save environment........!!!!!

quixeyverify

2012-01-06T01:04:00.001-08:00

018026e521f5cd7f4f1bc58046dce2b3dc6f398b

Environments in Crisis

2011-10-09T00:09:00.000-07:00

The tolerance for environmental destruction is ancient and human history is littered with civilizations that failed because humans indiscriminately exploited natural resources and spoiled their own nest.The benefits to citizens of all modern industrial societies peaked sometime in recent decade. Now ,we are paying the penalties of careless consumption and pollution of our own nest. You could argue that all human activities have adverse effects of environments, but, at the same time, you can argue that humans are capable of enhancing environments, protecting animals at risk, cultivating plants, and above all else, humans are capable of understanding their dependence on healthy nature.
In an ideal world, everyone would seek personal health and well being, but at the same time would strive to restore planet health. Smart people realize that no personal benefit will survive long in a world that is ailing, polluted and careening toward more man-made disasters.
Complex Systems The attempt to understand complex systems has taken a quantum leap in recent years. We have gone beyond naïve linear models and now appreciate that if complex systems such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and land ecosystems change, they may become unstable, more unfriendly and less predictable.
Extra heat will cause more turbulence, and weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways. Unfortunately nature changes in abrupt ways and catastrophes are natural phenomena - volcanic eruptions, storms, floods, earthquakes, avalanches all represent basic patterns of nature. We have to understand that our actions contribute to weather events - the issues loom large when you consider that climate changes with increasingly destructive extreme weather events are adverse consequences of human activities that can be improved.
Air pollution is an obvious adverse effect of human activities. Air pollution was first noticed as problem of city dwellers, poisoning themselves, but more recently, air pollution is acknowledged as a problem of global significance. Air pollution is not a good idea for a variety of reasons, large and small. The right ideas for remediation of environmental degradations involve unselfish and compassionate behavior, a scarce commodity. The right ideas involve long-term planning, conservation and a deep commitment to preserving the natural world. Without a healthy natural environment, there will be few or no healthy humans. The really sad part of our current predicament is that all the right concerns and the right ideas for remediation have been around for decades and have been clearly articulated in many forms by a host of intelligent people.
The immediately negative effects of air pollution in cities is measured on a daily basis; however, the negative impact on human health remains mostly undefined. The largest issue is climate changes due to burning fossil fuels, increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The release of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a milestone, a scientific consensus that we had created problems of catastrophic proportions. A political consensus was required for real, effective remedial action in all countries.
Dec. 2007, Al Gore shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC, a United Nations agency. In his acceptance speech, Gore, made another passionate plea of recognition of the climate crisis and the need for cooperative action across the planet. Gore warned that “we, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency — a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.”
Humans and other animals are in peril, not the planet. Planet Earth is a work in progress that changes continuously. No environment has been stable over the stretch of millions of years and climates change without human help. The problem today is that human activities have changed the environment quickly and that current arrangements to supply clean air, good food and clean water are not sustainable.
Dec. 2007 Indonesia: At the international climate conference, the world’s nations committed to negotiating a new accord by 2009 that cut in half emissions of heat-trapping gases by 2050. While the commitment is welcome, humans remain critical of each other, disputatious and focused on self interest. The negotiations that might lead to an accord will not be a smooth path. Even if an accord is achieved, compliance with its terms will not be enforceable. The description, global warming, has generated one of the more irrational debates of this century. A better description climate change is more readily demonstrated from weather records and insurance claims. See Climate Change.
The climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009 involved 200 nations who failed to achieve enforceable agreements to reduce carbon emissions. If you were an optimist you might value the Accord that was achieved, a five-page document that represented another tentative step toward global action to reduce atmospheric pollution and climate change. A realist would restate our understanding of human nature – that local interests always trump global concerns and local interests are divergent and divisive. US President Obama stated: “I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen. The science says that we’ve got to significantly reduce emissions over the next 40 years. There’s nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that will happen.”
If you were an environmentally conscious God watching human behavior, you might be properly annoyed - who gave them the right to burn all that fossil fuel, pollute the air and water, cut down all those trees, kill all those animals, pave all those forests and farmers' fields? Why didn't they move closer and walk to work everyday? Of course, God is likely to have a longer-term view and while lamenting the current folly of humans will probably recall that planet earth undergoes continuous change and from time to time, cataclysmic events alter the entire planet. At least 90% of all the creatures that have lived on the planet are gone. Perhaps our folly is seen as just another natural phenomenon. What if 500 years from now, God enters a note into her journal " Humans on Planet Earth had the chance to get it right but they didn't quite make it. Humans turned out to be self-destructive, short term planners and tragically selfish. They soiled their own nest and now they are gone."
Big environmental problems are built from many business and personal decisions, little mistakes that add up over time. If there is a solution, it will emerge from the collective value of millions of better decisions made by individuals all over the globe. The environmental action plan is to think globally and act locally - it does make sense.

Green House Gases

2011-10-09T00:07:00.003-07:00

Glass covering greenhouses admits light and heat energy but blocks some of the infrared heat energy that is radiated back. When the sun shines the green house becomes warmer than the external environment. In the atmosphere, a similar effect occurs.
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but blocking some of the infrared radiation from the earth's surface that carries heat back into space.
The gases act like a blanket wherever their concentration increases. Local concentrations increase local heat and increased differences between hotter and colder regions drives weather events into more extreme ranges.
Global warming means that the earth retains more of the sun's heat over time. The warming effect of greenhouse gases is reduced by particle pollution and cloud that block incoming infrared radiation. Without particle pollution, global warming would be more obvious.
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, produced by burning of fossil fuels, and other organic matter. The concentration of CO2 was 280 PPM before the industrial revolution and now is over 350 PPM.
High emission countries pump produce 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person, but the US produces 5.2 metric tons per person. Low emission countries produce less than 1 metric ton per capita. Most of Africa, South America, and Asia are below 1 metric ton.
In the 1990s, the US produced 23% of global CO2 emissions, Western Europe 14%, former Soviet bloc 20 %, China 12%, India 4% and Japan 5%. If you include Brazil, Indonesia and Germany in the list of major polluters, the total group accounts for 56 % of the world's population, 59% if its economic output, 58% of its carbon-dioxide emissions and 53% of its forests.
Methane is less abundant but traps more heat than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions are about 550 million tons per year from biomass decomposition in wetlands, rice farming, ruminant animals and landfills. Methane is "natural gas" and some enters the atmosphere during its commercial distribution and use as a fuel. Large reservoirs of methane also are found in the arctic and in marine sediments, as methane hydrates. Each methane molecule is encased by water ice molecules. There is speculation that ice-bound methane may be released as ocean temperatures rise and further accelerate global warming.
Nitrogen oxides, like hydrocarbons, are precursors to the formation of ozone and contribute to acid rain. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrous oxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide makes up about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with catalytic converters produced nearly half of that nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide also comes from nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure from farm animals.
Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) Refrigerants designed to protect the ozone layer have become a major contributor to global warming. Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) were developed to phase out ozone-depleting gases but they are more potent than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. A study at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency suggested that HFC emissions will have the heat trapping effect up to 8.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2010. (G. J. M. Velders et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073.pnas.0902817106; 2009).
The reduction in forest biomass and the exposure of ocean plankton to increase UV radiation are also concerns. Ocean phytoplankton supplies up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe.
The planet's thermostat had been set at a pleasant average temperature of 59 degrees (F) for the last 10 thousand years or so and is now poised to undergo a rapid change.

