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 2 Book Review – Albatross: The way we impact their world

Albatross is a powerful bird that flies up to 25,000 miles to find food for their chicks, and whose majesty is endangered due to their increased vulnerability to modern conditions.  Albatrosses nest on small islands throughout the sea and travel thousands of miles to be able to eat and feed their chicks.  This book contains many arguments as to why humans need to become more conservative of the environment and less destructive.  There are facts presented on the albatross rate of survival due to the impact and the effects of humans.  Although fishing restriction and habitat protection have signaled positive gains for marine animals, “Eye of the Albatross” by Carl Safina is an interesting book that will help us understand why an urgent appeal to preserve the ocean while there is still time is needed because birds like the albatross probe the unmistakable environmental impact of the encounters between humans and marine life, albatross are being entrapped in commercial fishing nets, and they are also ingesting plastic trash that washes ashore in vast quantities on their nesting islands.

Throughout their journey albatross have always being in constant danger.  They do not have an abundance of natural enemies, with the exception of humans.  During the 19^th century they were slaughtered for their wings and feathers bringing some of the species nearly to extinction.  Their feathers were used to do pillows.  Presently they are still being threatened by human’s presence; we may not kill them for their feathers, but we are definitely killing them with our actions.  Albatross feed from the trash that can be found around the ocean later feeding it to their chicks.  Another risk cause by humans are fishing nets, albatross are being entrapped in fishing nets or fishing lines from passing ships causing their deaths as well as the chick they have to feed.  All these risks combined with global warming are causing a negative effect on their food chain or ecosystem.  These changes are killing their food supply and them at the same time.  These birds are also losing their habitat and breeding grounds.  As mentioned before, albatrosses feed on everything they see to include discarded human trash that reaches their beaches. One particular breed threatened by humans and described by Carl Safina is the Layson albatross.

The layson albatrosses feeding and nesting grounds are subject to global warming, and its effects on the population of their food supply.  Global warming has increased the temperature of the oceans forcing their food to migrate to colder water.  This phenomenon will have an effect when the albatross hunt since they will be force to travel longer distances and fly further away from their nesting grounds endangering their lives and their young ones.  Albatross are not the only affected ones; there are some other smaller species that are being destroyed by altering the food chain in the ocean.  According to Safina, these effects could be fixed if people could simply reverse global warming.  At the end, not only humans, but other species, and particularly the most vulnerable creatures are the ones paying for what human’s behavior is causing.

Eye of the Albatross describes in great detail the magnificence of the albatross.  Safina studies the albatross as they traveled across the oceans and return to their breeding grounds in the northwest Hawaiian Islands.  He watched how the albatross goes from being a youngster to maturity, to courtship one another, how they mate, and tried to keep a nest and support their chicks by traveling thousands of miles searching for fish to feed themselves and their young ones.  Safina also watched how human trash that washed up on the shores was used as nesting material or eaten and feed to the chicks by the hardworking parents. Eye of the Albatross describes the life of a particular albatross Safina named “Amelia”.  Safina followed and watched Amelia throughout the breeding season.  Not everything he witnessed was nice and pleasant; some of the things he witnessed were harsh and unfortunate, but they provided a good basis for his arguments about pollution.  Safina narrates how an albatross swallowed and tried to regurgitate trash such as a tooth brush to feed its chick, but was not able to regurgitate it.  Many of these birds are getting desperate looking for food that will help their chicks grow strong enough to reach adulthood, but instead they run into trash and eat it.  Albatrosses breeding seasons are several years apart, and if their habitats are continuously being polluted they will stand no chance of survival.  We have to take action and do our part.

Another way humans are affecting albatross’s habitat is with commercial fishing ships.  Several albatrosses of different types are killed annually, particularly per careless fisherman while they are fishing for tuna.  The main threat is longlines.  Safina describes how depending on the type of fish being sought, albatross are baited with thousands of hooks. When longlines are let out behind a moving boat, the birds try to snatch the bait before the line sink causing them to get hooked.  During the 1980 to 1990 decade more albatross used to get caught in the fishing nets as they were searching for food.  These problems still exist, but there are presently more regulations to try to protect species like the albatross.

