China Asks Other Nations Not to Release Its Air Data

By Keith Bradsher

June 5^th, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-embassies-to-stop-measuring-air-pollution.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://trendsupdates.com/the-worlds-most-polluted-city-linfen-china/

This is a picture of the smoggy and polluted air of one of China’s cities. The man in the picture is putting a face mask to not inhale the dangerous air.

Summary:

                An air censor at the American Embassy in Beijing, China tweets the air quality results hourly but on Tuesday the Chinese government took a strong position on the issue. Wu Xiaoqing, the vice minister for environmental protection, demanded all foreign countries to stop releasing data on China’s air quality. At the news conference Mr. Wu complained that data from just a few locations of China only showed a broad quality of air in China. He also said that China’s air quality was just a mistake due to people labeling China’s air quality as “hazardous” which adapted to industrial countries. The American Embassy started tracking and releasing air-quality data in 2008 and in grudging response Chinese and Hong Kong officials released data. The data showed extremely fine particles showing 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, a size that penetrates particularly deep into lungs and has been linked to cancer and other respiratory problems. This information has been going across 2.5Pm, a popular social media blog similar to Twitter.

Opinion:

            When I think I have China I thought more about poverty and dictatorship but also along the lines of great cities. I thought very little on the air the Chinese people breathe and never noticed how bad China’s air quality could be because it is such a big country. My negligence has brought me astray from the true air quality of China. I can see now that China very well could be releasing lots and lots of dangerous gases into the air because it is such a big country. The country makes tons of industries which can definitely change any country. Though it may not be the country I live in, it gets me a bit frustrated to hear of the air being polluted enough to penetrate the lungs causing cancer or respiratory problems. People could die if they keep inhaling in the gaseous air that covers China especially its cities. In our country we have similar problems but our government tries to keep it under control by creating laws and regulations. For a country like China I feel a bit bad for the government not making enough effort to try keeping the air safe. Keeping the air safe is the same as keeping the people safe. I think our country should be concerned about China because it is affecting us too. We are affected through the global warming that rises higher and higher every day. The air pollution China is creating is adding more fuel to the fire. 

Questions:

1.      What other concerns should we have with China’s air problem? Name 2 reasons and explain.

2.      How is China’s economy and how is that correlating with air pollution? (Think also industry).

3.      China is a big country and Mr. Wu says the air quality data is broad because of the few locations. Do you agree with this or do you think China’s air quality is actually really dirty? Explain why.

"Sequoia National Park: Worst air pollution"

Author - Associated Press

The San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNC61OOM6M.DTL

Picture: This is the view from the top of the national park. As seen, the smog in the background blocks much of what is visible on a clear day, and is comparable to smog levels in cities such as Los Angeles.

Summary: Air quality in California's Sequoia National Park is horrible. On days when views should be clear and visible for miles, the view is limited (as seen in the picture above). Ozone levels in the area are well above the National Ambient Air Quality standards, and have broken the limit at least 87 times. The ozone levels are so bad that local park rangers are warned they might receive lung diseases from the unsafe levels of pollutants in the air. The unsafe ozone levels have also harmed the nearby pine trees, scientists finding yellowed trees in the area. The ozone inhibits the photosynthesis process, harming the pine trees survival. Most of the air pollution comes from nearby San Joaquin Valley, which has hundreds of farms that produce pollution from tractors and other machinery. Other sources are car exhausts from the nearby highway, the highway being the second busiest in California. The trough shape of the valley traps pollutants, acting like a lid with the high pressure system. Scientists at UC Davis are trying to find out a solution to the problem, but have so far been unsuccessful. 

Opinion: This article really surprised me. How smog in a national park can be similar to that of a large city blew my mind. It was extremely similar to what we were talking about in class about the Donora smog incident in 1948, the pressure system trapping the pollutants. While reading the article, I was wondering whether or not the national park can end up in the same situation. If I were a prospective park ranger, I would not work at this national park because the smog levels are extremely high and unsafe, and I could possibly have respiratory or other health problems.  Putting the highway in the San Joaquin Valley was not the smartest idea, and if I were planning the highway I would of built it around the valley. With all the pollution from cars becoming trapped in the valley, acid rain and other air problems could happen in the valley area. However, I also realize that the farming in the area is a great source of income and jobs, and that without the farms people would become jobless. The people in charge of the area have a tough decision, as they either face a dying national park or jobless people. If I were in charge of the situation, I would try and decrease pollution from the farms, and try to divert the traffic some other route where the exhaust is not trapped. Mass transportation such as trains would be a good solution as the workers can still go the farms and not as much exhaust is released. 

