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.)

Date: 5/1/12

Jung Kim

Wood Makes Comeback as a Fuel

By: Kate Galbraith

Published: May 1, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/business/global/wood-makes-comeback-as-a-fuel.html?src=busln

Picture:

http://www.thepelleteer.com/faq.htm

This picture shows wood pellets that can be used as an alternative for coal or oil. It specifically shows that instead of using coal for getting the fireplace going that wood pellets are easy to use as well as more environmentally friendly. Wood pellets can be used for many ways as alternative resources but mostly for heating.

Summary:

                Wood is making its way back as a good resource to use through the new pellet technology. These pellets look like dog kibble and are made from mostly sawdust and wood shavings which can be used for generating heat or electricity. The wood pellets are also small and compact, making it easier to transport. Analysts say that over the long term Asia and America could grow rapidly from the pellet technology while Europe is strongly demanding wood pellets. From 2006 and 2010 pellet production worldwide more than doubled according to the IEA Bioenergy report. The production is not the only increase, that is; price of the pellets rose up making it nearly 10% more than it cost the year before. Even with the high prices many people are making the switch to wood pellets because they want to switch to renewable sources of energy. This is agreeable with many of the European countries because of higher prices they have for heating oil. Though, environmentalists are alarmed at the growing rate of wood pellets and are worried producers may actually use wood from the environment for making pellets. Even with this in mind all around the world people are thinking of wood pellets as a great idea and cheaper than using oil.

Opinion/Reflection:

                It was astonishing to me that wood pellets are using sources like wood shavings and sawdust to use as an alternative source for heating or electricity. To see something being unused and putting it to its fullest potential is amazing just as wood pellets have done. I can relate to the wood pellets because I have tried putting together scraps of useless paper before to make a birthday card but it did not turn out the best it could be. Even so instead of the paper going to waste it was used as an alternative to making a card just like the wood shavings and sawdust did for making wood pellets. What makes me acknowledge these pellets even more is that it is friendly to use for the environment. Instead of using oil or coal for fire which create gases in the air that are bad for Earth, there are wood pellets that will not create these bad gases. This is good for many people with fireplaces because it will keep the atmosphere more clean than it would with using coal or oil. Even with all these great factors of wood pellets there is a high fee for it. I think that with the high fee many people may not buy wood pellets especially with the tough economy we have here in America. Even so there are people who will because of the environmental friendliness. Though it may not be in our country there are many other countries or continents that will buy the pellets. I think that with Europe having to burn oil (which cost more than wood pellets) they will most likely keep changing to wood pellets.

Questions:

1.       What do you think would happen if most of the world used wood pellets? Name at least 2 things.

2.       Will wood pellets ever become a greater source of energy than solar panels or wind turbines? Explain.

3.       What are some ways we can make wood pellets become more common to use?

Drinking-water supply

Author: No author 

Publisher: Gale 

Publication Date: June 13, 2011 


Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644150392&mode=view

Picture:

This shows the normal water people drink. Even though it looks clean and pure, it may contain many impurities that we are not aware of. 

Summary:

Ever since the Drinking Water Act was passed, most people assume their water is clean and pure. However, there are many limits to this act that prevent the water from being truly pure: millions of privately owned wells are not under the act; the act only standardizes 90 out of the 700 contaminants in the water; bottled water is not covered by the act, and even when the water is protected under the act, some companies may violate the law and cut corners. These realities, then, reveal that not all water is protected or pure. Thus, many people are drinking water with much less purity and protection than they may realize. Whether the people know so or not, the article did not say, but I am sure they are not fully aware of the health risks of drinking such water. Even when in compliance with the law, the water is still not fully free of contaminants, so there are many remaining health risks—risks of carcinogens, risks to the nervous system, risks of trace metals and minerals that can also have health hazards. Lastly, bottled water is not protected. It is a common misconception that bottled water is better for someone, but the truth is the water is just the same as tap water. Overall, the water here is still better than other countries with no protection, but there are still things that need improvements. 

Opinion/Reflection:

The article I read held some real surprises for me, for I had just believed that all the drinking water in this country was safe and pure—for sure. I know now that belief is wrong. The quality and purity of the drinking water varies significantly from place to place. Also, I was surprised to learn how many contaminants remain unchecked and unregulated. What the article failed to clarify, though, is the relative risk from these remaining levels of contaminants and impurities, trace metals and minerals, fluoride and such. The article just mentions these impurities are there, but how immediate and likely are the health risks? My thought is the actual dangers cannot be too great, for there would be a real public outcry for higher protection standards if significant numbers of cancers or other illnesses could be traced back to drinking water. So I wonder if there really is all that much difference between the protection levels we now have and the absolute level of purity. 

Questions: 

1. Even though it is possible to impose more stringent purity standards for water, is there really that much of an actual danger with the current levels? 
2. Is there likely to be enough good drinking water available for the foreseeable future?
3. Is the technology of desalinization cost effective yet?