Eye of the Albatross by Carl Safina successfully promotes more environmental awareness with less environmental impact to increase the survival rate of species such as the layson albatross and albatrosses everywhere.  Carl Safina spent much time amongst the albatrosses which makes him an expert on the subject.  Safina has several books on different species and the impact that humans are making on different habitats. His methods of observation are giving us an inside view and perspective on how our actions are affecting other species’ survival rates.  Every action on our part causes a reaction, and these reactions are causing an unbalance in our ecosystem.  Safina explains how commercial fishing and pollution are affecting the albatross amongst other species.

References

Safina, Carl.  (2002).  Eye of the albatross: Visions of hope and survival.  New York:  Henry Holt.

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

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.

Essay 1 Revision – Nuclear Power: Is It Really All That Bad?

On March 11^th 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan. The first reports focused on the waves’ damage to city after city and town after town. Then all reports focused on one place, Fukushima. What was special about this town? Did many people live there? No, it was a coastal town with the same damage as every other fishing community. The only difference was that a couple of water pumps were damaged. The problem was that these pumps cooled a nuclear power plant. The lack of cooling started a chain of events resulting in explosions and spreading radiation. These events caused considerable discussion and questioning of the safety of nuclear power. This questioning is not going to help the environment. The problems facing the world today are numerous: humans are running out of oil sources, greenhouse gases are changing our climate and there are few ready alternative sources of power available. Humankind, for the most part, has done nothing to curb the effects of global warming. We are waiting for an easy way out while burning coal and oil to power our homes. Of course we can’t just stop making electricity and wait for a perfect energy source. We don’t have the time. However, there is a technology that is developed and ready to be used, that can produce massive amounts of power and no uncontrolled pollution. The human race cannot stand around waiting for a new energy solution to appear, we must use the nuclear technology available now to create clean energy today. Although nuclear power is often viewed as dangerous, it causes more good than harm because of its efficiency, cleanliness and safety.

Efficiency is the key to any good power source and nuclear energy has considerable advantages over other power sources. Every year the United States burns 1 billion tons of coal to make electricity.  Sixty-thousand tons of Uranium would create the same amount of energy; a small fifty gram Uranium pellet puts off the same amount of energy as 1780 pounds of coal (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006). Instead of using a solid chunk of coal the size of a refrigerator, two pieces of uranium the size of a pair of dice can be used. The ease at which this can be dug up and transported can make a huge difference in efficiency of the fuel. Only one truck is needed to drive the fuel to the power plant instead of a mile-long train. The less fuel used lowers the amount of work and energy going into getting the fuel. Although Uranium is more expensive than coal, the plant needs much less; each kilowatt-hour created by nuclear power (1.76 cents/per kilowatt-hour) is cheaper than coal (2.21 cents/per kilowatt-hour) (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006). The fuel supply is a huge factor to consider when selecting a power plant. Oil and coal are running out. Uranium is still easily mined and will continue to be for years after oil and coal mines have dried up. Also, some reactors are set up to recycle used nuclear fuel and create more fuel (Yangco, 1996). Let’s see a coal plant do that: burn 50 tons of coal and end up with 60 tons. This process is not science fiction and can stretch the use of the fuel many times. This efficiency is a solid advantage nuclear power has over other forms of alternative energy. Unlike solar or wind, a nuclear plant can provide vast amounts of constant, reliable energy. They are also exempt from many kinds of fuel shortages. Uranium is evenly distributed around the globe so a conflict in the Middle East will not affect energy prices here (Yangco, 1996).

The biggest advantage for the environment over conventional energy plants is that a nuclear power plant puts out no pollution during operation (Clyde, Schleier-Smith & Tseng, 1996). No air pollution equals no gases released into atmosphere equals no contributing to global warming. This is much different from the smoke belching coal plants that produce 40% of the CO² released by the US, and that cause endless health problems (Godin, 2011). The massive amounts of dangerous gases released are uncontrollable and deadly. Air pollutants can never be controlled while radioactive waste can be put in containers and stored. Coal plant air pollution kills 1,000,000 people every year. The nuclear plant radiation from Chernobyl is expected to cause early death in about 4,000 people, (Godin, 2011) but that was an accident, not routine operation. The accident in Japan was a small release that had nowhere near the potential for killing compared to Chernobyl. The only time people are hurt by nuclear power is when something goes wrong. Coal pollution kills when everything goes right.