Questions:

1) If you were in charge of the situation, would you save the park or the economy? Why? Consider the pros and cons of each decision.

2) Do you think that this situation is similar to that of the Donora incident we learned about in class? Will it have a similar outcome?

3) If you were a prospective park ranger, would taking the job as a ranger in the Sequoia National Park be worth the health problems? Why?

The Fog of Smog

Sequoia smog damaging pines, redwood seedlings

By Tracie Cone

Publisher: Mercury News

5/28/2012

Graphic: In the image above, a dead sequoia tree is barely standing anymore, let alone living. Its bad condition is due to high levels of smog in the area, even at 6,200 feet. Almost all of the trees in the sequoia forest are highly affected by the increasing air pollution.

Summary:

Humans are quickly increasing air pollution every day, creating a thick layer of toxic chemicals called smog.  Even though this smog is created ever so quickly, it is negatively affecting earth’s biggest and oldest living thing. These things are the giant Sequoia redwoods, living in the Sierra Nevada forest. This forest has the worst air pollution of any national park in the country. As remote as the forest is, scientists are saying that the ozone levels there are comparable to urban settings such as LA. Smog is so bad that visitors and job applicants are warned of the unhealthy air quality. What is damaging the trees are the high levels of ozone. The pine needles are soaking up the ozone instead of carbon dioxide, which inhibits photosynthesis. It also stresses young redwood seedlings, challenging them to survive. Not only does the ozone stress trees, it stresses hikers. Breathing ozone at high levels for even a short time can blister the lungs like UV rays blister skin.

Warnings are given to hikers when the air quality is dangerous, which could affect the parks profit and income. The only way to improve the air in the park is to improve the San Joaquin air basin, which hopefully will happen very soon.

Opinion:

This article completely saddened me because I remember in grade school studying the Sequoia redwoods. Now that I know they are dying because of human actions, it just makes me so angry. National parks are supposed to be areas in which pure air is supposed to be present. And the Sierra Nevada forest’s smog may decrease the amount of visitors, which decreases the amount of income. By this happening, the forest will not be able to be maintained and could possibly get even worse.The only way to solve this problem is to improve the air quality and in order to do that we need to stop the pollution at the source. In this case the sources are cars and factories. As we learned in class, renewable energies could be used since not many greenhouse gases result from it. These trees are a global treasure as the biggest and oldest things on earth. It would be devastating to see them go extinct because our ignorance and lack of modification to our energy sources. Therefore, change needs to happen now!

Questions:

1) Do you think other national parks should be worried about their air qualities?
2) How does the forest being in the mountains worsen the smog (Hint: think thermal inversion)?

3) If the redwood forest was to go extinct, how would it affect the rest of the state of California? The country? The world?

Stroke risk increased when air pollution was moderate in Boston area

Publication: The Boston Globe

Date: May 17^th, 2012

Article Link: http://www.boston.com/2012/02/13/stroke/3I5q2KF1jpAZjfZyas4w1O/story.html

This graphic shows the visibility of how bad the air quality is in some certain areas because of industry and cars. Not all air quality is visible like this to show how bad or good it is.

Link to Graphic: http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/indoor-air-pollutiuon-facts-what-is-indoor-air-pollution-and-how-to-reduce-it/

Summary:

                Car exhaust and other forms of air pollution may substantially increase the risk of strokes. This includes levels that are considered to be safe by the federal regulations. A research team reviewed medical records of 1,700 patients in the Boston area over ten years and found a 34% increase in strokes. The strokes happened on days with moderate air quality levels compared to days when air quality was considered very well by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Although during the days with moderate air quality there was more particulate matter in the air. Researchers matched the stroke symptoms patients had to hourly measurements of air pollution taken at Harvard School of Public Health’s environmental monitoring station, which was within 13 miles of 90 percent of the stroke patients’ homes. Rather than relying on when patients who had strokes were taken to the hospital, they estimated the time when strokes would occur. Also they used the conformation of neurologists rather than insurance billing records for the research. Within their research they found the peak risk of strokes occurring to patients 12 to 14 hours before having a stroke and that stroke risks were more closely tied to black carbon and nitrogen dioxide from cars than any other pollution source. The Boston researchers estimated that reducing the particulate matter they studied by about 20 percent could have prevented 6,100 of the 184,000 stroke hospitalizations in 2007.