Aerosols

2011-10-09T00:07:00.001-07:00

Suspended particles in the air create aerosols that are important to the behavior of whole atmosphere and play a role in determining human disease. Natural sources of atmospheric particles are volcanoes, dust storms, spontaneous forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes. Clouds are a product of aerosols that seed the formation of water droplets. Human air pollution now dominates aerosol production over cities with negative health effects. Thick aerosols are obvious as haze and contain a complex system of particles with adherent toxic gases such as sulphur dioxide. NASA’s earth observatory information states:
Aerosol particles may be solid or liquid; they range in size from 0.01 microns to several tens of microns. For example, cigarette smoke particles are in the middle of this size range and typical cloud drops are 10 or more microns in diameter. The majority of aerosols form a thin haze in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where they are washed out of the air by rain within about a week. Aerosols are also found in a part of the atmosphere just above the troposphere (stratosphere). A severe volcanic eruption, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can put large amounts of aerosol into the stratosphere that remain there for many months, producing beautiful sunsets around the globe, and causing summer temperatures to be cooler than normal. Mount Pinatubo injected about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, cooling average global temperatures over the following year by about half a degree.”

Aerosol particles from factories and power plants increase the number of droplets in clouds that reflect more sunlight, retain water and do not produce rain. Man made aerosols change local weather systems. The effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is warming the planet. The effect of aerosols is cooling the planet. The net effect of air pollution depends on the ratio of warming gases to cooling particles.

Over land up to a quarter of the total airborne particulates are pollens, fungal spores, bacteria, viruses, plant and animal matter. Air inside buildings contains local aerosols that are sometimes more concentrated and more toxic than outdoor air. The term dust refers to the larger particles in the aerosol that settle on walls and furniture.

A smoker in the living room of a house produces a toxic aerosol that permeates the rest of the house. Smoke particles settle on walls and every object in a room so that a smoker leaves a trail of contamination that non-smokers smell as soon as they enter the room.

Indoor air contains a living aerosol of microorganisms that infect or trigger allergic reactions. Spores of bacteria and fungi are microscopic and may persist for months or years. You can see the indoor aerosol under the right lighting conditions, such a sunlight streaming through a window. The abundance of microorganisms, even in a very clean house, surprises most people who have tests done to assess air quality.

Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants

2011-10-09T00:06:00.000-07:00

In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is getting poisoned.
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but blocking some of the infrared radiation from the earth's surface that carries heat back into space. The gases act like a blanket wherever their concentration increases. Local concentrations increase local heat and increased differences between hotter and colder regions drives weather events into more extreme ranges. Over many years, the total amount of greenhouse gases accumulates and the average temperature of the whole planet is increasing. The planet's thermostat had been set at a pleasant average temperature of 59 degrees (F) for the last 10 thousand years or so and is now rising.
In our view, the main concern should be the effect of heat retention on local climates right now. It is possible to imagine increasingly anomalous weather and increasing loss of life and property from greenhouse gas accumulation with little or no change in the average temperature of the planet, although, we do expect slow progressive increase in average temperatures.

The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases. Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants.
Typical Engine Combustion:
Fuel + Air => Hydrocarbons + Nitrogen Oxides + Carbon Dioxide + Carbon Monoxide + water
Hydrocarbon emissions are fragments of fuel molecules, only partially burned. See Toxicity of Benzene and other Hydrocarbons in exhaust.
Hydrocarbons react in the presence of nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Ozone irritates the eyes, nose, throat and damages the lungs. A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, some with the potential to cause cancer.
Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) - 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2. NO2 also originates from nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure from farm animals.
Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, a product of incomplete burning of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide consists of a single carbon atom and a single oxygen atom linked together (CO), the product of incomplete combustion of fuel. Most CO is produced when air-to-fuel ratios are too low in the engine during vehicle starting, when cars are not tuned properly, and at higher altitudes, where thin air reduces the amount of oxygen available for combustion. Two-thirds of the carbon monoxide emissions come from transportation sources, with the largest contribution coming from cars. In urban areas, the passenger vehicle contribution to carbon monoxide pollution can exceed 90%. Read more about Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originally viewed carbon dioxide as a product of "perfect" combustion, but now views CO2 as a pollution concern. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat and contributes to Climate Change
Evaporative Emissions Hydrocarbon pollutants also escape into the air through fuel evaporation - evaporation causes significant hydrocarbon pollution from cars on hot days when ozone levels are highest. Evaporative emissions occur several ways:
Diurnal: Gasoline evaporation increases as the temperature rises during the day, heating the fuel tank and venting gasoline vapors.
Running Loses: The hot engine and exhaust system can vaporize gasoline when the car is running.
Sitting Evaporation: The engine remains hot for a period of time after the car is turned off, and gasoline evaporation continues when the car is parked.
Adding Fuel: Gasoline vapors are always present in fuel tanks. These vapors are forced out when the tank is filled with liquid fuel.
(See Cars and Pollution US EPA Fact Sheet OMS-5)
Benzene is the main toxin in the hydrocarbon fraction of exhaust. Benzene and other less known hydrocarbons are produced in petroleum refining, and are widely used as solvents and as materials in the production of various industrial products and pesticides. Benzene also is found in gasoline and in cigarette smoke. Other environmental sources of benzene include gasoline (filling) stations, underground storage tanks that leak, wastewater from industries that use benzene, chemical spills, and groundwater next to landfills containing benzene. Exposure to benzene can cause cancer, especially leukemias and lymphomas. Benzene has a suppressive effect on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation and amplification.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can be man-made or occur naturally. A few of the PAHs are used in medicines and to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. They are found throughout the environment in the air, water and soil. There are more than 100 different PAH compounds. Although the health effects of the individual PAHs vary, the following 15 PAHs are considered as a group with similar toxicity: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzoperylene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene dibenzanthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indenopyrene, phenanthrene, pyrene.
Long term solutions require reduced combustion of all kinds. While vehicles with new energy sources such ethanol, biofuels, propane and natural gas can contribute to reduced air pollution, their benefit is limited if vehicle use continues at current intensities. If you pay more money to buy a hybrid car, but drive it more, you have contributed little to solving air pollution problems. If you buy a gas guzzling clunker and use only one gallon of gas to go 15 miles each week, you have contributed more to the solution.
The problem with all alternative fuels is that the manufacture of fuels requires energy, distribution with a manufacturing infrastructure that consume energy, often derived from burning fossil fuels. No alternative fuel is ideal. See Switch to Biofuels
Hydrogen Ultimately cars might burn hydrogen in fuel cells, but despite working prototypes, a hydrogen economy is a distant fantasy. There are many problems to be solved before hydrogen can replace fossil fuels as a portable energy source. The biggest problem is that producing hydrogen requires a large amount of energy. In Canada, there are opportunities to dam rivers and produce electricity with falling water, a non polluting, renewable energy resource. A more problematic energy source would be be nuclear reactors that "burn" uranium or plutonium. Even if new non-polluting energy sources are developed, hydrogen storage and distribution requires a new, very expensive infrastructure that could replace gasoline and diesel fuels.
With once rich countries such as the USA on the verge of bankruptcy and facing the extensive repairs of already aging, derelict infrastructures, adding a new, unprecedented development costs seems unlikely. Unless, of course the priorities in the US shift dramatically. The US, for example, could adopt a sane, smart strategy, reduce its military budget by 50% and invest the money and skills in rebuilding the country's infrastructure with new sustainable energy sources.

