Spring 2012: Pollution – Oil in the Soil (Recovered post from hard drive crash)

The petroleum industry plays an essential part in our everyday lives. Not only does petroleum remain to be a valuable natural resource because it acts as a fuel for gasoline in automobiles, jet fuel in airplanes and jets, and heating oil in furnaces in homes, it is also used to generate electricity. Petroleum serves as a necessity every day, yet it creates a number of problems with its negative impact on the environment. Although the petroleum industry is beneficial to the general public because it provides fuel needed in everyday life, it is detrimental to the environment because it causes water pollution which negatively impacts the marine environment when an oil leak or spill occurs, it drains the earth of its natural resources, and offshore drilling and exploration deprive the environment of its natural beauty.

Lurking about in the water more than twenty years following the Exxon Valdez oil spill of the coast of Alaska, sea otters continue to find oil on their quest for clams in the Prince William Sound. There has been speculation (e.g., Bodkin et al. 2002; Peterson et al. 2003; Short et al. 2006) that this residual risk of exposure to SSOR, also known as subsurface oil residue, is sufficient to cause continuing adverse effects on species that feed in the ITZ, or intertidal zone, in particular sea otters and sea ducks at Northern Knight Island (NKI), an area that was heavily oiled by the spill and contains patches of SSOR (Harwell, M.A., et al., 2010). Although the sea otters may not directly digest the oil through drinking the water, these creatures typically cleanse their paws and faces after eating in order to groom themselves, thus causing them to ingest the oil. Their exposure to some types of the toxic compounds in oil, such as the most problematic being the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, can turn into more poisonous products, which can harm the otters DNA, or cause reduced fertility, cancer, or other problems.

Following an oil spill, all parts of the surrounding marine environment feel the impact. The rapid influx and high concentration of oil during a spill causes harm to these marine communities in the area. The plants and animals whose bodies become covered in oil die from mechanical smothering; different types of turtles perish after consuming oil-coated food; birds’ feathers lose their waterproofing, causing them to die from hypothermia; and more animals become confused and demonstrate unusual behavior changes after inhaling the volatile organic compounds.

Small spills can even create significant damage to the marine environment. In 1976 an oil tanker released 5 tons of oil into the Baltic Sea, which caused a silky, smooth patch of water there. During the treacherous stormy seas, this oil spread all around, killing 60,000 of the winter population of the long-tailed duck (Jernelov, 2010).

Marine organisms that reside close to an oil spill area face exposure to a myriad of petroleum-degrading microbes, hydrocarbons, and toxic substances related to drilling muds and produced water. In order to protect the ecologically sensitive coastlines around the Gulf of Mexico from the disastrous explosion and collapse of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig nearly two years, aircrafts carrying dispersants release these dispersants into the water at or near this site. About two million gallons of dispersants have been dumped into the oil in an intentional effort to protect the gulf’s sensitive coastline. Surface oil seems to affect only the surface of the water column; however, dispersed oil actually affects the entire water column. Surface oil slowly settles due to wind, wave action, and other factors. Dispersants don’t get rid of the oil; they transform it into droplets. The zooplankton, one of the minute pieces of the marine food web, becomes endangered. The zooplankton confuses the oil droplets for food, which inadvertently kill them off. Because zooplankton is a key component of the marine food web, the effects from this consumption spiral upward. The amount and varieties of marine life decreases especially with those living close to or in the seabed. Not only may the reproduction rates and growth of the entire groups of marine life that live in the water column decrease following an oil spill, but also genetic mutations may occur. A horrifying view of the Deepwater Horizon spill reveals unsettling glimpses of dying birds, oil-fouled marshes, and distressed coastal residents (Klemas, 2010).

Along with the devastation to wildlife that an oil spill causes, natural disasters play an active part as well. Hurricanes become some unavoidable storms in that area. One major dilemma revolved around how a hurricane would impact the oil spill if it hit. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center was anticipating an active Atlantic hurricane season ranging from June to December 2010, including a number of named storms in the Gulf of Mexico, along with 8-14 hurricanes. Not only could a hurricane drive oil inland harming surrounding the wetlands and beaches, but also it could force polluted water up the nearby river estuaries (Klemas, 2009). Needless to say, the environmental harm would create a spiraling effect for the damage for the marine life there as well.

While oil is needed for a variety of reasons, the ongoing drilling to obtain it continues to diminish our supply of oil. Without the oil, fuel for automobiles and jet fuel for airplanes would be challenging to retrieve. Gas and oil are finite resources; therefore, all countries must consider using alternative energy resources to meet their energy needs, which means they incur additional financial expenses. One such alternative energy resource lies with nuclear energy via use of a nuclear reactor. Despite the financial setback with the use of nuclear energy, many unknown repercussions loom around, including: full energy and pollution costs for the extraction of the uranium from an ever decreasing grade ore, the energy and pollution generated during the construction of the power station complex, and the fact that the stringent safety needs are expensive (Dawe, R.A., 2008). With the rapid rise for the demand for energy, many nations resort to speedy development of more conventional fossil fuels (like natural gas, coal, and oil). These expedited actions create a multitude of environmental impacts, risks, and liabilities, including global warming, air pollution, and acid rain. Regardless of the cost, oil and gas won’t last forever, leaving alternative energy resources as a solution for this problem.

