Blog Post #5 - Jialin Wang

Article Title: Are Honeybees Losing Their Way?

Author of Article: Christy Ullrich
Publication: National Geographic News
Publication Date: February 13, 2012

Link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130213-honeybee-pesticide-insect-behavior-science/


Photograph by John Kimbler

Picture:
This picture shows a honeybee, an insect responsible for the existence of a nearly a third of the food we eat today. Recent studies show that pesticides may be responsible for memory loss in these pollinators.

Summary:
Bees travel many miles and visit hundreds of flowers in search of pollen. They can find their way back to their hive from five miles away, and remember the location of the flowers, doing a "waggle dance" to direct other bees to the food source. A recent study by Geraldine Wright, a neuroscientist at Newcastle University, shows that not only do pesticides harm a bee's learning ability, a combination of pesticides has even more of a negative impact. The bees were fed large amounts of pesticides for three days, and their memory, both short- and long-term, was measured every ten minutes and twenty-four hours, respectively. The results showed that exposure to several different pesticides had a much greater effect than exposure to a single pesticide. Bees pollinate the flowers they visit, and are responsible for a large fraction of the food we eat. The presence of pesticides makes them more vulnerable to the effects of other pesticides, which impact their ability to find food, which results in millions of honeybees dying. This in turn reduces the amount of pollination, which directly impacts our own food resources.

Opinion/Reflection:
I think that, since honeybees are so important to the reproduction of plants, and therefore to the functioning of entire ecosystems and to our own lives, it is vital that we protect them and ensure their continued survival. Most media sources don't really mention the impact humans have on seemingly insignificant yet essential parts of our world, like the effect pesticides have on bees. Every human being on the planet needs food, and if a third of it suddenly vanshed, it would impact everyone. It's important that more people take notice of things like this.

Questions:
1. What exactly would happen if all the honeybees disappeared? What would be the immediate impact, both to humans and to wildlife? How would people deal with the change?
2. What possible alternatives could there be to using pesticides? Would not using them do more harm or good? In the short term? Long term?
3. What other similar situations exist that we don't know about? How can these be brought to greater attention?

Blog Post #4 - Ryan Barrett

Article Title: High levels of air pollution linked to heart attacks: study 

Date published: Thursday, February 21, 2013

By: Reuters

Publisher: NY Daily News

 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/air-pollution-linked-heart-attacks-study-article-1.1270124#ixzz2LaEsFAME

Picture: 

Hazy Los Angeles, as seen through smog. Researchers suggest that people take precautions while in the city if they have heart conditions. Thick ozone and pollution particles have harmful effects on the body.(picture courtesy of Lucy Nicholson http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1270122.1361484110!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/ozone22f-1-web.jpg )

Summary: 

According to a recent study in Texas, cardiac arrests are more likely to occur in areas with high air pollution (mainly in cities). Scientists already knew the effects that ozone and soot-like particles had on the lungs, but the fact that they can stop a heart from beating is entirely new knowledge. What makes this evidence more shocking, is that less than 10 percent of the 300,000 people who experience cardiac arrests outside of the hospital each year, will end up surviving.  Lead author of the publication, Katherine Ensor, got her results by reviewing the database of all of the cardiac arrests experienced outside of hospitals in Houston between 2004 and 2001, based on air quality. From these sources, the team of researchers found that there were more cases when ozone levels were higher than average. To be specific, the frequency of cardiac arrest went up by 4.4 percent each 20 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone above the regular amount. Typically, the ppb of ozone is between 50 and 60, according to a study by the EPA over a ten year span, and your body will start to suffer around 70 ppb. Aside from ozone, there are also extra fine particles of pollution that caused cardiac arrests to rise by approximately 4.6 percent for each 6 micrograms of it per cubic meter of air. Even though the research clearly shows a link between air pollution and heart problems, the scientists don't exactly know why it is happening. They said that a likely probability could be that "irritants like particles and ozone entering the respiratory system create inflammation and a spike in destructive molecules called free radicals, which in turn can stress the heart."

Opinion/Reflection: 

I knew that air pollution and smog could affect your lungs, but your heart? It's interesting to see how far the dangers of an unhealthy environment reaches. This news is very concerning to me, because heart problems account for most of the deaths in the United States per year, and this is just another way that these deaths are being caused. This is just another call to action for having healthy industrial habits and stricter air regulations.

Questions: 

1.) About how many places does this information apply to, and where is the worst level of pollution in the world? Does it spread to more rural areas?

2.) How come this isn't talked about by major news stations and the media? If they talk about other, unimportant topics, why don't that talk about a major health concern stretching across the world?

3.) What would be the quickest solution to this problem? Demanding cleaner factories? Or tighter air quality policies?

               

  

Blog Post #3 -Ian O'Shea

Experts: Global warming can strangely trigger less yearly snowfall, but more potent blizzards

By: Associated Press

Publication: Washington Post, February 19, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/experts-global-warming-can-strangely-trigger-less-yearly-snowfall-but-more-potent-blizzards/2013/02/19/bb3b4bf0-7a69-11e2-9c27-fdd594ea6286_story.html

http://spphoboken.com/wp-content/uploads/SnowStorm.jpg

Picture: This is a picture of the snow storm that occurred in the North Eastern part of America on February 8, 2013. The snow in some areas was almost 40 inches deep. This was one of the biggest snow storms in this area's history. Scientists believe that these large blizzards, and the lack of smaller snow storms, have both been caused by global warming.