Cars, Trucks, Air Pollution and Health

2011-10-09T00:04:00.000-07:00

Driving a car is the most air polluting act an average citizen commits. Air pollution is not a good idea for a variety of reasons, large and small. The right ideas for remediation of environmental degradations involve unselfish and compassionate behavior, a scarce commodity. The right ideas involve long-term planning, conservation and a deep commitment to preserving the natural world. Without a healthy natural environment, there will be few or no healthy humans.

To understand air pollution you can consider a simple schematic that divides a big problem into components.
1. Local effects -e.g. poisoning humans breathing bad air.
2. Regional effects - fallout from airborne pathogens - infections, particles, chemicals.
3. Global effects - changing interactions between the atmosphere, oceans and the sun, weather effects, effects on plants and the ocean biosphere.
Developments in the media made "go green" the slogan for action to limit the adverse effects of air pollution. Green refers to the color of chlorophyll in plants. Chlorophyll is the basis of photosynthesis that allows plants to turn the sun's energy into life energy. Human action destroys plants and replaces healthy ecosystems with concrete and asphalt. Another slogan that emerged was "save planet earth." Humans will not save the planet. The task for humans is to stop destroying the environments that sustain themselves. If we fail, the planet will do just fine without humans.
The deepest problem for humans is that we cannot predict the future with any accuracy. Even the best informed scientist with the most recent data cannot know what is going to happen next. When we talk about prudence, we refer to methods of minimizing risk and preparing to deal with events beyond our control which can injure or kill us. Preparation for natural catastrophes, accidents and illness can consume a large chunk of our resources. Smart humans notice adverse changes and take action to minimize adverse consequences. But not all human are smart or prudent.
The year 2008 will be remembered as the near-collapse of capitalist economies. Among the corporations in trouble in the US and Canada were General Motors and Chrysler. All the US/Canada car and truck manufacturers had promoted their larger vehicles on customers by exploiting the innate human tendency to seek domination over others. Bigger is better. In 2009 the GM and Chrysler refurbished their operations and offered smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles for sale. Ford appeared to be unscathed by the recession.
The explosion of a a deep sea oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is a reminder that gas and diesel consumers are partners in causing environmental degradation and disasters. While BP gets most of the blame, two US companies who built and operated the oil rig actually caused the problem. Among the most angry BP critics are consumers of BP products. Surely the blame should be widely distributed and must include the consumers of petroleum products.
The only certainty is that the future should look very different from the past. When we consider air pollution in cities from burning fossil fuels as the main source of energy for electricity production, transportation, home heating and industrial production, then the entire infrastructure of industrial countries must change.
When cars and trucks are the focus, manufacturers are the chosen culprits, but the people who buy and drive vehicles are really responsible for creating a better future for themselves and their children. The immediate challenge for vehicle users is not to replace existing vehicles with more fuel efficient versions, but to reduce use and participate in a new vision of car-free living environments. Citizens and not governments must end the madness of traffic, gridlock, superhighways, smog and lethal accidents.
Friendly or Lethal? Cars have two opposite personalities. One is friendly and attractive the other is destructive and can be lethal. The desire to own a car is linked to pleasure, sexuality, convenience and freedom. Men lust for big, prestigious cars they way they lust for women and women desire men with big, prestigious cars. Men are also interested in power, performance and want to know something about the engine, although modern engines are sufficiently complex to discourage even the professional mechanic. Some of the engine complexity electronic monitoring and adjustment of engine performance under different operating conditions. Several devices are added to the engine to handle air flow in, fuel delivery and exhaust out. Computers have been added to monitor and control engine, brake and transmission operation. The design of new hybrid vehicles involves even more complexity with electronic sensors feeding data to computers that manage every system. The cost of repairs will increase as will the demand for new sophistication from mechanics. The most advanced designs use only black box modules that cannot be repaired at the local garage but can be replaced with new or rebuild modules. This might be a wonderful solution, but only if you can afford it.
Extravagant Car Use Emissions from passenger vehicles increased in Canada and the US despite attempts to make engines more fuel efficient and despite the addition of antipollution devices. The two main reasons were: 1. vehicle use increased; 2. in the US and Canada, cars got bigger; pick-up trucks, vans and sports vehicles often replaced smaller, lighter passenger cars. An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed more fuel that its counterpart in 1988. In the USA in 1987 cars averaged 25.9 miles to the gallon. Fuel efficiency dropped to 24.6 miles/gallon by 1998 and it dropped further as larger vehicles replace smaller ones. The decision to drive cars long distances to work was common among people in North America and Europe in the past 60 years. In retrospect, it is clear that commuters made a mistake. They should now stop commuting by cars. Their mistake had health and economic consequences for them personally and for every other inhabitant of planet earth.
Despite compelling evidence of climate change, governments in many affluent countries have avoided their responsibility to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The USA is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide. US emissions increased to 7 billion tones of CO₂ in 2004, 16% higher than emissions in the late 90's. The UK did better reducing their emissions to about 0.6 billion tons, 14% below 1990 levels. An accurate analysis of total greenhouse gas emission is difficult or impossible to achieve since there many variable and unknowns. Take the US estimates, for example, and pursue the argument that the US is also responsible for some emissions from other countries, which provide raw materials and manufacturing for the US economy. Romm argued: "U.S. businesses have off-shored more and more of the U.S. economy’s and CO2 emissions to parts of the world where the carbon intensity is higher but labor is cheaper. The U.S. has essentially off-shored its emission problem to the rest of the world, turning their economies into dumping grounds for our own air pollution. "