When looking at fossil fuels as alternatives to gas and oil, people must carefully look at the important parts these fuels have played in their lives over time. While some people believe that there is an infinite supply of fossil fuels, they are sadly mistaken. People have used them to such an extreme extent that they are now beginning to realize there is NOT an everlasting supply of fossil fuels either. Although fossil fuels have assisted people with supplying their need for energy in another way, people must notice the harm fossil fuels have caused as well. Some of the most significant environmental damages include air pollution, acid rain, and global warming (Liu, L., et al., 2007).

Although oil shortages are inevitable, the Great Lakes hold a substantial amount of oil and gas resources. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in a 2006 study, the surveyors determined that the portion of the Great Lakes that lies in the United States holds 312 million barrels of undiscovered oil, as well as 5.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Coleman, J.L., et. al., 2006). Michigan is the one state, which holds the largest amount of oil and gas reserves; however, it has an existing ban on drilling for this new oil and gas in the Great Lakes. Drilling for these specific resources would produce risks that could negatively impact the Great Lakes’ freshwater. The negative impacts for the environment caused this group to decline further consideration for drilling in the Great Lakes. Some of these were: creating problems for habits of the fish and wildlife, polluting the public drinking water supplies, and possibly having consumption bans put on fish and game. While the effects of an oil spill can be short or long-term, the risks of drilling outweigh the benefits.

While the Earth’s physical environment showcases its own natural beauty, off shore oil drilling and exploration steal the limelight from this beauty with oil rigs, which are huge structures weighing thousands of tons used for oil drilling and exploring. Instead of mountains and open-ocean extending for miles, aluminum, steel, and concrete structures intermittently appear, interrupting the breath-taking mosaic scenery, which would occur without these awkward structures. Seashells, beach balls, and huge umbrellas surround the beach areas, surrounded by the numerous seashells slightly buried in the sand as the gentle ocean waves lap the beach. As a person looks across the ocean at the beautiful blue water and sees the gulls flying around, one then notices the huge, metal machinery as it continues making noise and creating disruption to the once peaceful, serene tranquility of a day at the beach. On- and off- shore exploration, drilling, and extraction activities infringe and negatively impact ecosystems, as well as human health and local cultures.

Drilling, extraction activities, and on- and off-shore exploration are extremely invasive activities that negatively impact local cultures, human health, and ecosystems. From the identification of potential oil reserves to the creation of roads, pipelines, and platforms to enable drilling to begin, these activities affect every aspect of the surrounding environment and its inclusive ecosystems. The drilling from extraction and exploration phases of attempts for oil extraction use large amounts of water, which is actually contaminated from the drilling and is then discharged into the environment along with cuttings from that area. The entire process from beginning to end provides a tremendous encroachment into the natural habitats of a number of populations of animals, such as: bottom-dwelling species, different marine mammals, and migratory birds. Not only do these activities create major disruptions in the habitats of a significant number of animals, but also gas and oil drilling and pumping are the cause of most of this sector’s waste (O’Rourke D., & Connolly, S., 2003).

O’Rourke and Connolly (2003) noticed a number of environmental problems:

“The physical alteration of environments from exploration, drilling, and extraction can be greater than from a large oil spill. Major impacts include deforestation, ecosystem destruction, chemical contamination of land and water, long-term harm to animal populations (particularly migratory birds and marine mammals), human health and safety risks for neighboring communities and oil industry workers, and displacement of indigenous communities” (p.594).

The petroleum industry continues to hold a significant place in today’s world. It is our primary fuel source. Without it society couldn’t function with regards to farming, transportation, heating, and electricity. As with anything, there are positive aspects with the petroleum industry as well as negative aspects. The most detrimental aspect regarding the petroleum industry lies with its impact on the environment. Despite the pros of the petroleum industry, petroleum itself yields devastating consequences. The most challenging cons fall with its impingement of the environment. On a final note – an amazing thought is how incredible petroleum is, especially because it derives from deep within the earth, and yet how it also destroys what is on the surface. Along with damage created by off-shore drilling comes the spills that occur with transportation of crude oil even more so than with offshore production operations (Bratland, 2004). Whether it is from drilling for the oil or transporting the crude oil once it is obtained, an oil spill is detrimental the all aspects of the environment no matter what.

Although the petroleum industry is beneficial to the general public because it provides fuel needed in everyday life, it is detrimental to the environment because it causes water pollution which negatively impacts the marine environment when an oil leak or spill occurs, it drains the earth of its natural resources, and offshore drilling and exploration deprive the environment of its natural beauty. People must continue to find a safer, less intrusive way to obtain the oil and gas needed to meet the energy needs for society today.

References

Brätland, J. (2004). Externalities, conflict, and offshore lands. Independent Review, 8(4), 527-548.

Dawe, R. A. (2008). Developing sustainability during the oil and gas era for when the hydrocarbon resource is exhausted: The example of the republic of trinidad and tobago. Energy Sources Part B: Economics, Planning & Policy, 3(1), 76-88. doi:10.1080/15567240600814987

HALL, N. D. (2011). Oil and freshwater don’t mix: Transnational regulation of drilling in the great lakes. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 38(2), 305-316.