3/27/12

Both Coasts Watch Closely as San Francisco Faces Erosion

By FELICITY BARRINGER

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/science/earth/san-francisco-fights-erosion-as-coastal-cities-watch-closely.html?src=mv&ref=science

http://coastalcare.org/2011/07/us-west-coast-erosion-spiked-in-winter-2009-10-previewing-likely-future-as-climate-changes/

Picture:

This graphic shows a huge chunk of sand and the road being eroded from Ocean Beach in San Francisco. It shows the Great Highway, a road along the coast, having parts of it eroded and into pieces. This clearly shows how big of an effect erosion has on many coasts around the world.

Summarize:

                Along the coast in Ocean Beach, San Francisco there are problems with erosion eroding away much of the sand and roads along the coast. California officials are worried about the erosion especially because they expect to see sea levels going up to 14 inches by 2050. The San Francisco State study says that sea levels going up will impose a cost of $650 million by 2100 if nothing is done about the erosion. There are three options that are available to choose from to take on the situation. The options are to keep installing hard structures in areas of vulnerability, replenish the sand or just letting the erosion take place without doing anything about it. Environmentalists are preferring to replenish the coast with sand in trying to mimic how the coast was before. They prefer this option in order to maintain species survival. Out of the three options the second one is the least in cost and better for the time now.

Opinion/Reflection:

                I cannot believe that erosion could be this powerful and harmful to the Earth. Though, I find it interesting that coasts and beaches show up on T.V. but they do not talk about what erosion is doing to our important coasts. I have gone swimming before along the beaches in New Jersey but I find it difficult to see a nice place like that being washed away like in Ocean Beach, San Francisco. The inference of the sea levels going up to 14 inches by 2050 seems very high and I cannot imagine how high it will be for other coasts around the world. It worries me to see that land is being taken by water and what the future will look like for our country or other countries around the world if nothing is done about. Though luckily there are people coming up with ideas to solve the problem.  


Questions:
1. What are some ways we can help lessen erosion or erosion's effects on the coast? What will this do for Humans or other organisms? 
2. Why is erosion not as big of an issue than other issues such as endangered species when it is taking away the very land you're living on? 
3. Why is it so important to conserve the coast? Explain.

Clean Water...Not so Common

Liter by Liter, Indians
Get Clean Water
By
Amy Yee
The
New York Times, Published March 21, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/business/energy-environment/liter-by-liter-indians-get-cleaner-water.html?_r=1&ref=waterpollution




















PICTURE:
This graphic shows what an Indian village pump looks like and how its residents
receive drinking water. Clearly, it does not look safe at all and the Indian government
has a huge problem to fix.



SUMMARY:
In the town of Chuddani, India, 500 homes are finally receiving a lifesaver—clean
water. The people of the town arrive by bike, motorbikes, tractors and on foot
with jars to fill from a filtration plant that rids groundwater of chemicals,
toxins, and bacteria. The filtration plants are quite expensive, $20,000
dollars per building and there are 428 in India. Before the plant was built in
2009, and residents would drink water from the village hand pumps, which might
as well have been poison. This water contained 1,850 milligrams per liter of
dissolved solids, which exceeds the World Health Organization’s acceptable
level of 500. The new filtered water is excellent, with only about 65 milligrams
per liter of dissolved solids (about 3.5% of what it originally was). Dirty
drinking water can cause typhoid, hepatitis and cholera, plus diarrhea, which
causes 1.5 million children, worldwide, to die each year. This is more than
AIDS, measles and malaria…combined. Humans are somewhat at fault for the
life-threatening water, spilling fertilizers, pesticides and other pollutants.
However, more filtration plants are continuously being built to save more and
more lives, liter by liter.

OPINION/REFLECTION:
I agree with the article that India and other third-world countries have an
urgent problem on their hands. We learned in class that water is essential for
all living things, and once it is toxic, it is useless or even
life-threatening. When I drink water, from tap, bottles, or a fountain, I do
not even think about what chemicals are in it because I think it is just basic
water. However, that is why water is good and bad for having the quality of being
a good solvent. Whoever drinks water may not be able to see the toxins they are
in taking, which is completely scary to me. Children worldwide do not know
this, 1.5 million of them, and have to pay the price. The UN should try to
educate the children of the world of safe drinking water, its contents, and how
to safely drink it, then maybe the world now and in the future will not
hesitate to have a sip of clean water.

QUESTIONS:
1.
Should farms/factories have to pay for the fatalities of people that drink from
the water they polluted? Explain.
2.
If the clean water crisis is not fixed soon, what do you think could happen in
the future?
3.
India has one of the largest population, 1.2 billion. Do you think the unsafe
drinking water’s effects will be passed down to the offspring of a growing
population? If yes, what do you think will come of it and if no, why not?