Car exhaust is toxic at ground level Exhaust from all combustion engines combine to produce local adverse effects on the health of car users and all innocent bystanders. Cities have become islands of toxic chemicals from the unrestrained use of vehicles burning fossil fuels. Cars are noisy, ugly, often dangerous and dominate the experience of modern living. We are now used to the carnage on roads and highways- attempts to reduce death and disability from our motorized containers have not substantially altered the negative impact on society. The adverse health effects of car exhaust are pervasive and difficult to measure. See Exhaust Chemicals.
Advertising and Delusions Television Ads for sports and recreation vehicles show solitary, impeccable machines in wilderness locations. One TV ad shows a couple making a mad dash to escape the city core in their expensive, luxury upholstered clone of the land-rover. The ads are selling a fantasy of wilderness, fresh air and escape. Is the consumer is completely deluded? These vehicles are mostly found in suburban driveways and in the traffic jams of polluted cities. They have nowhere to go to escape the environmental degradation they help to create: 4x4 drives and large tires are rarely useful in cities and are not suited to highway driving. You see these machines, submerged in suburban driveways by the floods they helped to create. The latest 2010 car advertising has switched to styling, crash protection, interior comforts and fuel efficiency as the main selling points. While these improvements are welcome, reduced vehicle use is the most essential remedy and is seldom mentioned.
Ethanol Combustion engines contribute to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and are responsible for climate changes. A sane, sober revision of vehicle use is long overdue. While ethanol has been championed as an alternative to petroleum fuels, it mainly helps to reduce dependency on oil producing countries. Ethanol or methanol can be blended with gasoline to reduce petroleum dependency. Gasoline engines can use up to 10% ethanol without modification. New "flex" engines can use higher percentages of ethanol up to 100%. North American and European flex-fuel vehicles are optimized to run on a maximum blend of 15% gasoline with 85% ethanol (E85 fuel). The production of flex engine vehicles has increased, but the supply of flex fuel is limited.
There are problems in the bigger picture of carbon consumption and emission. When ethanol is made from corn, some its energy value (up to 70% in the least efficient plants) must be spent on its production. While innovations in production technologies continue, there will be an ongoing requirement to invent new methods of production. Investment in new technologies will require government policy changes, subsidies and research grants. Climate change with extreme weather events may reduce corn production in the US, where for decades corn surpluses were common. The new competition between ethanol plants and food production suddenly in 2008 became an international issue.
If you are an optimist, you might argue that improved technologies will save the day --- corn yields per acre have been increasing mostly because of genetic engineering, so that food and ethanol production need not compete in the future. The ethanol industry uses only the carbohydrate fraction of the corn; the protein and oil fractions are used as animal feed to be consumed by humans as dairy products, eggs and meat. If you are a pessimist, you might point to the recurrent droughts in recent years in the US corn producing regions and predict more crop failures in years to come. Other non-food vegetable sources of carbon will become alternative sources of raw materials. (See Biofuels).
Hydrogen The ultimate cars burn hydrogen in fuel cells, but despite working prototypes, a hydrogen fuel infrastructure is a distant fantasy. One problem is the low energy density of liquefied hydrogen that requires larger tanks than the equivalent gasoline tank. Another problem is that producing hydrogen requires a large amount of energy. In Canada, there are opportunities to dam more rivers and produce electricity with falling water, a non polluting, renewable energy resource. A science fiction fantasy might include a novel way of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen with less energy consumed but no-one knows how to do this in 2011. Even if new non-polluting energy sources are developed, hydrogen storage and distribution requires investment in a very expensive infrastructure.
An innovative use of hydrogen added in small quantities to gasoline and diesel engines-has been achieved by the h2gogo HRN3 Hydrogen Generator The generator produces hydrogen from distilled water and is retro-fitted to regular engines. The hydrogen input results in more efficient fuel burn, in reduced emissions and improved engine efficiency and power output. The Heathrow Airport in England retrofitted hydrogen generator units to a range of vehicles and reported up to 40% reduction in carbon dioxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Understanding Complex Ecosystems Our ability to monitor and understand the atmosphere has taken a quantum leap in recent years. We have gone beyond naïve linear models and now appreciate that if complex systems such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and land ecosystems change, they may become unstable and more unfriendly. Extra heat will cause more turbulence, and weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways. While climate models are interesting, they have have limited to no predictive abilities. Rather than playing with unreliable, long-term predictions, a sober assessment of what is happening right now should motivate action to change human behavior. Actions, such as driving cars whenever and wherever we please, do pollute the air, change the atmosphere and cause more extreme weather events. Smart humans notice adverse changes and take action to minimize adverse consequences. But not all human are smart or prudent.
What Can I do? Drive Less Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately. This is a responsible, individual contribution to a global problem. At least 30% of vehicle use is optional - either recreational or lazy driving when walking, cycling or public transit would be a better choice.
Cities can reduce vehicular traffic by more than 30% over the next 3 to 5 years by improving public transportation. Commuter trains are a model of urban access for suburban residents who drive their cars short distances, park in terminal lots and ride the train into town. Cities can create car free zones and develop park-like corridors that would allow movement through the city by walking, cycling and limited use of small, light electric vehicles in vehicle corridors specially designed to be safe and efficient.
The rising cost of crude oil is altering driving habits and big auto companies closed plants that produced SUVs and pickup trucks. If you are interested in longer term human survival, then high cost oil is a real benefit. With or without higher fuel prices, each person can drive less and resist the temptation to buy larger, heavier cars, trucks and sports vehicles. If you really need a 4x4 to drive off-roads in wilderness settings, you need a rugged clunker that's already got scratches, dents and mud on the tires. Carry a shovel, axe, chain saw, and a come-along in the back. If you can afford it, add a heavy duty winch up front. Stay off city streets and highways. See Disease Effects, Car Exhaust

