Coral Reef Bleaching

 http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

Summary:

The tissues of corals themselves are actually not the beautiful colors of the coral reef, but are instead clear. The corals receive their coloration from the zooxanthellae living within their tissues. Coral reef bleaching is a common stress response of corals. If the stress-causing bleaching is not too severe and if it decreases in time, the affected corals usually regain their symbiotic algae within several weeks or a few months. If zooxanthellae loss is prolonged, i.e. if the stress continues and depleted zooxanthellae populations do not recover, the coral host eventually dies. Beginning in the 1980s, the frequency and widespread distribution of reported coral reef bleaching events increased. Widespread bleaching, involving major coral reef regions and resulting in mass coral mortality has raised concerns about linkage of the events to global phenomenons including global warming or climate change and increased UV radiation from ozone depletion.

Opinion/Reflection:

It was interesting to find out that the coral isn’t originally brightly colored. It’s also very sad that coral reefs are losing the nutrients and eventually dying due to stress. It would be a shame to lose what is considered the “rainforest of the ocean” due to its high biodiversity.

Questions:

What could help reduce stress levels of the coral?

How could humans help?

Why should humans care about coral reef bleaching?

A New Way to Get Your Water?

Article Title: Wind Turbine Creates Water From Thin AirPublication: Cable News Network (CNN)Publication Date: April 30, 2012Link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/world/eole-water-turbine/index.html

Summary:

Top of the Eole Water Turbine

Traditional wind turbines are being modified by the company "Eole Water" to retrieve clean drinking water from the air. Their goal is to give rural communities the opportunity to be self-sufficient regarding their water supply. In order to collect the water, first the turbine generates electricity as the average wind turbine would. Using this energy, the air is vacuumed into the machine and is cooled, causing the moisture in the air to be "condensed and collected". After being purified, filtered, and stored, the water is ready to drink. These new wind turbines produce large quantities of water and are great methods for regions that experience water shortages such as regions in Africa, South America, and some remote islands in Asia. Indonesia is a wonderful example of a country that cannot regulate its water supply alone, yet these turbines can make it simple. However, the turbines are very expensive costing upwards of $790,000 per turbine. Even still, the economic payoffs may make them worth it after all.

Opinion/Reflection:

I believe these water-retrieving turbines are a wonderful idea for areas of the world that have water availability issues. The air around us will always contain water and it is a fabulous idea to take advantage of this when other means are not present or practical. I hope that Eole Water will be able to find ways to lessen the cost of the turbines since many regions that have water problems also have economic issues. If there was a way to harness the wind energy and water simultaneously from the same machine the impact  would double and help even more people. The article mentioned that the water inside the turbine travels through stainless-steel pipes. Pipes made of this material would eliminate contaminants from the water such as copper and lead from traditional piping. I sincerely hope these water-retrieving turbines will rapidly gain popularity and be an great help to regions of the world that need it most. 

Questions:

1. If you were an investor, would you invest your money in these turbines? Why/why not?
2. Do you believe the turbines would be a success if they were to be used around the globe in large quantities? Why/why not?
3. Is it worth the money to build and use a turbine such as this? Why/why not?
4. Are there any downfalls of the turbines or could there be any negative repercussions of using these devices? What are they and why are they so negative?

Water and Wastewater Treatment and Infrastructure in Africa

Water, wastewater infrastructure crucial to sustaining ecosystems

Author: Schalk Burger, Published on April 19^th, 2013

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/water-wastewater-infrastructure-crucial-to-managing-environment-creating-jobs-2013-04-12
Image: http://pmps.co.za/water-waste-water-treatment-dosing-pumps

According to the article, advancements in water treatment facilities and infrastructure like the one below will result in healthier river systems and improved water quality.

Summary: Water and wastewater infrastructure has become the main priority in sustaining South Africa’s environment through enhancing wastewater treatment and water management methods and skills. Supplying rivers with the water needed for operating depends on the development and management of dams, while the infrastructure of wastewater treatment is critical in separating human waste dispenses and environmental functions. Within South-Africa, lack of wastewater treatment is depleting the water’s quality and disabling their river systems’ abilities to manage pollutants and contaminants, which results in increased expenses for the companies that extract this water. The Green Drop initiative of wastewater treatment has become the most important water management movement in the past five to ten years due to the significance of wastewater treatment acting as a “buffer” between human and environmental health. The advancements and construction of new and existing wastewater treatment facilities would be the most efficient way of improving water quality and river health. Water researches state that if upgrades are made to boost the efficiency of wastewater treatment over time then it will have a dramatic effect on the health of South Africa’s river systems. The researchers also note that the management of water infrastructure is key in the management of the environment.