Opinion:

            I am just stunned to read about how bad air pollution can be and its correlation with strokes. I knew before that certain air qualities were bad for certain people but I would have never assumed moderate air quality being bad still. I think the EPA should review and revise the air quality index or what is considered to be a safe level for air quality. It would be real bad for people with certain health problems if they were to go out in a bad air quality level zone because of misleading information. I go outside but never take into notice of air quality because I do not have any health problems relating to strokes or asthma. However I think it is still important to know about the right information on the air quality because it could be real dangerous. I think this especially because we live in the northeastern area of the United States which was very close to the research done on air quality and strokes. It is scary to think that some people are victimized with strokes because of bad air quality and even scarier that some people die from it. It is surprising though that the effect of bad air quality does not show up until 12 to 14 hours later. I cannot imagine how many people that could have been saved from going to the hospital or dying if it would have been verified sooner. The main source of the air quality being terrible comes from black carbon and nitrogen dioxide and those come from cars. I would have suspected factories giving out these fumes and causing people to get strokes. This is surprising yet it seems a bit good at the same time. This could open to more ideas on trying to get everything more energy efficient. I think for cars people will buy more hybrids which are healthier for the environment and their wallet. Also I think getting solar power for a lot of things would be even more helpful. However I think this is a bit of wishful thinking because not everyone will quickly move onto more “energy efficient” things too quickly. Spreading the idea of energy being efficient I think will start getting people to become more energy efficient which will thus help air quality to become healthier.

Questions:

1.       What do you think the air quality is like in other countries without much industry or automobiles? Explain.

2.       How do you see our countries air quality in 10 years if we keep going as we are? How about with changing to energy efficient products? Explain.

3.       What do you think people with health problems (asthma, memory loss, physically unhealthy, etc.) would say about air quality after reading this article?

4.       What else do you think makes air quality better and worse? Why? (Provide at least 2 reasons each).

Manmade Problem Turned Deadlier than AIDS - Is There Still Time to Correct Course?

Link:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/28/fda-finally-reveals-how-many-antibiotics-factory-farms-use.aspx

Picture:

This is a picture of what life is like for most animals on factory farms.

Summary:

            Animals in factory farms are given antibiotics to help them grow and survive in the horrible conditions where they live.  From the increased use of steroids bacteria, such as a form of staph called ST398 are becoming more resistant to antibiotics.  In 2009 the FDA released the amounts of antibiotics used by factory farms that totaled 29 million pounds used just in that year.  The disease was first discovered in 2004 in the Netherlands and has been spreading all over Europe, Canada and the United States.  The disease can be fatal and the human strain of this disease kills about 20,000 people a year.  This disease is a manmade problem created by overuse of antibiotics.  In 2001 a report said that the use of antibiotics for growing was total for 70% of the total usage.  Many studies show that when farmers stop using as much antibiotics on animals it also lowers the strength of the human disease.  Also when farmers use antibiotics and poultry there is a long lasting harmful effect on humans.  Antibiotics kill off the good bacteria too in your body and when the good bacteria die the bad ones grow a lot and can cause you to get sick or become overweight. 

Opinion:

            This article was very interesting to read and I learned a lot from it.  I was very surprised about how much antibiotics were used in one year.  I couldn’t believe farmers used 29 million pounds.  I don’t support all this use of antibiotics because of all its negative effects.  Overuse by antibiotics has many bad effects such as making viruses become more resistant to antibiotics, which is bad for humans and animals alike.  This is scary to think about because eventually after awhile some viruses could be almost immune to antibiotics and they could wipe out huge amounts of animals or even humans.  Farmers must think about these consequences and must stop using antibiotics in ever increasing numbers.

Questions:

1.     Are there any other negative effects from steroids that humans should be worried about?

2.     How bad is life for these many animals on factory farms?

3.     Is there a significant difference between meat with antibiotics and meat without it?

Global Warming Theory Is Based on False Science

Author: David Evans

Publisher: Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context  

Publication Date: 2012

Link:

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010058409&mode=view

Picture:

This graph is showing what David Evans said. The satellite is showing having the highest of temperatures in 1998 and having going down and leveling out in 2001. Also, it shows how, for the majority of the time, the satellite’s temperature is lower than the surface data. 