Solutions: Reduce Air Pollution by changing the design and use of motor vehicles

The use of cars must be re-defined. Car use has to be considered a privilege, not a right. The cost of environmental damage and reclamation has to be added to the cost of owning and operating a car. Vehicle use should no longer be subsidized.
Reduce number of Vehicles - Urban areas need to set vehicular quotas and issue permits to limit the number of vehicles to control regional traffic congestion and air pollution.
Small hybrid or 100% electric cars are desirable, but make their occupants specially vulnerable when they collide with much larger vehicles. A sane city would separate small, efficient passenger vehicles from buses and trucks.
Improve efficiency of vehicles - reverse the trend to larger vehicles; engineering solutions to emissions of combustion engines. Flex fuel and hybrid cars are a step in the right direction but in small numbers will not have a significant impact on air pollution. Reduced vehicle use and traffic reform can be a bigger and more immediate remedy for urban air pollution. Improved efficiency of traffic is important. Examples are: dedicated bus lanes and priority for car-pools and vehicles with 3 or more passengers. Traffic can be scheduled to optimize road usage; e.g. commercial traffic at night; large companies can stagger working hours and decentralize administrative operations. Commuting long distances in cars to work needs to be phased out. Single passenger commuting to work should be strongly discouraged.
The most accessible measure of air pollution contribution is the amount of fossil fuel burned.
Recreational driving can be reduced immediately. Car owners need to pay for miles driven and fuel burned on an escalating scale. Each person can have a "free driving" allotment per year and pay increasing insurance and/or taxes on fuel consumption beyond this limit.
Governments can encourage the reduction of vehicular use by:

Promoting Voluntary abstention
Increase Public Transit - diversify options and limit access to existing roads.
Separate commercial and private traffic to increase efficient use of roads
Stop building car-oriented roads and highways
Replace 30% of the existing roads designed for cars with park-like corridors
In cities, build more walking paths, bicycle routes and roads for small electric vehicles
Reduce commuting - link residence and business activities by rezoning and rebuilding cities.
Reward car-pools and car-sharing plans
Redefine road use by defining access privileges - no longer a right
Road Tolls and increased gasoline and vehicle registration taxes
Base car license fees on fuel consumption in the previous year. Use exponential fee rate increase for high fuel consumption individuals.
Provide generous development grants and tax incentives for all non-polluting transportation alternatives.

Governments can use a combination of

Voluntary and Reward Schemes
Compulsory and Penalty Schemes
Incentives for New Technology and Changes in Industrial Fuel Consumption

Long term solutions require that vehicles use less polluting energy sources such biofuels, propane and natural gas. I am sorry to say that the marketing of "green solutions" to global warming is becoming yet another scam. One problem is that producing alternate fuels and hybrid cars often requires CO₂emissions that offset or cancel the benefits of improve vehicular design. See Biofuels

Electric Cars are on the road, under development and promise to become vehicles of choice for urban transportation. The new cars represent advances in technology that link computers, electric motors and batteries into systems that drive well, self-regulate, and require little maintenance. The main components are modules that are removed to be refurbished in specialized factories and recycled. One limitation is battery technology. Batteries are heavy, wear out quickly with repeated recharging and require expensive, rather scarce materials such as lithium. Another more severe limitation is obtaining electricity from a non-polluting power source. Even if all the technical problems of building reliable electric cars were solved, there remains a daunting list of infrastructure problems yet to be solved. While electric cars produce little air pollution, generating electricity continues to be a major source of air pollution. If an electric car is recharged with electricity produced by a fossil fuel burning generator, there may be no net benefit to the atmosphere. A real solution for car technology would reduce air pollution beginning at source materials and would continue through the use cycle of the vehicle. While is it feasible to use fossil fuels in generation plants with all the latest techniques of emission control and C02 recycling, these plants are uncommon in 2010. Before more people plug in electric vehicles, a new infrastructure of non-polluting, affordable electricity production will have to be built.
You might imagine new residential and commercial buildings that conserve energy and generate their own electricity with solar panels and wind generators that also charge their own electric vehicles. The cost of constructing new, more autonomous buildings is so great that only the wealthiest citizens can afford the capital costs.
In the immediate future reduced car use is the best solution. A gas-inefficient clunker driven twice a week for 20 km is a better choice than a new expensive hybrid car driven everyday for 100 Km. No solution is better than fewer vehicles and reduced vehicle use.

flow chart to save nature

2011-09-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

flow chart to save nature

2011-09-28T11:58:00.001-07:00

flow chart to save nature

2011-09-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

flow chart to save nature

2011-09-28T11:53:00.001-07:00

Giraffe Conservation Demography

2011-09-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) are immensely charismatic animals that also indicate the health of African savanna ecosystems, home to the greatest ungulate diversity on Earth. Despite their popularity, giraffe have declined by an estimated 30% in just the last decade due to extensive habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and poaching. Giraffe are large (830-1000 kg), long-lived, browsing ruminants that eat leaves, twigs and fruits of Acacia and other species of woody vegetation. The main predator of giraffe is lions, which preferentially select giraffe. Giraffe provide an unusual opportunity to examine juvenile survival due to their year-round breeding cycle (birth flow reproduction as opposed to birth pulse). Giraffe are characterized as asynchronous breeders, but there is some evidence for a seasonal birth peak that coincides with peak protein content of new Acacia tree leaves during the dry season.

Development of effective conservation and management measures for at-risk species such as giraffe requires a thorough understanding of demography. Demography is births, deaths, and movement rates which together dictate overall population fitness with a quantity called ‘lambda’. Surprisingly little is known about the demography of giraffe and how they are responding to rapidly changing land-use patterns. To compound the problem, Giraffe Skin Disease (GSD) is a newly observed disease affecting skin on the legs of giraffes in Tanzania. Causative agent, rate of spread, and mortality effects of GSD are yet to be established, but wildlife managers are concerned about possible increased risk of predation and secondary infections.