Nuclear power has a different kind of pollution: radiation. The disaster in Japan and the past disasters of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl created massive amounts of fear in the general public. Anything that can silently penetrate walls and produce cancer, radiation sickness, and death is scary. Nuclear waste will continue to give off radiation for thousands of years. However, radiation is not understood well by the general public. Radiation is normal. Two of the three disasters mentioned really didn’t cause much human damage. At 3 Mile Island some people received 0.3% more radiation than normal (Yangco, 1996). The Japanese incident is still too recent to see health trends and Chernobyl was not actually a meltdown, it was an explosion and fire caused by the mishandling of chemicals and steam, not run away nuclear reactions. Even after releasing huge amounts of radiation Chernobyl did not kill many people when compared to the ongoing deaths from coal. Something that is not widely known is that radiation is everywhere, from bricks to fire. Everyday objects give off small amounts of reaction, while fires release natural radiation from those same materials. Taking a plane trip gives your body a dose of radiation from outer space. These are all normal and non-dangerous exposures to radiation. More radiation is released burning coal then from a nuclear power plant, even one with a leak (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006)!

I can only hope that nuclear power production does not get stifled by the fears. This form of clean energy has to be utilized if we as humans want to keep our way of life. The path humanity is on — one of dwindling of fossil fuels and a planet that is inhospitable — is unacceptable and dramatic action needs to be taken soon. Nuclear power may not be the final answer to our problems, but it can fill in and power the world until better technology is discovered. A look at the efficiency, cleanliness, and safety of nuclear power reveals a power source that has too much positive potential for the environment and our future for us to ignore.

References

Clyde, J., Schleier-Smith, J., & Tseng, G. (1996, October 28). Nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy_body.html

Godin, S. (2011, March 13). Deaths per twh by energy source. Retrieved from http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Klimas, R., Anderson, D., & Azadian, N. (2006, December 13). Nuclear power pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~azadini/group/website/

Yangco, R. (1996, June 06). The pros and cons of nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm

Essay 1 Revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Essay #1 Cause/Effect (Revision) – “Genetically Modified Seeds: The Killing of the Honey Bee’s”

Genetically Modified Seeds: The Killing of the Honey Bee’s

From the flowers to the trees, bees of all kinds are very important for the continuation of not just plant life, but all life here on Earth. Without the help from these pollinating insects, the produce section of the local grocery stores might look a lot different. Although the general public has not been aware of a noticeable decline in the growth of commercial crops here in the United States, the use of genetically modified seeds (GMO) has caused the decline of the honey bee population because it has introduced bacteria and viruses into their diet, it has contaminated their food source, and is responsible for the death of the next generation of bees.

With the introduction of genetically modified seeds (GMO), consumers are being reassured that the produce they are eating is safer than ever before. With the help of these GMO’s, growing these crops does not require near the amount of pesticides as before. The question is, what effects are these GMO’s having on the insects that are meant to help in pollination, and the essential growth of these crops? When these seeds were engineered, a strain of bacteria and virus that is used as a pesticide was genetically introduced into the seeds DNA. One of the gene segments that have been introduced is a bacterium called bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is intended to deter butterfly larva from devouring the plant. The resulting bio-toxin that is now found in every cell of the plant, instead of just sprayed on topically where the larva is, is a protein called Cry1Ab (Gitlin, 2009). This bio-toxin is not a new substance that has been introduced to the bees. Beekeepers have been using it as a way to keep moths out of the hives. Over the last few years beekeepers have noticed an increase of Cry1Ab in the hives, and they have not been spraying the hives as often (Donovan, 2009). How is this happening?

The bee’s main food sources are being contaminated. Bees not only pollinate the crops but take that pollen back to the hive to become food, not only for the adult bees but for the larva as well. Bees are a very fragile insect with an immune system that cannot handle a lot of new threats at one time. They are able to fight off diseases up to a certain point. Even the smallest amount of Bt from the GMO’s could potentially have a very adverse affect on the bees. Having to consume pollen that is genetically altered with strains of a bacteria and virus’ is weakening their already delicate little bodies. With no other food sources and without the ability to know not to eat the poisoned crops, the future for the bees does not look very good. They are killing themselves off with the help of ingested bacteria strains that should never be found in their food. What about the next generation of bees?