Harwell, M. A., Gentile, J. H., Johnson, C. B., Garshelis, D. L., & Parker, K. R. (2010). A quantitative ecological risk assessment of the toxicological risks from exxon valdez subsurface oil residues to sea otters at northern knight island, prince william sound, alaska. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 16(4), 727-761. doi:10.1080/10807039.2010.501230

Jernelöv, A. (2010). How to defend against future oil spills. Nature, 466(7303), 182-183. doi:10.1038/466182a

Khan, M. I., & Islam, M. R. (2008). Sustainable management techniques for offshore oil and gas operations. Energy Sources Part B: Economics, Planning & Policy, 3(2), 121-132. doi:10.1080/15567240600815026

Klemas, V. (2010). Tracking oil slicks and predicting their trajectories using remote sensors and models: Case studies of the sea princess and deepwater horizon oil spills. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(5), 789-797. doi:10.2112/10A-00012.1

Liu, L., Cheng, S. Y., Li, J. B., & Huang, Y. F. (2007). Mitigating environmental pollution and impacts from fossil fuels: The role of alternative fuels. Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization & Environmental Effects, 29(12), 1069-1080. doi:10.1080/15567030601003627

Modelling the dispersion of wastewater discharges from offshore outfalls: A review. (2011). Environmental Reviews, 19(1), 107-120. doi:10.1139/a10-025

Okeagu, J. E., Okeagu, J. C., Adegoke, A. O., & Onuoha, C. N. (2006). The environmental and social impact of petroleum and natural gas exploitation in nigeria. Journal of Third World Studies, 23(1), 199-218.

O’Rourke, D., & Connolly, S. (2003). Just oil?the distribution of environmental and social impacts of oil production and consumption. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 28(1), 587-617. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105617

Rose, M. A. (2009). The environmental impacts of offshore oil drilling. Technology Teacher, 68(5), 27-32.

Schmidt, C. W. (2010). Between the devil and the deep blue sea. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), A338-A344.

Uhlmann, D. M. (2011). After the spill is gone: The gulf of mexico, environmental crime, and the criminal law. Michigan Law Review, 109(8), 1413-1461.

Yann-Huei Song. (2008). The potential marine pollution threat from oil and gas development activities in the disputed south china Sea/Spratly area: A role that taiwan can play. Ocean Development & International Law, 39(2), 150-177. doi:10.1080/00908320802013768

Yapa, P. D., & Chen, F. (2004). Behavior of oil and gas from deepwater blowouts. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 130(6), 540-553. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:6(540)

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 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

Archambo Workshop Draft 2

Overall

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

Overall, I thought you did a fantastic job of stating your argument and backing it up with research. The topic you chose is clear and specific, so the paper is very educational.

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

Were there any specific challenges you faced in writing your second draft? It’s the very end of the class so good luck with them if so!

Thesis

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

Absolutely. It’s apparent to the reader that your position is one that strongly opposes the human populations overuse of plastics and the negligence involved with their disposal, causing this marine tragedy.

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

Yes, your thesis follows the format and outlines your following arguments very well. It is also bolded and in the appropriate place.

Content

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

1857

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

This draft went up by quite a bit, I would rate it maybe an 8. I thought the paper was very interesting and the subject matter concerning, and you offered some entryway into doing whatever possible to stop contributing to the problem. There are still some small issues with readability, like a few awkward sentences.

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

You went into more detail regarding the problems created by cruise lines which I was happy to see. The paper also expanded on the explanation of what exactly the garbage patch is, and where it is. You did this immediately in the opening paragraph, explaining that it lies between the United States and Japan. I also appreciated the details provided about the effects of plastic pollution on marine life.

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

From your first draft and this one, I could see that counter arguments or objections to your position could be regarding the size of the ocean vs. the amount of pollution that forms the garbage patch, and defensiveness in terms of the usefulness of plastics.

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

I liked that there are some comments in your closing paragraphs about plastic alternatives and the fact that plenty of communities are on board already with these, as there is a lot of profit and defensiveness regarding plastic by the plastic and oil industries. There is also quite a bit more information on exactly what is so harmful about the breakdown of plastics and Styrofoams, and your expansion on the size of the garbage patch really puts the problem in perspective.

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

I thought that your paragraphing was very organized and corresponded to your introduction paragraph and thesis.

Style

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

I think your transitions are good. I would consider changing the positions of the fifth and sixth paragraphs, like reversing their order.

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

I wasn’t shocked and appalled by the existence of the garbage patch itself this time because I read your first draft, but I was still moved. I think the essay’s opening is better than the first time because it’s more informative. Again, I still think the use of phrases like “finds its way” and “makes its way” remain overused.

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

I still like your conclusion, and I think you worked to validate your claims and relate the claims back to your topic. Your conclusion makes it clear that you are advocating for a change because of a terrible thing that you have worked hard to describe.

Research

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

Whoa….you have bunches….25?

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

Seems like you used your resources only one at a time, not really repeating them except for a few in the beginning.

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

Yes, except for the suggested website as a recycling resource. It’s possible that should be cited.

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

I counted a few times, and got 13 and 14 in the text. Do you have things in the resources that are not in the paper? I know that’s a problem.

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

I believe the paper is appropriately opinionated and use of resources is good, again, besides the potential problem of listing resources that you didn’t cite in the text.

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

No, they were good.

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

See above! You did a great job paraphrasing.

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

Your quotation at the end of the second paragraph could probably have been paraphrased.

Other?

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

Way to go! Good luck!