Large, long-lived mammals such as giraffe have life-histories characterized by low productivity, delayed maturity, and relatively high adult survival probabilities. The elasticity of adult survival on population trend is substantially greater than that of equivalent relative changes in fecundity or juvenile survival. However, the survival rate of adults, particularly prime-aged females, tends to be highly stable in long-lived large mammals, while juvenile survival shows wide annual variability. Accordingly, variable juvenile survival could in practice be the factor mostly responsible for fluctuations in population abundance.

Studies of juvenile survival rate and the factors that influence variation in this important parameter can provide insights into population dynamics, life history theory, individual fitness, and the selective forces that shape evolution. Quantifying juvenile survival rate and the relative influence of the various potential selective forces is difficult. Constraints of most field studies of large mammals typically limit investigators to estimating a single juvenile survival rate for the first year of life, or from birth to recruitment in species with delayed sexual maturity.

Like most African ungulates, giraffe reside in heterogeneous landscapes that are experiencing major losses and degradation of habitat quality due to changing land uses. Especially problematic for ungulates in the Maasai country of east Africa is a recent increase in settlement farming in formerly pastoral lands. Changing land use means subpopulations of wildlife face different habitat quality conditions and anthropogenic threats that can influence birth, death, and movement rates. A subpopulation may contain many animals but have low survival and reproduction, acting as a sink that consumes surplus animals from a smaller, healthier source subpopulation. Thus, the number of animals in an area does not tell the complete story of how that subpopulation contributes to the species’ overall welfare. Targeting conservation towards the sink subpopulation with the mistaken belief that it is more important than the smaller source subpopulation, ultimately will result in the loss of both populations. Therefore, site-specific demographic data (“lambda landscape maps”) are essential for successfully conserving imperiled wildlife and for developing effective management and sustainable-use models like those that exist for temperate species such as deer and elk.

The Tarangire Ecosystem encompasses 35,000 sq. km. including a significant portion of the remaining Maasai giraffe range ( G. c. tippelskirchi). Land management in the Tarangire Ecosystem is divided among National Parks, Game Control Areas, private and village lands, and a private conservancy. Aerial wildlife surveys have been conducted only every 4–5 years because of their considerable cost. To date, our understanding of the status of giraffe populations has been based upon simple counts of animals from aerial surveys, which provide little information about spatial heterogeneity of population declines, and are not useful for estimating survival, reproductive, or movement rates because they do not identify individuals.

Giraffe Skin Disease was first recorded in November 2000 in Ruaha National Park in central Tanzania. Currently the disease has spread to all parts of Ruaha, and has been observed in Tarangire and Lake Manyara national parks in the Tarangire Ecosystem. An international effort has been initiated to understand this disease, its dynamics, and its effects on giraffe populations involving wildlife veterinarians from Tanzania, the U.S.A. and the U.K., and population biologists from Dartmouth College and Wild Nature Institute in the U.S.A. However, limited capacity in Tanzania has been a major challenge hindering successful identification of GSD pathogens, its dynamics, and mortality effects.

Project Actions:

We have developed and validated a computer-assisted photographic mark-recapture method to estimate population parameters for giraffe. As technology and research ethics have evolved, animal marking techniques have progressed towards less invasive approaches. Placing a visible mark is still the most common method, but marking an animal induces acute effects of capture and chronic effects of carrying the mark. Computer-assisted photographic mark-recapture is noninvasive and low cost, and enables large sample sizes which enhance cost-effectiveness and animal welfare.

Our software analyzes digital images of giraffe spot patterns that we acquire in the field and compares them to previously acquired images in our existing database. Mark-recapture data are the raw materials for estimating population size, survival, recruitment, and movement rates. We have an existing image database acquired in 2008 and 2009. We propose to collect an additional 3 years of photographic mark-recapture data with sampling of giraffe 4 times per year in each land-management category. These data provide us with the replication necessary to rigorously estimate temporal effects, habitat quality, disease transmission and mortality rates, and human impacts on giraffe population dynamics.

Mark-recapture data allow us to estimate giraffe demographic rates at a fine spatial scale, and create a map of giraffe fitness in this landscape. These rates are being examined among different land management units (e.g. to compare survival rates between national parks and game control areas), to compare survival and reproduction in areas with differing vegetation (from existing GIS databases). These data also allow us to track movement of individuals within and among management units to identify potential critical dispersal corridors. These analyses help us to discriminate high-quality source habitats from low-quality sink habitats. We can also determine GSD infection rates, whether GSD significantly raises mortality or decreases fecundity, and if so, which areas are most affected.

We are using CMR data to estimate quarterly survival rates of dependent juvenile, independent juvenile, and adult giraffe to investigate effects of habitat attributes on those survival probabilities. Ungulate mortality is generally attributed to predation or food limitation. We are modeling giraffe survival in each age class as a function of vegetation variables (quantity and quality), giraffe density, lion density, and human density within each site to determine the relative importance of each factor.

Vegetation quantity are measured using remotely sensed data in a GIS layer developed by the Tarangire NP GIS lab and systematic point-centered quarter methods. To quantify spatio-temporal differences in browse quality, we are measuring vegetation quality in all sites in all seasons using a portable chlorophyll meter at random stratified plots. We are measuring foliar nitrogen concentration of tree species browsed by giraffe using a SPAD 502 portable chlorophyll meter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan). The SPAD meter was demonstrated to be a useful tool for nondestructively assessing foliar Nitrogen status, particularly for relative comparison purposes, for several tree species.

Predation pressure is quantified according to source. Human poaching pressure is quantified by human population density from census records and village house counts. Lion predation is quantified by collaborating with the Tarangire Lion Project to obtain site- and season-specific indices of lion predation pressure. Both food and predation functions may be affected by giraffe density in a given site. We are using line transect distance sampling to estimate site- and season-specific giraffe, wildebeest, and zebra density to determine how these quantities interact with food and predation.

Our results and conclusions will be disseminated via the annual Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) conference, peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, and informal meetings with officials from TAWIRI, Tanzanian National Parks, and conservation NGOs such as Manyara Ranch Conservancy, African Wildlife Foundation, and Wildlife Conservation Society. These site-specific data are exactly what are needed to inform conservation decision-making by these agencies.