At the rate the bees are disappearing there may not be a next generation. According to research that was done in Mexico, the affects of Cry1Ab on the bees is very interesting. It affects their judgment and their senses, just like alcohol affects humans. When observed the bees will continue to take the substance in that contains this bio-toxin and will fail to obtain enough pollen to take back to the hive (Donovan, 2009). If every bee in the hive is sitting at a GMO plant and worried only of themselves, in a moment of pure bio-toxin bliss, then there is really no way their hive will survive. The hive is a very well planned out organism. The reason there are so many bees to one hive is so they can take care of and look out for the others. The increase of Cry1Ab in their diets is not only affecting their immune systems but their livelihood as well. The way bees were created is fascinating. Over a very short period of time, a single bee is able to do a variety of different jobs in and out of the hive. With the introduction of this mind altering poison, the bees may not have future.  This could devastate the growing crops, GMO or organic. It has been found that the Bt gene is not directly hazardous to the insects it has not be engineered to destroy, but the toxins it produces could put these insects such as honey bees at risk when it is ingested over a long period of time (Donovan, 2009).

Look into the role of people. How should they get involved? What will happen if they don’t? These are questions that should not be taken lightly. With hundreds of bees disappearing every day, it is imperative that an action be taken to figure out whether or not GMO’s are the major contributing factor to the epidemic of colony collapse disorder, the disappearing of the honey bees. Also, realizing that there are many factors in the bee’s disappearance can help create an awareness that will bring change. Actively searching for answers and ways to organically increase crop productions that will not harm the helpful insects is a must.

Genetically modified seeds may sound like the next best thing for a better crop production, but all the side effects need to be weighed out. The only hope the bees have for a future is to look to a new source of how crops are grown. Maybe organic is the better way to go, not only for the bees but for the people as well. Who knows what Bt and Cry1Ab are doing to the human race?

References

Genersch, E. (2010). Honey bee pathology: current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 87(1), 87-97. doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2573-8

Kaplan, J. (2008). A Complex Buzz. Agricultural Research, 56(5), 8-11.

Donovan, P. (2009). Genetically Modified Crops Implicated in Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/025287.html

Gitlin, B. (2009). Is Bee Colony Collapse Disorder linked to GMOs? Retrieved from http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2009/09/24/is-bee-colony-collapse-disorder-linked-to-gmos/

Essay 3 Proposal-Chloroform: Is That Really What You Want in Your Water?

The first things you think of when you drink tap water are the taste, the smell, the color and the clarity. The last things you think of are where the water comes from and how many parasites, vibrio cholerae bacteria and cryptosporidium are in each glass full. It’s the government’s job to regulate how the water is to be treated. The EPA mandates the amount of chemicals that are added to the water and how it’s filtered to kill bacteria and parasites. There are a few different ways to clean the water, but the most commonly used is chlorine. However, It may not be the best option. Although Fairbanks’ water quality falls within the EPA’s required ranges, the city should build a new water treatment facility because College Utilities Corporation and Golden Heart Utilities are still using chlorine to disinfect the water, the amount of trihalomethanes (THM’s) in the water is higher than what new tests recommend, and the result of long-term exposure to low levels of THM’s is elevating chances of getting bladder and rectal cancer.

When chlorine is added to the water, it reacts with the organic materials and produces toxic by-products called trihalomethanes (THM’s). The THM’s consist of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dribromochloromethane, and bromoform (Thompson, 2012). The EPA mandates that these levels be kept below 80ppb (parts per billion), however, according to The American Journal of Epidemiology, people exposed to levels higher than 50ppb had twice the risk of bladder and rectal cancer than those exposed to only 8ppb (Villanueva, Cantor, Grimault, et al., 2007). While looking at College Utilites Consumer Report, they list Fairbanks THM’s at 54ppb for the average for the year 2010 (MacDonald, 2011). While this is lower than what the EPA mandates, it is still higher than what recent tests recommend.

There are ways to disinfect the water that require less chlorine. Chlorine is required by law but only because the pipes that the water is pumped through cannot be disinfected. Several cities in the US are currently using ozone to disinfect the water. Most cities in Europe use this method, but it is fairly new to the US. Ozone is great because it can kill cryptosporidium cysts, which were responsible for the Milwaukee waterborn disease outbreak in 1993, but it’s pricey. Peoria, AZ uses ozone. The city offsets the extra cost of ozone by using surface water. This is much cheaper than pumping groundwater to the surface (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Arizona, 2002). The City of Peoria’s Water Report for 2009 claims their THM’s are an average of 3ppb (Mattingly, 2009). This is significantly less than Phoenix’s 58ppb average (City of Phoenix, 2011). Phoenix and Peoria get their water from the same source, the only difference is the disinfection methods used.