Eng 213 Responses 11-15 Ben Hulce

   

ENG 213

Prof. Sullivan

28 April 2012

Article 1

The article “Captain Charles Moore” written by author Nell Greenberg reports on the extremely concerning issue of plastic in the ocean. Since the problem includes the Pacific Ocean that covers a vast majority of the world and multiple countries the audience should be all consumers who purchase plastic items. Greenberg interviews Charles Moore who is a “Surfer, scientific researcher and sea captain.” Moore brought to light the very disturbing problem of the “Pacific garbage patch” that is located in North-Central Pacific. The patch of water is where plastics that have been washed from beaches where there are heavy populations. It is all of the trash that is produced by humans around the world. The ocean tides, hurricanes and other small storms have begun to disintegrate the plastic into particles that the small fish are eating because they mimic the movements of plankton and other particles that they would normally eat. This is extremely disturbing, because the larger fish eaten by humans are also eating the plastic through eating the smaller fish that ingest the plastic particles directly. This problem is not unique to just this area or ocean. There are many other areas of the ocean that have the same debris; since use of plastic is spread throughout the world and there are many different entry points where it is discarded in the ocean. The concern that Moore expresses about this problem makes the article extremely effective. Humans must take action immediately to solve this problem. We do not know how extensive the damage of plastics in the food chain will be. There will be even bigger and more damaging issues that will arise because of this. This is a snowball effect that we must find a way to end. There are no counterarguments when the evidence is clear in the amount of plastic that is now in the ocean waters. Plastic is not natural and its effects are not completely known, but they are severely detrimental to the health of our ecosystem. The next step in solving this issue Moore points out is we must decrease our use of plastic materials. To do this however we must change the way our economy and consumer culture operate. Plastic is over used; there are plenty of other options that must be explored.

Article 2

In Don Young’s article, “Oil exploration can be a boon to Alaskans and the environment,” Young explains that exploration for oil in the Arctic Nation Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would not be as damaging to the environment as some activists believe. His audience is the population of Alaska and the activists that are involved with this issue. He argues that the exploration would in fact create jobs, as well as only affect a small percentage of the land. The total area of ANWR is 19 million acres; Young writes that the area that would be exposed to oil exploration would only be 12,000 acres. He points out that in the past Alaskans have had the ability to have very little impact on the environment while producing oil. At present Alaska accounts for 24 percent of the U.S. oil production. Oil exploration and production expansion would increase this amount as well as bring in much more revenue to the state and the country as a whole. It would also improve the living situations of people who live out in the wild areas of Alaska. The Natives of Alaska have lived with third world conditions until recently and the revenue from oil production would improve their situation. The article is effective in explaining the benefits the state would have from opening this area of ANWR for oil exploration. However, it does not touch on the possibility of what could go wrong in the region. With human invasion of a natural region there is always the possibility of damaging the environment. There should be much more investigation into what could happen. There are very few places left in the U.S. that are wild and untouched, pure of human activity. This is a very delicate subject that requires careful study and decision making. The counterarguments are endless because of these facts. Since there are many counterarguments to this situation there should also be plenty of evidence from studies gathered into one data base.

Article 3

The article “Nothing wasted, everything gained” by Alan Weisman and Kratochvil Antonin explores a community in Columbia named Gaviotas, that began as an experiment and is now a successfully run “self-sufficient community” that operates on renewable energy with absolutely no emissions. It started in 1971 and at present has 200 occupants. The founders of the community were Bogota engineers and chemists who worked with soil; they were gathered and led by Paolo Lugari. They were able to use hand pumps as a way to purify the water of malaria and mud through reaching aquifers deep underground. These hand pumps were then simplified by hooking them up to seesaws children used, as a method to operate them. They also invented a way to harness the breeze in the tropical region to heat the water and sterilize it. In this way they were able to drink the water and raise crops. These inventions are now used in other parts of South America. Resin from Caribbean pines was eventually harvested like syrup and “used in paints, cosmetics, perfumes, and medicines in lieu of petroleum based substances.” It was then distilled in a “pollution-free” factory and could be used as turpentine. The audience for this article, which would be people living in modern urban areas, can clearly see that an environmentally friendly community that operates on absolutely no emissions is possible. Although the community is in a tropical area it would be beneficial for people to conduct research on how this idea and similar methods like it could be applied to different locations. It has been proven that eco-friendly living is achievable and cost-effective. Thus we should spread this type of lifestyle to even more parts of the world. Counterarguments to this lifestyle are that this community is in a tropical region where it is warm and the ground is workable. However with more investigation into how to achieve the same in different areas these counterarguments can easily be dispelled.

Website

The audience for the website Guerilla Gardening includes gardening fanatics that have an interest in livening their community. The website organizes people to garden around their cities and paved areas. It began in England, when Richard Reynolds first blogged about his efforts to brighten London up with flowers. Now the effort is almost world-wide with people in different cities “guerilla gardening” their cities and paved areas. The idea is to plant flowers and even some crops in small areas around the community. The areas that are targeted are placed that would otherwise not be appealing. Examples of such plots are around traffic lights and between roads and streets. The areas are primarily small plots of ground that are surrounded by pavement. There are even small gardens that are large enough to hold a few vegetables and fruits. These are usually in dividers that are between freeways and main streets. The plots are usually planted with seeds that will grow and bloom more than once. The effort is usually in the spring (May) and is continuing to grow with the publication of Reynolds’ book Guerilla Gardening. The website grew from such a small blog to an effort that is now spread around the globe. This effort is positive for environment. It brings more plants into an area that has very few plants, as well as adding beauty to communities. Hopefully the movement will continue to grow and bring about more and more plants in paved areas that would otherwise not have foliage.