Project Goals:

This project is being conducted with Dr. Doug Bolger of Dartmouth College. Derek Lee is a PhD Fellow working with Dr. Bolger studying giraffe demography. Our project’s ultimate goal is to improve our understanding of ungulate population dynamics by adding robust estimates of survival, reproductive success, and movement for a tropical ungulate species to the existing knowledge base of temperate species. Our proximate goal is to understand giraffe population dynamics and quantify habitat quality in order to successfully conserve the species and their savanna habitat. Our lambda landscape map will identify the highest-quality habitat areas and most productive subpopulations in order to focus conservation efforts on the engines of population growth.

Save our nature!

2011-09-28T11:41:00.000-07:00

Save our nature!
It is hard to say what the meaning of nature is. ‘Nature’ refers to life in general – various types of living plants and animals, the weather and all the things around us. It seems that ‘nature’ is something completely known for people, because we know it from our observations, and also from the physics, biology and geography books. But the knowledge that these sciences give us is changeable. “Nature likes to hide” – it is so right, because nature has so many secrets and mysteries that we haven’t even thought of.
In the Renaissance people discovered the beauty of nature and they tried to appreciate it. Beauty took an important place in the arts and book stories. Nature has inspired so many photographers, painters and artists. While some of us perpetuate it, most of the people are not able to understand its grandeur and greatness.
Pollution is one of the most serious problems in our century. There are different kinds of pollution that affect the air, water and soil. In my view acid rain can be very dangerous for our life. It has harmful effects on plants, animals and infrastructure. The rain is caused by human activities and carelessness. Yes! You, the person who is a part of nature, actually pollute it. And how do you want to live in a beautiful and clean nature when you don’t want to do anything to make your life better and easier? When you change your thinking about the world around, you will actually change your life. It sounds easy, but I don’t think so!
‘The Eden for me, this is the nature. The Eden for nature now, this is a world without people.’ It’s really interesting and of course there is a big truth in it. For us there is only one Eden – the one on Earth. Nowadays people do everything with their “great minds”. They invent new machines and technologies. But with this same mind they destroy the only thing which is more powerful – nature.
People want to determine the rules on Earth. They possess so many things but they are speechless and powerless when they are in front of NATURE! Save it and it will save you!

Salt Pollution

2011-09-19T22:25:00.001-07:00

Salt Pollution

     As awareness for pollution increases, other forms of pollution are
defined. Almost everyone knows about toxic waste and carbon dioxide pollution,
but not many people have heard of salt pollution. Salt pollution has been on
the increase since the evolution of the automobile. With more pressure on
government agencies to keep the highway clear and safe, an increase in the use
of salt has developed. It is important to understand why salt is used and how
it work as well as the environmental effects to understand the salt pollution
problem.

     Salt is a necessary and accepted part of the winter environment. It
provides safety and mobility for motorists, commercial vehicles and emergency
vehicles. Salt is used as the principal deicer because it is the most available
and cost-effective deicer. Rock salt is preferred because it is cheap and
effective. It costs 20 dollars a ton where as an alternative like calcium
magnesium cost around 700 dollars a ton. Some 10 million tons of deicing salt is
used each year in the U.S. and about 3 million in Canada.

     Salt is used to keep snow and ice from bonding to the pavement and to
allow snowplows to remove. When salt is applied to ice and snow it creates a
brine that has a lower freezing temperature than the surrounding ice or snow.
Salt is the ideal deicing material because it is:

     •the least expensive deicer
     •easy to spread
     •easy to store and handle
     •readily available
     •non-toxic
     •harmless to skin and clothing

     Salt pollution is broken into two main groups. Water, which includes
the effects on ground water, surface water and aquatic life and land.

     Most of the salt applied to the roadways eventually ends up in the
ground water. It is estimated that 30% to 50% of the salt used travels into the
ground water. Salt effect two areas of ground water, chloride concentration and
sodium concentration. Chlorides may be present in the form of sodium chloride
crystals or as a ion in a solution. Normal concentrations in the water are
average around 10 mg/litre. Concentrations found in ground water near major
highways have been recorded as high as 250 mg/litre which is around the
threshold of taste.

     The main factor with ground water pollution is the risk to human health.
The raised level in sodium in water can cause high blood pressure and
hypertension. With people who already suffer from these problem it is necessary
to keep their salt intake relatively low, they should not drink water above 20
mg/liter. Although this is recommended, a study of private well water in
Toronto showed that half the wells exceeded this limit, twenty percent exceeded
100 mg/litre and six percent exceeded 250 mg/litre. This increase in sodium and
chlorine can also cause problem with water balance in the human body.

     As well as surface water, ground water is also affected by road salting.
Although the effects are not as great as ground water, they still pose problems
to the environment. The problems are based on the salt ions. The salt ions
interact with heavy metal that fall to the bottom of the body of water. An
example of this is when sodium and chlorine ions compete for mercury to bond
with. This cause the release of mercury into the water system. The risk of
mercury poisoning is far greater than that of sodium or chlorine. This increase
of sodium and chlorine as well as mercury and other heavy metal also cause
changes in the pH of water.

     The increase of salt around bodies of water also effect aquatic life in
the area. Two main areas that are effected are osmotic regulation in fish and
the death of micro-biotic life in ponds and lakes. Most fish life can only
tolerate a narrow range of salt content in the water. The increase of salt in
the water produced by road de-icing cause freshwater fish to swell up with water.
The increased salt cause a lower concentration of water in the fishes cells.
To compensate, the fishes body takes in water to restore equilibrium. This can
kill fish if the salt concentration becomes to high.

     Just as important as fish, microorganisms are also effected in a
detrimental way. Microrganisms are tiny organism that sustain aquatic life in
all bodies of water. They are more susceptible to the effect of salt pollution
than fish. These microorganism are at the bottom of the food chain, when they
die, it doesn't take long for the rest of the food chain to follow. Large
increase in salt concentration can cause 75% - 100% death for these
microorganisms, The effect of salt is almost immediate. Most of the organism
are only one cell big and blow up in contact with increased amounts of salt.

     Water insects are also effected by the increase in salt in the
environment. The number of insects lowers because the inability for water
insects to reproduces in the presence of high salt concentrations. With the
decreasing numbers in microorganisms, insects and fish, it is easy to see the
effect it would have on the rest of the food chain even though other animal may
be more salt tolerable.

     Salt pollution also is a major factor to land. It can also be broken up
into the effects on soil, vegetation and animals.