Summary: 

Recently, we have been seeing a lot less snow than we expect in the winter, besides for the few gigantic snowstorms that we usually receive once a year. Scientists stated that the reasoning behind the less snowfall was because of global warming, but the one huge snow storm each year was also caused by global warming. The reasoning behind this is because when the atmosphere is warmer, it has the ability to hold and release more water, causing it to precipitate more frequently. This, along with the below-freezing temperatures, can cause all of the water coming out of the sky to be turned into snow, creating massive blizzards. Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said this while explaining how the winter season would be like from now on, “Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch." This is a good summary of what has been happening in recent winters, especially this one. Chicago was also a good example of this when they went 335 days with less than an inch of snow and were later hit by a historic snow storm for that area. The increase in the temperature of the atmosphere has changed the amount of overall snowfall in recent years and the amount of snow that falls at a certain time.

Opinion/Reflection: 

I have realized that in the most recent winter, which is still taking place right now, the North Eastern region in which I live has been hit with much less snow than usual. I never realized that global warming could be the thing that caused more blizzards, while still lowering the average amount of snow per year. I thought that the fact the global warming was making things hotter meant that it wouldn't be hot enough to snow, but I realized through this article that I was wrong. This issue directly affects me because recently my area was almost hit by a massive snow storm that just missed us and then hit places like Boston. It's also weird to think that the rest of the winters I will experience may follow the same pattern of just having one or two huge blizzards. This article really surprised me and showed me the light on how global warming has been affecting snowfall. 

Questions:

1. Will global warming ever make the Earth's atmosphere so warm that it doesn't snow in my area anymore? If so, when would this happen?
2. How will these snowstorms interfere with the ecosystem that we live in? 
3. How would these storms affect people's everyday lives? 
4. How deep will the snow eventually get? What is the record for the highest snowfall in Pennsylvania so far?

Blog Post #2 - Nick Jaeschke

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident (1986)

The New York Times, March 24, 2011

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/chernobyl_nuclear_accident_1986/index.html

Picture

This is a picture of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant taken in 2011. However, 25 years before this photograph was taken, a devastating event occurred at the plant that it will be known for until the end of time.

Picture Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_2011.jpg

 

Summary

On April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am, reactor No. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant exploded. The explosion was caused by workers who shut off equipment necessary to keeping the reactor stable during some tests. These workers also ignored warnings that the reactor was out of control. There is now a “forbidden zone” that is 36 miles in diameter around where the reactor used to be. Only those who work at the other reactors are allowed inside this territory. After the explosion, the workers at the Chernobyl plant needed a way to prevent the uranium from the plant from getting into the earth. Miners dug under the remnants of the plant and improvised a core-catcher by building a platform of steel and concrete with a water pipe under it as a cooling unit. However, the molten uranium, after having melted through several floors, was unable to melt through the foundation, and is so core catcher was unnecessary. The radioactivity at this site is unapproachable. Nuclear power plants are taking extra precautions to ensure the stability of the plants.

Reflection

While nuclear power plants provide great amounts of energy, the Chernobyl indecent goes to show the great dangers of nuclear power plants. It is unbelievable to think that what remains of the plant cannot even be approached due to its radioactivity. Imagine the effect of a nuclear power plant meltdown on the environment. According to the article, any fruit that had grown within the previously mentioned “forbidden zone” is off limits. Who knows what would happen if one were to eat this fruit.

Questions

1) Do we really need to resort to nuclear power plant for energy? Do we really consume that much that the forms of energy production we already have are not enough?

2) Considering the great risks, should we continue the production of energy through nuclear power plants? Defend your position.

3) Are there any alternative forms of energy production that could be equal to the production of energy using nuclear power plants? Take into consideration power produced, land space required, the cost to build and maintain, and the risk if an error were to occur.

Blog Post #1-Jaimee Stoczko

 Slumping Arctic Soils Produce Significant Amounts of CO2
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/slumping-arctic-soils-produce-si.html?ref=hp

Picture:
This picture shows a thermokarst, which is a slump in land that results from the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is a layer of soil in the Arctic that sits on top of hard layers of ice. When the ice melts, the soil falls down and creates thermokarsts. This is important to understanding this article.

Summary:

Aside from the burning of fossil fuels, automobiles, and all of the other things that cause global warming that we've learned about, there is a new way coming to light in the northern hemisphere. In the Arctic, permafrost (explained above) has fallen into all types of waters due to melting in the north. The soil is then oxidized by bacteria and turned into carbon dioxide. This wouldn't be that big of a deal considering all of the other factors of global warming, but there is one particularly interesting fact about the release of permafrost: it is believed that permafrost, once changed into carbon dioxide, makes up for about 40% of the total carbon dioxide in the air in the north. That's a big number! Once permafrost blends into a thermokarst [failure], the land form releases even more CO2 in short but intense bursts. Through experimentation, scientists have found that the deeper the permafrost falls into the thermokarst, the more carbon dioxide it releases.Vladimir Romanovsky, a geophysicist, says, "People are really starting to pay serious attention." But since thermokarsts only exist in the north right now, scientists are trying to buy more time for more experiments.

Opinion/Reflection:

 It's kind of surprising for me to hear of this new and pretty much unheard of source of global warming. I feel like so much of the time it is forced among students that global warming comes from the melting of ice caps, yet it's never really been explained to me. This cause is actually pretty unconventional the more I think about it. Also, I'm kind of surprised that scientists have been so quick to blame this as a cause of CO2 with hardly any proof. That doesn't make sense to me.

Questions:

1.) How many other major sources of global warming are there that no one really pays attention to? Should we be paying more attention to those as opposed to the overly-publicized ones (i.e. melting of ice caps, automobiles, and burning of fossil fuels)?

2.) Is the amount of money going towards global warming research equivilant to how much research is actually getting done? Or is there a lot of research being done to hardly any money, or vice versa? Do influential people donate money to this?

3.) Could the CO2 in the north due to thermokarsts spread to other parts of the world? If it does, will it make a major impact? How could thermokarsts be stopped, if they even can be?