Summary:

Both alarmists and skeptics believe “carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature.” In fact, this was proven by “laboratory experiments.” What the alarmists and skeptics dispute is the magnitude of the effect. Alarmists believe it makes a big difference; skeptics, a much smaller impact. The controversy all started with the assertion that the effect was a 1 to 2 ratio—one part carbon dioxide and two parts moist air—causing the air temperature to rise. However, more recent findings reject this simple ratio for a much more complicated relationship than first hypothesized. First off, there is the weather balloon debacle. It shows “as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.” However, during the past couple decades, there has been no sign of a hot spot, showing the overestimation of the heating from carbon dioxide. Another important fact has to do with the thermometers. About 90% of our measurement thermometers are “too close to an artificial heating source.” Thermometers are close to areas already producing hot air, like “airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines.” This location causes an increase in the temperature readings. Now, at the same time, satellites have taken readings of the earth’s temperature and shown that the hottest year recently was 1998, and since 2001 temperatures have “leveled off.” On top of this, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1680. Further complicating the data and analysis is the fact that humans did not start sending significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the air until roughly 1850, a time lag of nearly two-hundred years after the measured warming had begun. This data record makes man-made warming a challenge, because it would seem to require the effect coming two-hundred years before the attributed cause. That analysis is troublesome on its face. Clearly, something has to be explained.

Opinion:

What this article is showing is another side to the global warming debate. I have always known global warming is a major controversy, and I have also heard the one side: we are sending CO2 into the air and causing global warming. However, I have not heard much on the other side. After reading the article,I found it made some very good, legitimate points that are not told very often—the other side of the story. I do believe Global Warming is something that still is up to experiment. CO2 may or may not be the cause of the rise in temperature. The point is that data from the last ten years shows that the “science” is not nearly so “settled” as some have claimed. Here is where the matter gets very personal: the reduction in standards-of-living that would have been necessary if  “the science were settled” may not be needed after all. I would gladly sacrifice if necessary. But that’s a big “if” given the current new data. 

Questions:

1. After reading this article, what is your stance on global warming? 
2. How can the average person really know “when the science is really settled”?
3. Polling data show that more and more people are coming to doubt the earlier claims about man-made global warming. Is global warming an issue that should pay any attention to opinion polls?

"Japan for now not using any of 50 nuclear plants"

Author - Elaine Kurtenbach & Mari Yamaguchi

Publisher - The Washington Times

Date - March 10th, 2012

Article Link - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/japan-for-now-not-using-any-of-50-nuclear-plants/?page=all

Picture - http://www.onlineusanews.com/japan-nuclear-meltdown-12351.php
This picture shows what happened to one of Japan's nuclear power plants after the tsunami in March, 2011. The power plant had a meltdown, and as seen it was set ablaze and burnt the surrounding area. This is one of the problems with nuclear energy.

Article Summary - Japan has officially closed down the last of it's 50 nuclear reactors after having meltdowns from the March 2011 tsunami. The nuclear plants supplied nearly a third of Japan's energy, and now Japan has to find other sources. Seeing that nuclear was a bad solution, Japan will switch to power from solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable resources. The target is to have 25-35% of Japan's energy be from renewables by 2030. The Japanese government is ready to switch to renewables, but is pressured by energy companies to stick to fossil fuels. The companies have invested their money already in fossil fuels, and don't want to switch to environmentally friendly, renewable resources. Fossil fuels now account for 90% of Japan's energy after the closing of the nuclear reactors. The reactors themselves have left much of Japan devastated, and it will take time to fully recover from the meltdowns.

Opinion - We learned in class about how nuclear energy is a good alternative, but needs to be heavily protected to prevent catastrophic disasters. Sadly, a catastrophic disaster hit Japan, and they couldn't stop the nuclear plants from melting down. It's amazing how nearly a third of Japan's energy came from nuclear. That's a good sign that people rely less on fossil fuels, but with the plants closed the problem has aroused again. I believe that the energy companies in Japan shouldn't be able to influence the government not to switch to renewables. The energy companies should have invested in renewable energies instead of fossil fuels. By 2030 though, I think it will be too late to have only a quarter of the energy come from renewables. I know that if I were in charge of an energy company, I would want to switch to renewables. Me being alive by 2030, I do not think that people in charge now should be able to negatively change my future that they will not be a part of. People should have more of a say than companies in what energies a country uses, as the people see the affects everyday of fossil fuel usage, whether it be fracking or coal mining.


Questions
1) Do you think that 25-35% of energy by 2030 be renewable for Japan is enough to stop our dependence on fossil fuels? Why?

2) If the tsunami never hit Japan and the nuclear plants were still running, do you think Japan would be in a better or worse situation? Would it effect the amount of nonrenewable resources we have left?

3)Do you think that energy companies should have control over what resources are used (renewable/nonrenewable)? Should they have to pay more for choosing fossil fuels?