Opinion/Reflection: I agree that innovations in wastewater management and treatment are critical in the maintenance and health of river systems, and that if time is put into treating contaminated wastewaters, then it will overall be extremely beneficial to both those who drink it and to the river systems from which it comes. I think it is extremely wise to invest in water quality enhancements, and that more wastewater treatment facilities should make the same investment when it comes to improving the quality of water and helping the environment. Water is critical to life, and if the ecosystems that we get our water from are suffering due to our own waste dispenses, then it is our job to restore the quality of water and the health of water-based ecosystems.

Questions:

1.)    What are the costs of not investing in advancements and upgrades when it comes to wastewater treatment and infrastructure?

2.)    What do you think the benefits will be of these investments after a long period of time? Could there possibly be any setbacks from these advancements?

3.)    Do you think that the enhancements and upgrades in water quality treatment will result in having to pay more for clean water?

AP: Drugs found in drinking water By Jeff Donn, Martha Mendoza and Justin Pritchard, Associated Press A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows. To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe. But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health. In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas — from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville. Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed. How do the drugs get into the water? People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue. And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife... Reflection/Opinion:      This is just an excerpt from an article I found at USAtoday.com. It is about traces of prescription drugs found in tap water and drinking water. It is found all over the country in the water supplies of major metropolitan areas. Although it is treated, the prescription drugs to not completely leave the tap water, and people are drinking them without even knowing it is happening. Of course we find traces of things like lead or copper, but these pharmaceuticals could be harmful if we do not find a way to take them out of the water before there are serious consequences. When new problems with our drinking water are brought to my attention, it makes me wonder what else could possibly in our tap water?  Questions: Do you have any previous knowledge of prescription drugs in our tap water? How long do you think it was there before it was found and brought to our attention? Do you think it is safer to drink tap or bottled water? Were you surprised by this article or were you aware that there are pharmaceuticals in our tap water?

Title: Is your tap water safe? Hormones, drugs, even pesticides could be flowing from your faucet. No one can say for sure, because the government doesn't require testing for them. But in groundbreaking research, Good Housekeeping found ordinary water pitchers and refrigerator filters that can get rid of these scary chemicals

Author: Rachael Moeller Gorman

Publication:  Good Housekeeping  p130. From Student Resources in Context

Date: April 15, 2013

Link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA281564324&&docId=GALE|A281564324&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

 Picture Link: www.personal.psu.edu

This picture shows an exaggerated representation of what could be coming out of you facet.

Summary:

Good Housekeeping partnered with the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants at the University of Arizona in order to find out what really is in our water that the EPA does not monitor. The question is proposed, will the small traces of antibiotics, hormones, a cancer drug, a chemical found in gasoline, antiseizure medication in tap water mixed put into our bodies for years ever ever affect one’s health? The EPA only has to check for 90 substances in our water, but there are many substances that they do not have to check for. Sometimes water can be safe according the EPA, but it cannot be accounted for once it leaves an aquifer. Copper or lead pipes can affect water quality after it leaves the plant. There are other substances that can be found in water that it not checked for. There are no specific cases that water from the tap has harmed people’s health, however some fish in the United States have been showing signs of gender change due to hormone pill that people have dumped in their habitat. If this has happened to our fish, than who is to say it cannot happen to us? Thanks Good HouseKeeping for further research in keeping our water safe is being done.

Reflection:  

I personally believe that it is a fact of life that there will be problems in our water. The EPA is not at all to blame from any problems that unsafe water may cause. It should be the responsibility of the person who chooses to drink that water, tap water should be “at your own risk.” If we could control pollution, than we could control water quality, but we cannot. It is really scary to think that hormone drugs, cancer causing drugs and many other things harmful substances could be in my water. I do not drink water from the tap because of this, and I just do not like the taste. However, all this makes me wonder if bottled water is any safer.