Film

Al Gore has become the most well-known advocate for the environment. In An Inconvenient Truth, the former Vice President expresses his great concern for the reality of global warming or as he puts it the “planetary emergency.” He explains that global warming is a huge and immediate problem that is deadly to humanity. Gore goes over the misconceptions that have been spread around the world by both politicians and the media. He tells the audience, which includes about 5 million people according to the film information provided with the DVD, about his personal journey and investigation into the matter. Humans are producing carbon dioxide and other extremely harmful gases at a much higher rate than they are produced in nature. This adds to the greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Temperatures as a result have increased dramatically. This increase in temperature has caused widespread melting of glaciers. Animals are migrating to parts of the planet where they have never been before to escape these effects. Even humans are forced to leave their communities because of the natural disasters caused by global warming. Violent storms and droughts are just two of the catastrophic effects that global warming has had within recent years. The film is extremely effective because of the political power and popularity Al Gore has had. He is one of the most well known figures in America and has been successful in spreading his research and teaching through his film and throughout the media. This is a very important issue that should be taught in all schools. The problem is the population is willing to ignore the problem at hand. We have to do something in regards to the environment immediately if we expect to continue the way of life we have now. We cannot emit the same gases and carbon dioxide we have been emitting since the Industrial Revolution. It is time to find a new way to produce energy and new ways to manufacture. If there is a counterargument to this, then whoever proposed it should simply turn on the Weather Channel.

Response #11-15

ARTICLE #1

How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals by Tom Philpott is written for the general public.  The article is intended to inform people of how the use of antibiotics on factory farms does cause adverse effects outside of the factory farm borders.  First, the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms helps create antibiotic-resistant pathogens.  When a pathogen transforms into an antibiotic-resistant form it becomes more dangerous since antibiotics, or at least certain antibiotics, will no longer work for a treatment option against the pathogen.  The article explains that although meat companies claim that the use of antibiotics on factory farms does not pose any harm to people or the environment.  The article discusses the fact that the antibiotic practices do in fact cause harm.  In a study the article addresses, it was found that there have been marina mammals that have died due to similar diseases as land mammals.  In some cases the diseases that have been discovered in marine mammals have been genetically identical to diseases that have been found in land mammals.  According to the article, it is probable that the pathogens made their way to the sea through manure runoff.  The manure runoff leaches into streams which eventually makes it out to the ocean.

The counterargument addressed is one that the author believes meat companies may use; antibiotic-resistant pathogens are contained within the confines of the factory farms.  It is already known that antibiotic resistant pathogens result from the overuse of antibiotics, so that would be a difficult counterargument for meat companies to make, leaving the meat companies with little left to argue.  The information given in the article squashes the possible counterargument because some marine mammals have been found to have genetically identical pathogens to some found in land animals.

The article identifies a counterargument at the beginning and then proceeds from there to explain how the counterargument can be disproved.  Further pursuit of this issue could be to research whether or not specific factory farms have been identified in polluting waters with the antibiotic-resistant strands present at those particular factory farms.  If any factory farms have been identified research could continue into whether or not any actions have been taken by those factory farms to prevent any future occurrences.

ARTICLE #2

Sperm Whales Bear Testimony to Ocean Pollution by Dan Ferber is a brief article with a target audience composed of people interested in scientific findings and perhaps also for people interested in the environment.  The main point of the article is to inform readers that pollutants are present within the oceans, which may have been believed to be clean and free of pollution.  The article provides information about research done on sperm whales in which a small portion of skin and blubber were collected and analyzed.  The study referred to includes samples from 424 whales, which is a significant enough number of specimen samples to start forming evaluations of the problems that exist in the ocean.  The article refers to the fact that the study provides evidence that the ocean is contains pollution.

No counterargument is present in this article.  The intent of this article seems to be an introduction to the idea that ocean waters are becoming polluted.  The article does do well introducing the issue but nothing else since it does not contain enough information or further information on the subject to truly convince people a problem exists and it needs to be addressed.  The implication for the environment is not addressed beyond the fact that evidence suggests the presence of pollutants in ocean waters.

I believe that further research about “CYP1A1, an enzyme that detoxifies pollutants,” would be beneficial if one wanted to pursue this issue.  A better understanding of CYP1A1 could provide a greater insight of the connection of CYP1A1 and pollutants in the ocean waters.  Finding other sources that provide more information about pollution in ocean waters would also be helpful.

ARTICLE #3

“German blue chip firms throw weight behind north African solar project”, written by Kate Connolly, was written with a wide ranging audience in mind.  The main point of the article is found at the end, that sustainable energy needs to be implemented but it needs to happen close to home.  The article opens with the thrilling idea of sustainable energy being a priority for big business, and the fact that it plans are being made to harvest the energy the sun provides, and make it available for Europe.  Yay, that is great!  But, wait, there is more.  The initial costs of this project are high, the energy would run many many miles, and there can be many other problematic factors that may crop up over time as well.  Then to top that off, control of energy still would not be widespread but concentrated still.  The upside is that sustainable energy is possible, but it would be best to find use sources closer to where the energy is actually going to be consumed.  The good thing is that some big business is recognizing the fact that sustainable energy is a necessity for the future.

The environmental implications of the plan to build solar power plants in Africa and transport the energy to Europe should be positive, and despite all the other issues the long distance and social stability of the areas the energy comes from or is transported through may present.

The article does recognize the counterargument of the use of cheaper fossil fuels since the solar power project would be quite costly and therefore not worth pursuing in the long run, especially since there are other problems on top of the cost.  The answer to the cost issue is in the conclusion that sources for sustainable energy should be much closer to where the consumption of the energy will take place.

In pursuing this issue one could research what possible sustainable energy could be harnessed closer to the regions the solar power is meant to supply energy to in Europe.