Another way to disinfect drinking water without using as much chlorine is to use membrane filtration. This process can filter out impurities that are 0.03 micrometers and larger (Water-Technology.net, 2011). Anything smaller will be killed by chlorine. The key to this method is that there are fewer organics left in the water for the chlorine to react with. The chlorine reacting with the organic material is what causes the THM’s, so fewer organics, means less THM’s. Columbia Heights, MN uses membrane filtration. On the cities Water Report for 2011, they show the average THM’s at 21.23ppb (City of Columbia Heights, 2011). Just like Peoria, AZ, Columbia Heights pumps its water from a surface source, the Mississippi River.

The EPA is not likely to change its limits anytime soon. So, the best way for consumers to protect their families against THM’s is to install a full house activated carbon filter. The carbon filter works because certain molecules, like chlorine, bond to the carbon molecules. This allows some chemicals, like fluoride, to pass through uninhibited while chlorine is absorbed. The only downfall is that the carbon filters must be changed periodically. The manufacturers recommend changing the filters in a high volume filter every 6 months or every 1000 gallons (APS Water, 2012). There is also the option of placing a carbon filter on your faucet if you are only concerned with drinking THM’s. These filters must be changed more often.

As far as cost goes, New Jersey’s Canoe Brook Water Treatment Plant is currently being built at a cost of $78 Billion. This treatment facility will use ozone and carbon filtration to disinfect the surface water for its 42,000 customers (Barnes, 2011). I would estimate our costs to be similar. College Utilities Corporation and Golden Heart Utilities currently service approximately 55,000 people (Utility Services of Alaska, 2012).

In conclusion, the health benefits of a new water treatment facility would greatly outweigh the costs involved in building it. There might even be a way to convert our current treatment facility without having to build a completely new building. Chloroform is dangerous. Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus said it best in 1536, “All substances are poisonous, there is none that is not a poison; the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.” Chloroform in a single, small dose may not do us harm, but to ingest, inhale and absorb it in small doses over our entire lifetimes has been shown to lead to higher chances of bladder and rectal cancer. It is our government’s responsibility to provide us with safe drinking water, and if we can’t trust them to do that, then we must take the steps to protect our families.

References

APS Water. (2012). Using Activated Carbon Equipment and Filters. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from APS Water: http://www.apswater.com/article.asp?id=29&title=Using_Activated_Carbon_Equipment_and_Filters

 

Barnes, R. (2011, 08 28). New Jersey American Water’s Treatment Plants Stressed; Customers Asked to Conserve Water. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from Business Wire: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110828005071/en/Jersey-American-

Water’s-Treatment-Plants-Stressed-Customers

 

City of Columbia Heights. (2011). City of Columbia Heights. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from City of Columbia Heights Consumer Confidence Report 2011: http://www.ci.columbia-heights.mn.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=235

 

City of Phoenix. (2011). 2011 Water Quality Report. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from http://phoenix.gov/WATERSERVICES/qualre11.pdf

 

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Arizona. (2002, July). First Arizona Water Treatment Plant Using Ozone Now On-Line. Retrieved 04 18, 2012, from http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/julyaugust02/feature1.html

 

MacDonald, S. (2011). College Utilities Drinking Water Report; 13th Annual Water Quality Report.

 

Mattingly, W. (2009). City of Peoria Water Report 2009. Retrieved 04 18, 2012, from http://www.peoriaaz.gov/uploadedFiles/CCR_Vistancia_2009.pdf

 

Thompson, S. A. (2012). Water Trihalomethanes (THM) Fact Sheet. Retrieved 04 19, 2012, from Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/factsheets/water/thmfactsheet.pdf

 

Utility Services of Alaska. (2012). Company Bio. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from Alaska Water: http://www.akwater.com/about.shtml

 

Villanueva, C., Cantor, K., Grimault, J., & al., e. (2007). Bladder Cancer and Exposure to Water Disinfection By-Products Through Injestion, Bathing, Showering , and Swimming in Pools. The American Journal of Epidemiology , 165 (2), 153.

 

Water-Technology.net. (2011). Columbia Heights Filtration Plant, United States of America. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from Water-Technology.net: http://www.water-technology.net/projects/columbia/