Questions:

1. Do you think that there is anything we can do to make our water cleaner? Explain.

2. Do you think that the EPA has strict enough guidelines for keeping tap water safe to drink? Explain.

3. Do you think that water was cleaner 20 years ago, or now? Why do you think so?         

4. What do you personally feel is the safest water to drink? Why do think so?

5. How does advertising affect your choice in what water you drink? Do you think that if you were constantly updated on the amount of contaminates in the type of water you drink you would still drink it? Explain. 

http://www.twotomorrows.com/issues/biodiversity/

BIODIVERSITY

Summary:

Biodiversity is the variety of species in a given environment. The bio diversity on earth is becoming a crisis. As human demands increase with population the environment is being altered. If we ignore this then the food chain could be disrupted ending with us not having enough food. Along with more species becoming extinct. The first way you can help is by realizing there is an issue in the first place. Then trying to conserve the environment and it's natural resources.

Questions:

1. Do you believe this is true ? why or why not?
2. What are other ways to help biodiversity?
3. WHy is biodiversity important?

Opinion:

I believe we should try and help conserve natural resources and the environment. If we ignored the need for biodiversity then we would just continue to put ourselves in danger.

Carbon Taxes?

Poll: Greenhouse gas regulation favored over carbon taxes

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/281743-poll-americans-favor-greenhouse-gas-regulation-over-carbon-taxes

 

Image: This image of protestors shows the debate between the taxation of carbon use and the regulation of greenhouse gases in our country. As is shown in the image, many people prefer not to pay more for their energy use, but to rather use less energy in the first place.

Summary: A recent poll run by Duke University shows that most U.S. citizens prefer a federal regulation on greenhouse gas emissions over taxation on carbon emissions. As environmental groups demand tougher climate policies from the White House, the climate bills are in the hands of Congress. The poll found that over 60% of Americans support regulation on greenhouse gas emissions from factories, automobiles, and power plants, while less than 30% support a rise in taxes on the use of fossils fuels that would be meant as an endeavour to enhance use of alternative energy. Support for this regulation rose when the possibility of a tax rebate would be offered to residents. The Obama Administration has already made several moves when it comes to auto mileage standards and carbon emission standards for power plants. However, environmentalists are still pushing for tougher standards on carbon emissions. The Duke poll also shows that only half of Americans acknowledge a change in the climate, while 34% say that a global climate change is “probably” occurring.

Opinion/Reflection: I find it funny how Americans agree that they’re need to be stronger regulations on carbon emissions, yet once we try to limit this greenhouse gas by proposing higher taxation, residents get all defensive, as if they don’t want to regulate their own carbon emissions. It is mainly everyday human activity, such as driving cars and using fossil fuels for energy that creates this problem when it comes to carbon emission in the first place. I feel that there should be higher taxation when it comes to carbon emissions, because that will force Americans to rely on alternative energy source that will be healthier for the environment.

Questions:

1.)    If Americans want regulation on greenhouse gases, then why wouldn’t they want to start by regulating their own emissions?

2.)    If there were a higher taxation for U.S. residents, would the emission of carbon possibly decrease, or would people just continue to pay to use their resources?

3.)    If carbon emissions were regulated, what would be the strongest, healthiest energy alternative after?

Title: Klondike, Puppy Born from a Frozen Embryo, Fetches Good News for Endangered Animals

Author: no author was posted

Publication: Science Daily                                  

Date: February 5, 2013

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130205101153.htm
Picture Link: http://www.dddbeagles.com/images/largetilly.JPG

  

This picture shows a pregnant beagle much like what Klondikes mother would have looked like.

Summary:

     This article began with introducing Klondike, a now nine month old eagle-Labrador retriever mix that was conceived using artificial insemination. Artificial insemination is when sperm cells and eggs are joined together in a less traditional manner to form an embryo. It is then inserted into a surrogate. This reproductive technology is intended to be used on endangered species, with the hope to scientifically produce animals that are on the verge of extinction. Due to varying times that an animal is able to produce the embryos made are able to be frozen. This is also known as cryopreservation. This is another step so that scientist can aid in reproduction of animals in order to preserve genetic diversity of endangered species. 

Opinion/Reflection:

  I personally believe that artificial insemination should not be permitted. It is cruel taking animals out of their natural habitat and forcing them to hold another animal’s young. What if an animal surrogate does not want to be pregnant, and a scientist forces them to be? The world got alone fine without this advancement in science. It is my hope this scientist allow animals to breed traditional way. This is also done with humans. Couples who are having trouble getting pregnant can find someone else to hold their baby, while still having the other two parents DNA.

Questions:
   Do you think the artificial insemination is ethical? Explain.

  How do you think that this will improve biodiversity, and lower the extinction rate? 

 How could doing this affect other species? How could it affect (benefit/harm) humans?

