back up after using the chemicals, but are instead left in the ground.  Continued purchases of inorganic foods are an indirect way to promote the continued use of the chemicals that infect the environment.  A well known and terrible effect of chemical fertilizer usage is the “dead zone” of the Gulf of Mexico, which is the result of chemical usage in the “corn-belt corn production” (Pimentel et al., 2005). Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming.  With the high usage of chemicals in conventional farming it is alarming that so little attention is given to that fact, and it is frightening that conventional farming foods are so prevalent in food selections in stores.  By choosing organic foods, people can choose not to support the use of so many chemicals and instead support the health of the environment.  Organic farming techniques go beyond the scope of plant based foods and into more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption as well.

Animal agriculture presents different issues that can cause environmental stress.  In animal agriculture, animals are raised for eventual consumer consumption.  Conventional farming emphasizes animal management procedures that produce high output over environmental friendly procedures (Putting Meat, n.d.).  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways than conventional.  When we go through the stores, beef, pork, and chicken are the most prominent forms of meats available for purchase.  In conventional farming, the use of confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, are implemented to help provide high output (Jing et al., 2010).  Waste lagoons are common on the CAFOs; waste lagoons are essentially small ponds that contain waste from the animals housed on the CAFOs (Jing et al., 2010; Starmer, n.d.).  Animals cannot be made to quit ridding themselves of their waste; it is a natural process that takes place regardless of what anyone does.  Since organic farming does not implement waste lagoons, it makes sense to move away from conventional farming and toward organic.  Organic animal farming provides open pastures for cattle, allowing cattle to roam over a large area in which waste can be absorbed by the land or even used as fertilizer.  Either way, organic farming keeps a far smaller number of animals per area of land where conventional animal farming keeps many animals in confined spaces.

Since animals in CAFOs are kept in such close quarters, measures need to be taken in order to help prevent the spread of diseases.  Antibiotics used in swine CAFOs are used in large amounts and lead to antibiotic resistant strands of infectious microbial (Chen et al., 2010).  Chen et al. (2010) reports that through the waste lagoons, adverse effects are created by environmental pollution of the resistant strands of microbial which can transfer to animals within the area.  Along with antibiotics, growth hormones may be used as well; some of these substances used in poultry contain arsenic (They Eat, 2006).  Again, as with the other pollutions that result from animal waste, the arsenic present in runoff at the facilities that use the substances the arsenic can pollute water sources (They Eat, 2006).  The conventional animal agriculture management techniques are appalling.  Even if regulations were constructed and enforced to reduce the possibility of pollutants, there will still be the risk of contamination of the environment until conventional animal agriculture ceases to exist and organic agriculture takes center stage.   Feed provided for animals raised in non-organic practices have environmental impacts as well.

Feed farms in conventional farming, like at cattle feed farms, provide large amounts of corn in the feed provided for the animals (Woolf, 2007).  The corn is actually not part of a healthy diet for the cattle and is conventionally grown corn (Woolf, 2007), which loops back to all the issues of conventionally grown crops that are discussed in previous paragraphs.  In order for the animals to be considered organically raised, they must be fed a 100% organic diet (Organic Livestock, 2004).  Conventionally raised animals cause pollutions to the environment through their care in every aspect while organically raised animals are raised through more natural processes and do not contribute to polluting the environment.    From chemicals to animals, there is plenty to be alarmed about within the subject of crops; the different characteristics of crop treatment can be an issue of importance for the environment as well.

Different farming methods can have different results on the soil in which crops are planted.  The differences that occur between organic farming methods and conventional farming methods are substantial and should not be ignored.  Conventional farming methods include the use of chemicals through fertilizers and pesticides; due to the extensive use of these chemicals, the result has been raised toxicity levels of the soils exposed to the chemicals and has caused the degradation of the soils (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Those pollutants that conventional farming employs are polluting the environment and ruining the soil they are used on, which can only further the reliance that conventional farming has on its chemicals.  The differences in organic and conventional farming include more than the use of chemicals.  The non-chemical methods implemented in organic farming promote soil fertility (Broad & Cavanagh, 2012), the opposite of conventional farming.  The healthier soil in organic farming can use water more efficiently than soil in conventional farming (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Conventional farming cannot even sustain its own soil, and with the poor soil requires more water than organic farming.  Organic practices actually help improve soil conditions, which would seem to be a much more desirable outcome than the results provided by conventional farming.  Organic foods may cost more in the stores, but conventional farming certainly runs high costs for the environment.  Some risks or consequences may not be quite as obvious.