WEBSITE

The Local Burger website is the website for a restaurant in Lawrence, Kansas.  Although the website may be intended for the residences of the area mentioned, I believe that the audience base could be much broader.  The main point of the website is to advertise the business and express to potential customers that the food at Local Burger is good for them and the environment.  The website provides information about where the food used in the restaurant comes from.  Links are provided so that people can learn more about the ranches and farms that are suppliers for Local Burger and even visit the websites of the 4 out of 5 suppliers that have their own website.

This site is very effective at providing advertisement through its information about the food used in the restaurant, merchandise available, and a link for the restaurant menu.  The information provided about the food and how restaurant waste is handled both demonstrate how the restaurant provides healthy food and promotes a healthy environment.  The effects on the environment are positive.  The restaurant supports organic farming and local farmers, recycles, and composts.

Through the dedication Local Burger has for the health of its customers and for the environment this website is a great example of how other restaurants can be both more environmentally friendly and provide delicious, healthy food for their patrons.  This website offers a fantastic alternative to the foods served at nearly every other fast food restaurant.  The only con I can think of would be the cost of the food, but if the demand for healthier and environmentally friendly food, and food sources, would rise then eventually the cost could level out.

Now I am really wishing we had a Local Burger, yum.

VIDEO

The main point of the video Blind Spot is to inform an audience that there looms an energy crisis in the future and that it will have major and far-reaching impacts on the societies, on the world, as a whole.  As with many videos that are made, I believe that the intended audience is meant to be as many people as it can possibly reach.  In the Blind Spot there are some very well made points that would be good for the general public to hear.  The points I am referring to, in particular, are those that give recognition to the fact that often many times important information and issues are simply ignored, cause too much discomfort for people to want to think about, or that people may believe that other “intelligent” people will take care of any looming problems.  These ways of not dealing with what the future may actually hold, are how the “blind spot” in the realm of energy exists.  I think this video does a very good job at making and audience aware of the path the world is on when it comes to using fossil fuels for energy.  The video also does an excellent job at tying in impact people have on the energy consumption of fossil fuels and how there is a correlation between societies as a whole, the numbers of people and it’s government, and how fossil fuels are used.  The implications to the environment are the depletion of energy sources.  Although the video focuses mainly on fossil fuel consumption, other resources are mentioned as well, along with the resultant pollution.

The counterargument that there is enough fossil fuel, or that there are other energy resources out there is dealt with in the video by providing the information about how heavily people of the world rely on fossil fuels.  The video discusses the alternative of biodiesel fuel, which even I thought to be a great alternative and wondered why it isn’t more widely used.  The video goes into the fact that it takes more energy to make this sort of fuel than it outputs, making it a negative in energy it can provide.  Wow.  Not a good solution after all.

If one were to pursue this issue of fossil fuel consumption, the next step would be to research what kind of alternatives to fossil fuels are available, and whether or not they are viable for use as massively extensive as fossil fuels are.

Response #11-15

Article #11

In the article Captain Charles Moore, Neil Greenberg discusses the ramifications of plastic in our oceans with the man that discovered the great Pacific garbage patch, Captain Charles Moore. The great Pacific garbage patch with discovered in 1997, and while it is not an island of trash, it is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes. The trash gets swooped up in these currents and if it doesn’t float around on the surface, it sinks to the bottom. Along the way, birds and marine life eat the plastic thinking it’s food. This can cause toxins to leach into the animals and poison them.

The purpose of this article was to inform the public that this problem exists. We go about our lives with blinders on, not thinking about the implications of out actions. I really don’t think that many people know about the great garbage patch. This is detrimental to our environment. Toxins in the water equal toxins in our food. They say, “You are what you eat”. Well, I don’t want to be that.

The only way this is going to turn around is with global knowledge of the problem. Informing the US that there is this problem only helps part of it. The next step after global knowledge is finding an alternative. Charles Moore is right when he says that we have to slowly start a program. People will not like having their convenient plastic taken away, but in the end, it’s better for our world.

References

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

Article #12

In the article Eating Mercury, Alexandra Gross discusses the study completed by the FDA that tested 55 random brands of food for mercury. The incredible thing is, 17 out of the 55 had mercury in them and I’m just now reading about this for the first time. Supposedly the process of making high fructose corn syrup requires caustic soda. There are different ways to make this, but a few of the plants are using old technology. The old way of making caustic soda involves mercury and somehow it’s getting into the food products.

I understand from the article that this study was not done on a grand scale, and that is what the high fructose corn syrup companies are going with. They are saying that this was not a formal study by the FDA, just something a few people did, but I say so what! Even if it was a private study, shouldn’t this prompt the FDA to do a large study? From what I’ve been able to find, it doesn’t look like much has become of this problem and that, in and of itself, is a problem.

From further research I found out that while he was Senator, Barack Obama came up with a bill that would get rid of mercury cell technology in these plants. However, I could not find anything that says if he followed through as president. There is nothing that states if mercury cell technology is still being used. This requires further action as high fructose corn syrup is in 90% of products. (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2009). There’s really no way to completely avoid it. This is very distressing.

References

Gross, Alexandra (2009). Eating Mercury. E: The Environmental Magazine. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 20. Issue 3. p19-22. 4p

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. (2009, January 26). High Fructose Corn Syrup’s Not So Sweet Surprise: Mercury! Retrieved from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: http://www.iatp.org/blog/2009/01/high-fructose-corn-syrups-not-so-sweet-surprise-mercury

Article #13

In the article Oil Exploration Can Be a Boon To Alaskans and Environment, Don Young explains the benefits of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He writes about the native Inupiat Eskimos and the modernization that has occurred since oil has been drilled in Prudhoe Bay. I understand that heated schools and modern plumbing are a great benefit, but what about the downsides? I thought that the Young was completely one-sided in his article. He completely failed to talk about the bad things that can happen with oil drilling. He only discussed how small a space the oil drilling would occupy and the amount of money the US would save. Even the ANWR.org website completely supports the idea of drilling.