All About: Developing cities and Pollution

March 09, 2008|Rachel Oliver for CNN

If you fix the cities, do you fix the problem? With 50 percent of the entire human race currently living in cities and responsible for emitting up to 80 percent of all global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions every year, they certainly don't seem a bad place to start.

The Tyndall Centrer for Climate Change Research says "the fate of the Earth's climate" basically hinges on what we do with our cities from now on. But the fate of the world's cities largely hinge on what the developing world decides to do with their own growing metropolises in the next 20 years.

According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), urban populations in the developing world are growing at 3.5 percent per year, compared to less than 1 percent growth rates in developed world cities.

UN-Habitat says that a staggering 95 percent of the expected global population growth we will see over the next 2 decades will be absorbed by cities in the developing world.

What that means is by 2030 another 2 billion people from the developing world will be living in cities (only 100 million from the developed world meanwhile will be doing the same). Currently 75 percent of world's poorest people -- 1 billion -- live in cities.

Higher density, lower standards

Whether the new wave of migrants will find a better life in cities remains to be seen. More than 70 percent of city dwellers in the developing world (that's around 900 million people) live in slum-like conditions, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

And that number is predicted to more than double to reach 2 billion slum-dwellers by 2020.

The health risks for people living in slum-like conditions will come from every corner and will include increased mortality rates from heat waves; higher risk of exposure to flash floods, mudslides and landfalls; and more frequent exposure to waterborne and infectious diseases (notably dengue fever).

When it comes to poor cities, bigger is by no means always better. According to UN Habitat, the mega-cities of the future, (those with more than 10 million residents) will be "giant potential flood and disaster traps" if insufficient action is taken on behalf of their residents.

Already, 75 percent of the world's 21 mega-cities are based in the developing world, and by some estimates, 27 of the 33 mega-cities expected to exist by 2015 will be in developing countries.

Reflection and Opinion:

       This article written by Rachel Oliver about overpopulation and the effects it will have over time was very informative. I was also unaware that all 21 mega cities hold seventy percent of the world's city dwellers that live in slum-like conditions. All of these people are prone to disease and increase the worlds mortality rate. These people are living in "giant potential flood and disaster traps." They are also emitting up to eighty percent of the earth's carbon dioxide each year. If more people were to move out of these mega cities and into more rural areas, it would make a surprisingly significant difference.

Questions:

1) Why do you think this major concern is not brought to closer attention?

2) How does that last sentence impact you personally? Why?

3) Do you agree that in this case, bigger is not better when it comes to mega cities?

4) Were you aware of the effect these cities and living conditions have on our Earth?

Going Vegetarian- Maing It Easier to Go Green

Article Title: Are Cows Worse Than Cars?

Author: Ben Adler

Publication Date:December 2008

Link: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-clean-copy?id=SPL2298H-0-3548&type=ART&artno=0000289301&key=vegetarianism%20and%20the%20environment&shfilter=U  

                                Summary:

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Lately the topics of global warming and “going green” have been receiving much attention. However, one simple way to help the environment is consistently overlooked. That simple action is consuming less meat, especially beef, or even going vegetarian. The result would be a smaller carbon-footprint for those who make the dietary change.  Taking into account all the energy that goes into raising livestock, transporting it, and the energy that goes into the feed, farming livestock is overwhelmingly more “energy-intensive” that farming plants. Not only does deforestation to make room for livestock farming wipe out massive amounts of trees that absorb carbon dioxide, but burning this foliage released greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that assist in global warming. Animals, such as cattle, emit gasses that are 30 times more damaging to our environment than carbon dioxide. The upsetting piece of the story is that the easy solution of eating less or absolutely no meat is completely ignored. Environmentalist organizations are afraid of the retaliation they would receive form the American people, especially farmers.

  

 Opinion/Reflection:

I am very surprised about just how bad livestock such as cattle are for the environment. I have heard before that eating vegetarian is healthier and may be better for the environment; however I had no idea the impact consuming beef had on the environment. It is very sad how timid the government and environmentalist organizations are being about this issue because global warming is so terrible and eating less meat is such an easy way to help prevent global warming. I hope someday this is taken more seriously and action is taken. Although it would be difficult to make the switch, I am open to gradual change, as long as I can have an occasional cheeseburger.  

Questions:

1.     Why do you think this simple action is not brought to attention on a larger scale?

2.    How would you function if there was a limit to meat consumption?

3.    What toll could decreasing or eliminating livestock farming have on the economy? Any positive repercussions?

4.    How else is going vegetarian (or eating significantly less meat) good for the environment? Personal health?