Another of the many differences between organic farming and conventional farming is the inclusion or restriction of the use of GMs.  GM stands for genetically modified, and GM plants are those that have been either bioengineered or genetically engineered, or have had both changes made as defined by Perr (2004) (as cited in Singh et. al., 2006).  It isn’t that all conventional farming grows GM crops, but there are no restrictions to using GM crops.  In organic farming, however, the use of GM crops is prohibited (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Although at first glance it may seem that GM foods actually offer great benefits as listed in Singh et. al. (2006), there are risks to the use of GM foods that are known and perhaps some still unknown (Singh et. al., 2006).  GM crops can be altered so they do not need pesticides, but as pests build a tolerance to the plant’s new changes, the use of pesticides or more alterations will again be needed (Singh et. al., 2006).  Any conventional farming that uses GM crops will be stuck in a cycle in which the outcome can only be negative toward the environment or unknown.  Organic crops offer natural solutions such as mentioned in Broad & Cavanagh (2012), since farmers use seeds that have been “in-bred”, making it so the seeds grow well within the local ecosystem the parent plants were a part of and in the soils those parent plants grew.  Organic crops are unaltered crops that can be cultivated naturally to work with the environment making them superior when keeping the environment in mind.  GM crops also pose possible danger to the diversity of plants (Balezentiene, 2011).

Cross pollination and accidental seeding, through means such as transportation of seed, can cause GM crops to grow or cross with other plants (Craig et. al., 2008) (Singh et. al., 2006).  With unknown long term affects of the GM alterations, limiting crops to only organic origins will help prevent any potential adverse affects on the environment.  As stated in Balezentiene (2011), conventional farming has had a negative influence on the “floristic diversity” of the areas surrounding such farms.  Balezentiene (2011) reports that organic farming is helpful to surrounding plant life due to the methods used in organic farming.  The results are in for organic farming, but still pending for GM crops that are allowable in conventional farming.  With so many things to consider between organic foods and conventionally farmed and raised foods, organic continuously comes out on top as a better choice for the environment.

People must speak out with a unified voice, as consumers who want organic foods to be the prevalent choices in stores to promote a healthy environment.  Right now in the market place, organic foods are no doubt more expensive than there conventional farmed counterparts, but that is because there are many fewer organic farms than conventional farms, so the prices must be higher in order to keep up with the supply.  If organic farming becomes the prevalent form of farming, or better yet the only way of farming, the supply for organic foods will be higher and thus allow the prices of organic foods to be lowered.  Right now, chemicals make their way through the environment, animals crowd at feed factories, and genetically altered crops are being made and grown.  Right now choices are being made in stores.  Right now, make the right choice for the environment and choose organic.

References

Araújo, A. S. F. de, Melo, W. J. de..  (2010, November).  Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system.  Biomassa microbiana do solo em sistemas orgânicos.  Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Balezentiene, L..  (2011).  Alpha-Diversity of Differently Managed Agro-Ecosystems Assessed at a Habitat Scale.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,  20(6), 1387-1394.

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J..  (2012).  CAN DANILO ATILANO FEED THE WORLD?   Earth Island Journal, 26(4), 56-60.

Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., Ripandelli, D.. (2008, January)  An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops.  Euphytica International Journal of Plant Breeding, 164, 853-880. doi 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G..  (2011, January-April).  Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.  Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124.

Jing C., Michel Jr., F. C., Sreevatsan, S., Morrison, M., Zhongtang Y..  (2010, October). Occurrence and Persistence of Erythromycin Resistance Genes ( erm) and Tetracycline Resistance Genes ( tet) in Waste Treatment Systems on Swine Farms. Microbial Ecology, 60(3), 479-486.

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G..  (2012, January).  Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.  BioScience, 62(1), p75-84.

Organic Livestock Workbook. A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices.  (2004). National Center for Appropriate Technology.  Retrieved from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/AG/Main/PDFsForOrganicAgAndMOCA/livestockworkbook.pdf

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P.,Hanson, J., Seidel, R., Douds, D..  (2005, July). Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues.  Report 05-1, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf.

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. (n.d.).  A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Shrivastava, G., Rogers, M., Wszelaki, A., Panthee, D. R., Feng C..  (2010, April/March). Plant Volatiles-based Insect Pest Management in Organic Farming. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(2), 123-133.

Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., Jain, R. K.. (2006, April). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 71, 598-607.  doi 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8

Starmer, E..  (n.d.).  Environmental and Health Problems in Livestock Production: Pollution in the Food System.  The Agribusiness Accountability Initiative Leveling The Field, Issue Brief 2, 1-8.  Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf

 They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.  (2006, August).  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html

Woolf, A., Ellis, C., Cheney, I., Mosaic Films. (2007). King Corn.  USA

Essay 1 Cause/Effect – Recycling: GREENS and Benefits

Every day we all have waste to dispose of: a wrapper from a food item, an empty box of cereal, a beverage can, papers of all sorts, and so many other items we no longer have use for.  What we do with the everyday waste can differ from person to person, household to household, and even within businesses and offices.  There are two common ways to get rid of all that trash.  Trash can simply be thrown away into a trashcan.  Trash can also be separated and then recycled.  The implications of each act, throwing trash into a trashcan or recycling trash, can have very different affects on the environment. Although discarding used materials with the trash is simple, recycling should become a daily habit because recycling cuts down on greenhouse gases, saves natural resources, and saves our community’s land and money.

Greenhouse gas is a commonly referenced type of pollution, and is a very popular subject in today’s world.  It is well known that vehicles are culprits in contributing to air pollution, but vehicles are not the only contributors to air pollution.  Among different contributors to air pollution is trash; however, when trash is recycled it helps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced and released into the environment (US EPA, 2012).  Trash in landfills create methane gas while trash that is incinerated creates carbon dioxide, both are greenhouse gases (US EPA, 2007).  Recycling limits the amount of trash that ends up in the landfills and incinerators, cutting down on the production of greenhouse gases associated with each form of trash disposal.  In 2010, recycling in the United States resulted in a savings in over “186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” (US EPA, 2011), which is similar to having around “36 million passenger vehicles” emissions eliminated (US EPA, 2011). Recycling takes trash can significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution; it also provides material for making new products.

Everything purchased and used in daily life is a product of some sort.  Every product has been created through processes that take a material or materials and make something that can be used.  The sources of the materials used to make products can be recyclable materials or raw materials.  The act of recycling helps to protect natural resources, which make up the raw materials (US EPA, 2012).  Without the availability of recyclable materials, raw materials would be the only means of resource for making products.  This in turn, depletes the environment of natural resources.  By recycling more trash and throwing out less, the negative impact on natural resources can be curbed, also helping to maintain a sustainable environment (US EPA, 2012a).  Recycling can have a major impact on the natural resources and a community’s land and money.

When trash is hauled away from the curbside or a transfer site, it goes to a landfill.  Although landfills have standards they must abide by, like location restrictions, requirements for composite liners, post closure maintenance and other regulations (US EPA, 2012b), there still stands the risk of environmental contamination of landfills.  Natural disasters and human error can lead to the possibility of waste contamination; landfills are not impenetrable or immune to disaster or mistakes.  Recycling limits the amount of trash that ends up in the landfills, reducing the amount of waste contribution to environmental contamination if such unfortunate events were to happen.  Even more, the US EPA (2012b) reports that there are household items that may be banned from a community’s landfill due to the fact that the items, such as cleaners, are considered hazardous, and can have a negative impact on the environment if not handled and disposed of properly.  It seems very likely that many of possible hazardous items could already be in landfills currently in use and will probably continue to have these items added to landfills, not from neglect so much as from lack of awareness.  Since recycling results in less waste in landfills, it also can help prolong the use of a landfill, adding another benefit by not having to start a new landfill where that can end up with hazardous materials and limiting the sites that can possibly cause contamination due to hazardous items or disaster.  Another issue for a community recycling can help elevate is the cost of landfills.  In appendix 6 of Funding Your Solid Waste Management Program, a reference for Alaskan communities about landfills, there are many “major program costs”; included in the costs are opening and closing a landfill along with costs for maintaining a closed landfill.  With all of these costs, it would certainly make sense to add to landfills as little as possible.  The more trash that is recycled, the longer it will take before having to close a landfill.

Each time trash is disposed of, the method used can either be damaging or safe for the environment.  Our environment, natural resources, and community all benefit from the more involved action of recycling instead of just throwing out the trash.  Even though it may take a small amount of extra time to sort the trash for recycling, the benefits of doing so are wide reaching.  With practice, recycling can become as automatic as taking trash to the curb.  With the growing population of the world there is a growing amount of trash, and unless a completely trashed environment in the coming years is desirable, it imperative that recycling become a daily habit and throwing out the trash a remnant idea of the past.