I am not opposed or for drilling in Alaska because I do not have all of the information, but I do not think it’s ok to publish material that is so one-sided. After reading this, I would be completely onboard to start drilling, but I realized there has to be something bad because there are still 22% of Alaskans that are opposed to it. After some digging, I found out that some of the bad is really bad. By allowing the oil companies into ANWR, it opens up the floodgates for other industrial companies to come in as well. We have the mentality that it’s only a couple thousand acres out of 1.5 million, what’s a few more? We do this until it’s all gone, then we’re up a creek without a paddle. ANWR is one of the last true wilderness areas in the US. By allowing the oil companies in, it jeopardizes a fragile environment.

The research has also shown that the oil fields would not be contained to one small area. There are pipes that need to be run and roads that need to be built. Then there is also housing for the workers (Natural Resouces Defense Council, 2011). The last issue I will bring up is the pollution that comes with drilling for oil. When oil is drilled, there is waste produced. Where does the waste go? Well, BP was fined millions of dollars in 2000 because it was dumping the waste material down the oil shafts. The waste material has chemicals such as benzene and other toxic materials. There is also the large amount of nitrogen and methane that is pumped into the air. It is also almost impossible to prevent spills. Whether this be diesel or oil, it is extremely harmful to the local wildlife and plant life (Miller, 2012).

Whether it is good or bad, the effects of drilling for oil will extend way outside of the 2,000 acres that they want to use. This is a huge matter that should not be decided by a few people reading an article only containing the good facts. The bad are just too bad to ignore.

References

Natural Resouces Defense Council. (2011, 12 19). Arctic Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs? Retrieved from Natural Resouces Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

Miller, P. A. (2012). THE IMPACT OF OIL DEVELOPMENT ON PRUDHOE BAY. Retrieved from Arctic Connections: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

Young, D. (1995, October 13). Oil exploration can be a boon to Alaskans and environment. Christian Science Monitor. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. p. 18.

Video

To put a patent on life seems unethical, but in the movie The Future of Food that has been shown to have happened. Deborah Koons has shown us that major companies, like Monsanto, have produced seeds that are immune to Round-up. They have then patented the gene so anyone that wants the corn with this gene has to pay a premium. What I think is unethical is that crops cannot be controlled like that. Neighboring farms are being charged with patent infringement because their corn has the Round-up Ready gene in it.  Round-up Ready plants still have pollen and there is still wind and bees in the world. There is no way that they can control where their corn’s pollen goes. It can, and will cross-contaminate other crops.

The Future of Food was a wake up call for me. The fact that four companies are running all the agriculture of the US is disturbing. How can American’s be ok with this? Europeans and some other countries are not. I would like to know what’s in my food. I’m not saying to completely take it off the market, I’m sure there is some good coming from it, but there should be something written on the packaging letting us know what we are eating.

It was also disturbing to find out how many people there are in the government that previously worked for Monsanto. There seems to be a conflict of interest there. I know I’ve stated this in previous reports, but you’re supposed to be able to trust the government and they are making it awfully hard. It past due for American’s to wake up from their dreamy lives and find out what’s really going on. I think they would be shocked to find out what is happening right under their noses.

References

Garcia, D. K. (Director). (2004). The Future of Food [Motion Picture].

Website

I chose to look at the earth911.com website because I have used the website on several occations. I even told people to look here for recycling information in my research paper. The website is easy to navigate and has great environmental information.

The first time I went to the website I was curious about recycling plants. There is an area where you can type in your zipcode and what you want to recycle and it will tell you where the nearest plant is. The only downfall of this feature is that you must be very specific. I typed in Styrofoam and nothing came up, but when I typed in polystyrene I found a local plant. Some people may only know the name brand and will not find what they are looking for.

While on the page I noticed an area for composting information. The information was great; they even had pictures of the products they recommend for composting. There was also a link for sculptures made out of trash that had washed up on the beaches in Oregon. These pictures should be on billboards around the world. There is so much trash it’s scary.

Earth911.com is a great website because they’ve put a lot of information in easy to use pages. The layouts of the pages are colorful and beg to be looked at more. The name is also easy to remember, which is a big deal. It doesn’t do anyone any good to have a great website that no one can remember. I will use this website over and over again in the future as I start to “go green”. It’s a long process, but I think this will be a great source of information.

Resources

Earth911. (2012). Earth911. Retrieved from http://earth911.com/

Responses 11-15

Website

The 20 liters website is about raising funds and awareness for people in the world who have limited access to clean drinking water. It talked about a fundraiser many people take place in called “walk for water”, in which people walk long distances carrying heavy jugs of water in order to experience what it’s like for people who have to do it every day just to drink. I thought it was a cool idea, no matter how much we feel like we can understand what others are going through it’s really hard to put yourselves in someone’s shoes who literally struggle for the things we are handed for free every day. They even had pictures of elementary school students carrying what looked like 6 gallon jugs, which I thought was impressive because I live in a dry  cabin and I those are heavy even for me. I thought it was cool that they really made a point to try to feel and understand what less fortunate people go through as well as try to raise money for them. The website stated that the $900 earned in a particular fundraiser would be enough to buy a filter that could clean water for over 20 people for 10 years. This is pretty amazing, considering what people in our country are willing to spend $900 on. Even the average middle class family that wouldn’t consider themselves rich probably has a couch or a mattress in their house that cost at least that much; not to mention a vehicle that costs ten times more. It really goes to show that we take our money for granted, and may not realize how big of an impact we are capable of making for those much less fortunate than ourselves.

