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?

The Fracturing of Pennsylvania 

Author: Eliza Griswold 

Publisher: The New York Times 

Publication Date: November 17, 2011

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html?pagewanted=all

Picture:

This picture is a representation of how fracking works. It breaks it down the process  in a simple manner. 

Summary:

Fracking is becoming more common over the United States. This article deals with the fracturing mainly happening in Pennsylvania. Fracking is the process of pumping water, sand, and chemicals deep into the earth to get natural gas. The problem with this is there may be contamination of drinking water and air as a result of the process. Still today, laws are being set on how to deal with fracking, but in the mean time, homes, specifically farms, are leasing to gas companies to allow fracking to happen on their land. While they are enjoying the money they receive from these leases, effects are happening to others, not just to them and their land. The challenge is to find the technologies and regulations to insure that the economic benefits of this vital energy resource come at no undue cost to the other vital resources of water and air. Just yet, there is every reason to believe that there are solutions to the environmental challenges. However, if these challenges cannot be met, then we should halt fracking.  

Opinion:

It seems to me, some people are saying there are insurmountable environmental issues and others say everything is technologically manageable. At this point, I don’t know which side is right. However, this process has just started. If fracking is to continue, there must be credible proof that the hazards can be controlled. I want everything to be secure before fracking becomes too wide-spread, because it is a lot easier to fix fracking now than after great environmental harm has already occurred.  As of right now I feel as though I can trust my tap water, and in fifty years I want to be able to say the same thing.  In the end, the matter is really a simple issue of demonstrated proof. If the fracking companies can demonstrate they have the technologies and controls to protect the environment, then fine. But the demonstration must come before the granting of general permission to go ahead. 

Questions:

1. Do you think the technology will be able to avoid environmental hazards? 
2. By what balance can we measure the benefits against the costs, because there is no such thing as an energy source—solar, wind, coal, hydro-electric, atomic, whatever—without an environmental impact of some degree?
3. Because this issue is so passionately argued by both sides—the pro and the con—how can the average person know which claims are reasonable and true and which are just propaganda for the one side or the other.

Vietnam's mangroves trees threatened by rising tide of deforestation

Clearances could contribute to coastal erosion and prove a missed opportunity to prevent climate change

Alisa Tang

Tuesday 24 April 2012 08.59 EDT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/24/vietnam-mangrove-deforestation-climate-change

                               

                                                              

This is a picture of what used to be a mangrove forest in Vietnam. 

            Mangrove forests in Vietnam and the world are disappearing fast.  In the past 50 years over 50 percent of the worlds mangrove trees have disappeared.  Much of the forests are being destroyed because of the huge increase of populations.  Mangroves grow along the ocean coasts of over 118 countries in with over a quarter in South East Asia alone.  Scientists think that the rate of mangroves being destroyed now continues in 100 years mangroves could become extinct.  This is not very good because mangroves when in large groups form barriers that stop erosion, protect people from storms and provide homes for fish and other animals.  They even are better repositories for carbon than rainforests, with mangroves containing 1000 tonnes of carbon per hectare and tropical rainforests with 300 tonnes per hectare.  Even though with all the benefits from mangroves many people are still clearing them.  Without mangrove trees, some places have paid dearly for not having them.  The huge tsunami in India that killed 180,000 people wouldn’t have been so devastating if so many mangroves weren’t destroyed.  A world without mangrove trees could have some consequences in the future. 

            I really hope people in other countries will start protecting mangrove forests from further destruction.  After reading this article it really showed me how important mangrove tress are to the world especially South East Asia.  I went to Jamaica before and saw mangrove trees.  They are cool because you can see the roots and I hope I could see them again.  These trees actually help protect people and can store more carbon dioxide than other trees.  You would think people would try and save them.  What if another tsunami of that size hit with even less mangroves to help stop it?  The death toll could be even higher.  The world needs to start thinking of the consequences of their actions in the long run.  Not just for mangroves but for other things like fossil fuels running out and population growth.

Questions

1.     If mangroves became extinct how big of an impact would they have on the environment?

2.     How can we start trying to save mangroves from being destroyed entirely?

3.     What are mangrove trees used for by the communities near them? (shelters, tools, weapons, etc.)

"Good FAAAAT" Sheep

“Good FAAAAT” Sheep

By Tan Ee Lyn, Reuters

Nation Post

April 24, 2012

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/24/chinese-scientists-clone-sheep-containing-good-type-of-fat/

Picture: This graphic is of Peng Peng, a clone of a genetically modified sheep on a farm in Urumqi, China. As you can see it does not look very healthy, nor does it look like an ordinary sheep…because it’s not!

Summary:

Sheep in China may be getting a genetic makeover by scientists. This young sheep, Peng Peng, was only 5.74 kg when born, but is growing very well and is very healthy like a normal sheep…but it is not. When Peng Peng, was an unfertilized egg, a roundworm fat gene that is linked to the production of polyunsaturated fatty acids, was injected into the egg. Then the egg was implanted into the womb of a surrogate sheep. This genetically modified organism (GMO) was altered because the gene from the worm will now increase unsaturated fatty acids in sheep, which is very good for human health. However, there are concerns over genetically modified foods, and it will be some time before this sheep finds its way into the Chinese food market. It is very crucial that transgenic food is harmless and safe for consumption. The United States though is already ahead of the GMO game, a genetically modified salmon is already on food market shelves. Altering genes may be the new thing in the future for food consumption.

Opinion:

          I believe that genetically modified anything is morally incorrect and dangerous. One, the animals have no say, control or opinion on how the experiments are affecting them. Also, I believe nature is meant to be the way it is and if scientists participate in and create these experiments, they are going against nature. The only thing I am happy to see out of this practice is that the consumption of these animals is strictly monitored so it is safe to consume. I found in the articles that, here in the US, genetically modified salmon are on the shelves of supermarkets. My family and I eat salmon all the time and I did not know about this until I wrote this blog. Therefore, food companies should make it more widely known that these are not natural salmon. Overall, I think this practice is disgusting and wrong.

Questions:

1. Do you think it is morally correct for organisms to be genetically modified? Why?

2. Should these genetically modified organisms be available for purchase and consumption without public knowledge?

3. In what ways could this practice go wrong, such as in nature, disease, etc.?

4. Do you think humans are genetically modified organisms? (surgery, vaccines, etc.)