References

Appendix 6: Funding Your Solid Waste Management Program.  (na).  http://www.anthc.org/cs/dehe/sustops/rasc/upload/Appendix%206.pdf

US EPA. (2007, November).  Methodology for Estimation Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Benefits   http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/06benefits.pdf

US EPA. (2011, December).  Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010.   http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf

US EPA.  (2012a, March 5). Recycling.  Wastes- Resource Conservation- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm

US EPA.  (2012b, April 9).  Landfills.  Wastes- Non-Hazardous Waste- Municipal Solid Waste.  http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm

Essay 3 Revision – Paper or Plastic: How about neither?

“Paper or Plastic?” It’s a simple question, but one that brings a whole pile of environmental controversy with it. Which is better for the environment? What is more practical? The best solution is to not have to decide between them at all. The movement to use reusable bags that are brought back to the store again and again has caught fire but needs help to really take off. This is not a problem that can be put off. It needs to be addressed and we have the technology to easily eliminate the problem. Although convenience may be sacrificed, all shoppers should use reusable grocery bags because plastic bags use precious resources, poison the environment, and harm wildlife.

Between 500 and 1,500 billion plastic shopping bags are used worldwide every year (Clapp, 2009). That’s 15,000 to 45,000 per second! 100 billion are used in the United States alone (3,000 a second). These massive quantities of bags require 12 million barrels of oil to create just the bags for the United States.  That much oil could provide all the power needed by Fairbanks for 5 years! This is an unacceptable waste of resources. An argument could be made that plastic is recyclable and this is true, but plastic film is one of the least desirable materials to recycle. Less than 5% of bags are recycled, the rest go to landfills and the environment (Clapp, 2009).

Whether in the environment or the landfill, the bags take up to 1,000 years to break down, and when they do breakdown, it isn’t a good degradation. Instead of biodegrading, they go through a process called photodegradation. This means they break down to smaller pieces that are more dangerous for wildlife (Clapp, 2009). These tiny pieces infiltrate everything from the soil to the streams to the rivers to the oceans. When 60-80% of marine debris is plastic-based, there is no place for animals to hide. A whole plastic bag can harm a fish in a dramatic way by trapping or suffocating it. After photodegration, the fish can ingest many small pieces of plastic. These toxic plastics work their way up the food chain, and the concentration of plastic pollution increases as more waste is eaten by bigger fish. Eventually, these plastics will reach humans, and their effects on humans are not completely understood. The material of these bags was chosen for cheapness and strength, not environmental toxicity. These subtle hazards are far more deadly than the obvious ones.

Wildlife being harmed by plastics is not an isolated problem. Up to 86% of all sea turtles are affected by plastic debris due to the anatomy of their esophagus. They have a valve that allows the debris in but doesn’t let it out. Other animals have similarly amazingly high cases of plastic poisoning and damage. Plastic bags look very different underwater and are often mistaken for food sources such as jellyfish. When the turtle or fish goes for a meal it can be suffocated, or it can swallow the plastic. The plastic materials then sits in the stomach of the animal for years, taking up space that is needed for real food and nutrients.

So what are some solutions? Many communities worldwide are beginning steps to outlaw plastic bags; plastic bag manufactures are fighting back with biodegradable bags. Studies have shown though that these bags can take up to 3 years to decompose in the ocean (Müller, 2012). That is an unacceptable length of time. The best solution involves bags that don’t need to be disposed of at all. Reusable bags can be used hundreds of times, and every time a plastic bag would be thrown away, the reusable bag saves that oil, that ocean, that turtle. Even with reusable bags there is a difference in materials that should be used. Cotton bags are not the best choice. Cotton is a very destructive crop to grow and harvest. Hemp is a much better alternative than cotton. Hemp is very basic and easy to grow with little pesticides (Gibson, 2008). A hemp bag has little effect on the environment when it is made and when in use. The best part is after a hemp bag has been worn out, it will readily decompose.

By switching to reusable bags, (preferably hemp) every shopper can make a difference in the health of the environment and its inhabitants. The raw materials that are wasted on bags can be put to better uses and create wealth. The environment will benefit greatly from the stop of plastic debris pollution, and all the creatures of the world will profit. Just by using a reusable bag over and over, every shopper can save the world.