Article 1

Kate Connolly’s article German Blue Chip Firms Throw Weight behind North African Solar Project discusses a proposed plan to transport solar energy from North Africa into Europe. The plan would be highly expensive and involve building large solar energy plants in several locations throughout North Africa and running the electricity back to Europe with DC currents. At first this seemed like a great idea to me; however the article did address some interesting pros and cons to the situation. While solar plants from the Sahara could replace a large portion of Europe’s energy needs, the president of Eurosolar (European Association for Renewable Energy) points out that the plan is flawed in that it attempts to “duplicate the current system”. He believes that Europe should put more emphasis small scale locally produced energy rather than having all the energy owned by multinational companies. I agree that having more individuals and small communities take responsibility for their power needs is a larger step forward. It would lead to increased public awareness about energy consumption, as well as take the power out of the hands of large corporations who may be motivated more by profit than by the good of the people or environment. On the other hand the project would benefit communities in Africa who otherwise would not have the resources to work towards producing clean energy; part of the project involves rewarding the towns that allow the construction of solar plants by paying them and letting them keep some of the electricity. While in a perfect world every community could pull together to become independent and sustainable, many areas of the world lack the resources and political/social stability to move forward on their own; these places could benefit from corporate support. While this type of project could be a step backward for Europe, it could also be a good strategy for encouraging progression in developing nations.

Article 2

Nell Greenburg conducted an interview with Captain Charles Moore, the sailor who discovered the “Pacific Garbage Patch”. The pacific garbage patch is a large area of the north central pacific where ocean currents have trapped a large amount of plastic debris in a concentrated area. Moore points out that while many believe this is literally and island of trash, this is actually a misconception- the area is simply more concentrated with trash and debris than the rest of the ocean. He describes the discovery like this, “I couldn’t survey the surface of the ocean for any period of time without seeing some anthropogenic debris”. The interview addressed a variety of problems associated with increasing ocean pollution, like fish and plankton feeding on petroleum soaked material that resembles their food source. What I found most interesting was the discussion of how to solve this problem. Moore emphasizes that this is not an issue of how we dispose of our trash, but of why we choose to produce so much material in the first place. He points out that we have established a paradigm in which a product is considered to be valuable as long as it will sell and produce profit. According to Moore, the only way to really solve this problem is to reevaluate the value of products and whether or not their social value is great enough to outweigh the damage it will cause. I think this is a really significant point because most people today have become attached to a lifestyle that is not realistic on a long term scale. The only way to fix the issues is to change ourselves and our expectations, which is much harder than changing policies. In order to fix our waste problem, a majority of the developed world will have to commit to a serious change in lifestyle.

Article 3

Tom Philpot’s article How Factory Farms are Killings Seals discusses the impact of regular use of antibiotics on farm animals. Because living conditions in industrial meat farms tend to be highly unsanitary, most animals are routinely dosed with antibiotics to prevent the rapid spread of infectious diseases. Unfortunately overuse of these drugs is leading to pathogens that are highly resistant to most of our usual antibiotics. This issue has already been apparent in difficulties treating human diseases such as tuberculosis; however using these drugs on farm animals is quickly exacerbating the problem because unlike humans every animal is given the drugs as a preventive measure, rather than reserving them for those that are already sick. The article specifically addresses a resistant strain of E. coli that researchers are finding in seals and other aquatic mammals. It is suspected that the resistant bacteria were transferred to marine habitats through manure runoff form industrial farms. This is particularly scary because it demonstrates that the resistant pathogens being cultivated on industrial farms are not only threatening the consumers, they are traveling through waterways where they can affect anyone. If these pathogens were to come into contact with humans or endangered species it is likely that our antibiotics would be ineffective. This is a prime example of how human technology can actually work against us if it is not handled properly. Antibiotics are the most powerful tool humans possess against infectious disease, but because they are being used as an alternative to maintaining healthy sanitary conditions for our food store they are quickly losing effectiveness.

Video

Chris Paine’s “Who killed the electric car?” is a documentary investigating the various culprits behind the destruction of the GM EV1, a highly efficient electric vehicle available for a short time in the mid 90’s. The car was originally produced in response to legislature passed in California requiring motor companies to provide electric alternatives in order to continue selling their regular petro burning cars. Soon after however, the legislation was reversed and all of the remaining GM EV1s were crushed and sent to junk yards. The documentary is staged as a “murder mystery” and explores some of the events leading up to this massive car crushing and attempts to uncover the motives behind the destruction. Some of the “culprits” investigated were the oil companies, supposedly afraid of losing their monopoly on transportation, and GM themselves who may have feared they would lose money on replacement and maintenance because of the cars’ durability. I think this is a really important film because it goes to show that our government and the corporations we rely on are not always motivated by our best interests (or the planet’s). Many people grow up thinking that the law is there exclusively to protect them, but today we’re living in a world where laws are easily influenced by corporations who will benefit from them financially. I think people should be less complacent about where they spend their money and consider what they are supporting. I’ve recently heard the expression that every time you spend money you are essentially voting. I think films like this would help people understand that consumers truly are the driving force behind our country’s policies and we can make a difference by being aware of what we are “voting” for.