Blog Post #8 -- Ian O'Shea

EPA Water Pollution Proposition

Picture: This is a picture taken of water that has been polluted, probably by some type of power plant the releases its waste into bodies of water. There are ways that this water can get into drinking water and affect people everyday. The pollution in water can also lead to injuries or death in the surrounding animal and plant populations.

Summary: The EPA recently proposed some new regulations that could lead to cleaner water in many areas. The regulations are directed towards bodies of water near things like nuclear plants or factories powered by fossil fuels. A lot of these places release chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, and lead. These chemicals can sometimes make their way into our drinking water neurological and circulatory damage or even things such as cancer and kidney problems. People receive these effects simply by drinking a cup of water that has been contaminated by a plant or factory. The EPA's regulations will force places like these to install pollution control technology and implement waste-treatment procedures by 2017-2022. Although this may take a long time to do, it should have an overall positive effect on the water that is affected by the pollutants surrounding these areas. It is proposed to cut down pollution discharges by 470 million pounds. These regulations by the EPA can really positively affect the quality of our water and save the lives of many people.

Opinion/Reflection: The Regulations the the EPA is trying to enforce seem like a really good idea. I had no idea that some people could get really sick and have a lot of problems just because they drink their own tap water. Although it wasn't mentioned in this article, I believe that these regulations could help a lot of the surrounding organisms that live near these bodies of water. It seems that there aren't any negative effects that these rules will cause. 470 million pounds of pollution a year seems like an astronomical amount that would be awesome to get out of our water supplies. With a number like that, I couldn't see any reason that there would be an opposition to these ideas proposed by the EPA. Even though, it may not directly affect me, I think that the proposition sounds like an extremely good idea and power plants or factories should implement these rules immediately. 

Questions:

1. What other organizations are doing something to stop these pollution problems?

2. Why haven't many Americans heard of this problem yet? Have you heard about the diseases caused by pollutants in the water before reading this?

3. Do you think that animals and plants in the areas surrounding polluted bodies of water are being affected by this?

Article Information:

Title: EPA proposes water pollution rules for power plants

Author: Zack Colman 

Published on 4/19/13

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/295095-epa-proposes-water-pollution-rules-affecting-power-plants

Blog Post #7- Ryan Barrett

 

New Legislation in the Hydraulic Fracturing Industry

Picture: 

This diagram shows the process of pumping in a dangerous substance consisting of water, sand, and chemicals through a pipe into the ground to crack open shale and release natural gas. Environmental organizations are afraid that this is contaminating their water supply.

 

Summary: 

Currently, there is much debate on the topic of Hydraulic Fracturing regulations, and whether or not any legislative activity will take place. Mark Stone, member of the Natural Resources Committee in California, is the author of a bill that would require all companies to reveal how much water is used in the production of their oil and natural gas, where they are getting their water from, and they have to get their means of the water disposal approved by state regulators. Oil companies and producers are trying to fight back against the newly proposed bill. In defend his argument, Stone said "Fracking potentially exposes Californians' water supply to toxic chemicals. Currently, there's little governmental oversight to ensure that our groundwater supply doesn't get contaminated by the large volume of toxic wastewater fracking produces." With an overwhelming 6 to 3 vote, the bill passed its first test for approval. Instead of focusing on California, most of the media fracking highlights are about North Dakota, despite California being the fourth largest oil producing state in the country. And now, concerned citizens are crying out against the injection of dangerous water into the ground. According to the Western States Petroleum Association, over 120 billion gallons of water has been pumped in and taken out of California soil. The Department of Oil, Gas and Natural Resources assures the people that all of the procedures are looked over and that no one has to worry about potential contamination, and that all of the chemicals used have been regulated and disclosed.

Opinion/Reflection: 

What really surprised me about this article, is that it said that there are currently no state regulations for water use, nor a known source of the water or approved means of disposal. I'd expect all of these things to be taken care of right when the company was first started. The fact that these things aren't dealt with sooner is bewildering, and especially that oil companies are fighting against the bill. The argument for the bill would be more appealing and influencing if the Natural Resources Committee interviewed citizens of the area, and asked them how they feel about the topic. If I were asked to vote yay or nay to the passing of the bill, I would be in favor of it. Even if I was assured that the fracking posed no threat to the water supply, it is always better to be informed.

Questions:

1.) Why don't people try to gather supporters and conduct interviews to strengthen their point? Wouldn't it make for a better argument with more followers?

2.) Why would oil companies fight against the new policies? In what way would they benefit form not having these regulations?

3.) If the chemical water got into the aquifer and polluted the water supply, what would happen to the company responsible and the people that drink it.

Article Information---

Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_23039934/california-bill-would-target-fracking-industrys-water-use 

Author: Jason Hoppin

Publication: Santa Cruz Sentinel

Date: 4/16/2013

Blog Post #6 - Jaimee Stoczko

How to beat Africa’s water crisis

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/how-to-beat-africas-water-crisis/

Author: Michel Camdessus (Active member of U.N. Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation)

Publication Date: August 23rd, 2012

Picture:

This picture shows an African child procuring water by scooping it straight out from the mud and dirt. Accessing water has become such a rare and dire need that it seems they will drink anything; this could be changed. 

Summary:

Africa, which is the world's poorest and desperate region, has never had easy access to water. As shown above in the picture, there are not many fresh water resources or any resources at all in Africa. A lot of this is due to the excess of deserts and also to the lack of technology to gain water through other means, like making it fresh or gathering a consistent amount from rain or trees. Not only does this issue kill 3/4 of a million Africans under the age of five per year, but it also is an issue to their already-struggling economy. With so many falling ill to the dirty water and having to put so much effort into getting clean water, there is almost no time left to other chores, such as raising children, making sure they go to school, and keeping up with other needed resources like food and shelter. Recently, in the past year, large water reserves have been found underneath major African deserts that are like shining stars in the midst of blackness to all Africans. The only issue now is a question of morality: with water recently deemed as an official human need and right, who will work to make sure this new water is spread to all Africans? And who's to say there will be enough water to sustain Africans for very long? There is still a debate of this going on today between nations and how to help the underdog-region. 

Opinion/Reflection:

This article kind of reminds me of how so many countries were reluctant to help Germany and other countries gain back their freedom in WWII; we need to help out Africa gain back their basic human right to water, yet so many people are hesitant. I feel very sad and desperate after reading this, and that only proves how badly the U.S. and others need to step in and help. If the U.S. were going to through a time when we had little to no water, wouldn't we want help from others? It's no longer a question of if; it's a question of when and how. 

Questions:

1.) What do you think would be the best way to help Africa out with their water issues? Should we donate technology and let them run with it, or should we just build water-cleaning systems for them? Which do you think would be less costly? Which do you think would be more efficient?

2.) Do you think the water reserves should be handled by a higher power, like the government? Or do you think it should be a come-as-you-please type service? 

3.) Do you think, in all honesty, that the addition of fresh water would cure most of Africa's economic issues? Or do you think fresh water would just simply be more convenient? Explain why you think this. 

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.