 

References

Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332. doi:10.1080/09644010902823717

Gibson, K. (2008). The Bag Idea. Journal Of Industrial Hemp, 13(1), 73-77. doi:10.1080/15377880801898741

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment, 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

Essay 2 Book Review Revision – Cradle to Cradle: Clean Creation and Clean Destruction

Most people want to help protect and preserve the environment. There are many views on how to best do this, and most focus on reducing use of natural materials and recycling what can be saved. While the idea is admirable, these actions can cause more harm than good. Recycling materials that were not designed to be recycled leads to the use of hazardous materials in the process and less value in the end product. Although Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Micheal Braungart defies current environmental thinking, it is an eye-opening book because it reveals the incorrect policies of the past, the fatal flaws of the present generation, and improved strategies for the future.

In the past, industry was purely driven by profit and the bottom line, but times have changed. The industrial revolution was a dirty time of mass production and environmental sacrifice (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 30). This lead to an environment polluted by byproducts and the creation of products that were designed to be cheap to make. However, this idea of cheap production does not take into account the environmental and social cost of these dangerous products. When these costs are considered, the flaws in the former way of thinking become apparent. The unimaginable amounts of toxic byproducts and the amount of money invested in useless waste are huge costs that hurt industry and the environment. A system that feeds off of the Earth without giving anything in return goes against all of nature and can only lead to destruction.

The present social environment focuses on the model of reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. Reducing the amount of products used and thus the waste and toxins created by those products does not help fix the problem; it just puts off the inevitable outcome, a barren, toxic Earth devoid of resources. Reusing products also helps in the short run, but fails to address the real problems. Even after reusing a product it still is discarded and those valuable materials are lost. Recycling tries to address this problem of lost materials. In reality, materials are still lost as most recycling is actually down-cycling; where a material is recovered in a less valuable state. Water bottles are melted down but the plastics are degraded in the process. These cannot be used for bottles again, but have to be used as artificial turf or other products that can be made with weaker materials. Also, the byproducts of recycling can be much worse than the byproducts of the original production. The harsh chemicals and processes can release more toxins than if the product was just thrown away (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 56). These chemicals and other byproducts released by the production and recycling have been released in such quantities that it required governmental regulation of the environmental effects of industry. The constant battle between environmentalists and industry has created a polarized view; environmental considerations directly fight profit and success. This could not be further from the truth. Factories made to be pleasant to work in and environmentally friendly have shown an ability to entice workers and save millions of dollars. Ford Motor Company has redesigned its factories with the help of input from the authors. In one particular instance, they saved over 50 million dollars just from using environmentally helpful sewer systems. As McDonough and Braungart point out, a balanced view that considers all issues of economy, equity and ecology is needed (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 150). If even one of these issues is valued more than the others than the whole decision-making process is flawed and any solutions will be invalid, useless, and harmful.

However, if a proper system is used to come to logical and truly low cost processes, then real change and improvement can be made. A five step process to create better products is presented, which includes: getting rid of known environmental culprits, following informed personal preferences, creating a list of categorized products by environmental impact, using the list to redesign products using safer materials, and finally completely reinventing the product (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 165). The end result is not an improved product with a reduced impact, but a totally new product designed from the beginning to have minimal impact and be easily broken down. The gradual scale of this process allows for companies to start improving their products now and work up to full scale reinvention of manufacturing. Optimizing the materials used can have major positive improvements of both economic and environmental considerations. By designing with the end of a product’s lifespan in mind products can become truly waste-free. The authors constantly stress the difference between biological nutrients and technical nutrients. These two separate metabolisms – the technical material cycle and the biological cycle – can be used in designs to create products with zero waste, and some that even produce positive byproducts (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 103). Shoes can be designed with biodegradable soles and plastic uppers that separate for disposal. The soles are biodegradable and can be returned to the biological cycle with no waste or toxicity. The plastic uppers can be up-cycled into new shoes or better products because of the pure plastic not degraded by afterthought recycling. By utilizing the nutrient cycles separately the authors can maximize usefulness of the product’s materials and minimize environmental impact. These ideals are just the start to a world vision of closed circle production and consumer loops, where the waste of one process becomes nutrients for the next process.

These changes will not occur overnight, Cradle to Cradle outlines how the needed changes can be made gradually and productively. The authors present their arguments, the facts, their sources, and their solutions in a very organized and effective manner. With the help and consul of McDonough and Braungart we can save our planet. We need to not just work on minimizing or avoiding or reducing waste (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 67). We need to remove waste from the equation completely, so that waste ceases to exist. Just as this book is dedicated to “The children of all species,” we need to focus on solutions that will benefit the children for all time.

 

Reference

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2003). Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Pr.