     The effect of salt on soil may seem relatively less important than the
other topics mentioned so far, but it leads up to more important things. The
effect salt has on soil is that it alters the soil structure. Sodium chloride
actually deteriorates the structure of the soil. This cause a decrease in soil
fertility. In most cases calcium in the soil is replaced by sodium in a anion
exchange. The make the soil less usable by vegetation. This also occurs with
magnesium. This depletion of calcium and magnesium also causes the soil to
increase in alkalinity with pH of nearly 10. Normal pH for the soils tested
were between 5.4 and 6.6.

     High concentrations of sodium in the soil also makes the soil less
permeable. In some case soil may be encrusted in a layer of salt. As a result,
moisture content in the soil may be drastically decreased. High concentrations
of salt may also cause clay to have a decreased concentration of water. This
makes the clay harder and vegetation is less likely to grow.

     Although salt already effects the soil vegetation grows in, it also can
directly effect vegetation itself. Vegetation can be dehydrate to the point of
death when in contact with high levels of salt. This occurs because the osmotic
stress put on the plant make it react like it was in a drought. A decrease in
roots production and burns to leaf tips cause the plant to go into shock.

     Salt injury will also occur when plants come into contact with increased
levels of salt. Salt injury is when foliage damage is present by leaf burn,
die-back, defoliation and brooming. It can also cause fruit trees to have
reduced quantity and quality of fruit. This occurs with only a small amount of
salt comes in contact with the plant. It only take 0.5% of the plants tissue
dry weight to become salt before the plant reach toxic levels. Increased
chlorine levels can also cause salt injury to a plant in the same way. Salt
injury also effect trees as well as small plant life. Growth of plants in also
effected by the presence of sodium and chlorine.

     Animal are also greatly effected by roadway de-icing. Although animals
tolerance to salt intake is quite high using salt for de-icing road presents
unusual dangers. Moose and deer become susceptible to salt pollution because of
their attraction to salt. Deer and moose are know to drink the salty water
around roads. It becomes an addiction to them and reduces the level of fear
when in contact with cars and people. They have also been found licking the
gravel and the side of the road and even the road itself in search for salt.

     Small animals are effected more by the toxicity of high levels of salt.
Increased levels of salt in small wildlife caused kidney hemorrhaging,
depression, excitement, tremors, incoordination, coma and death. Rabbits seem
to be the most susceptible because their inability to stop consuming salt.
Household pets are also effected. once outside, salt collects on their feet.
Pets consume a lot salt when cleaning their feet. This causes cats and dogs to
get inflamed stomachs.

     As one can see, the effect of roadway de-icing on the environment are
tremendous. The use of salt causes a great burden to both land and water. One
must weigh the pro's and con's of de-icing when learn about the effects of salt
on the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

2011-09-19T22:24:00.002-07:00

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Efforts to improve the standard of living for humans--through the control of nature and the development of new products--have also resulted in the pollution, or contamination, of the environment. Much of the world's air, water, and land is now partially poisoned by chemical wastes. Some places have become uninhabitable. This pollution exposes people all around the globe to new risks from disease. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or are now extinct. As a result of these developments, governments have passed laws to limit or reverse the threat of environmental pollution.

Ecology and Environmental Deterioration

The branch of science that deals with how living things, including humans, are related to their surroundings is called ecology . The Earth supports some 5 million species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. These interact and influence their surroundings, forming a vast network of interrelated environmental systems called ecosystems. The arctic tundra is an ecosystem and so is a Brazilian rain forest. The islands of Hawaii are a relatively isolated ecosystem. If left undisturbed, natural environmental systems tend to achieve balance or stability among the various species of plants and animals. Complex ecosystems are able to compensate for changes caused by weather or intrusions from migrating animals and are therefore usually said to be more stable than simple ecosystems. A field of corn has only one dominant species, the corn plant, and is a very simple ecosystem. It is easily destroyed by drought, insects, disease, or overuse. A forest may remain relatively unchanged by weather that would destroy a nearby field of corn, because the forest is characterized by greater diversity of plants and animals. Its complexity gives it stability.

Population Growth and Environmental Abuse

The reduction of the Earth's resources has been closely linked to the rise in human population. For many thousands of years people lived in relative harmony with their surroundings. Population sizes were small, and life-supporting tools were simple. Most of the energy needed for work was provided by the worker and animals. Since about 1650, however, the human population has increased dramatically. The problems of overcrowding multiply as an ever-increasing number of people are added to the world's population each year.

Air Pollution

Factories and transportation depend on huge amounts of fuel--billions of tons of coal and oil are consumed around the world every year. When these fuels burn they introduce smoke and other, less visible, by-products into the atmosphere. Although wind and rain occasionally wash away the smoke given off by power plants and automobiles, the cumulative effect of air pollution poses a grave threat to humans and the environment.

Although the release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere is against the law in most countries, accidents can happen, often with tragic results. In 1984, in Bhopal, India, a pesticide manufacturing plant released a toxic gas into the air that within a few hours caused the deaths of more than 2,000 people.

Water Pollution

Since the beginning of civilization, water has been used to carry away unwanted refuse. Rivers, streams, canals, lakes, and oceans are currently used as receptacles for every imaginable kind of pollution. Water has the capacity to break down or dissolve many materials, especially organic compounds, which decompose during prolonged contact with bacteria and enzymes. Waste materials that can eventually decompose in this way are called biodegradable. They are less of a long-term threat to the environment than are more persistent pollutants such as metals, plastics, and some chlorinated hydrocarbons. These substances remain in the water and can make it poisonous for most forms of life. Even biodegradable pollutants can damage a water supply for long periods of time. As any form of contamination accumulates, life within the water starts to suffer. Lakes are especially vulnerable to pollution because they cannot cleanse themselves as rapidly as rivers or oceans.

Factories sometimes turn waterways into open sewers by dumping oils, toxic chemicals, and other harmful industrial wastes into them. In mining and oil-drilling operations, corrosive acid wastes are poured into the water. In recent years, municipal waste treatment plants have been built to contend with water contamination. Some towns, however, still foul streams by pouring raw sewage into them. Septic tanks and cesspools, used where sewers are not available, may also pollute the groundwater and adjacent streams, sometimes with disease-causing organisms. Even the purified effluent from sewage plants can cause water pollution if it contains high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. Farm fertilizers in some regions fill groundwater with nitrates, making the water unfit to drink. Agricultural runoff containing dangerous pesticides and the oil, grime, and chemicals used to melt ice from city streets also pollute waterways.

Land and Soil Pollution

In order to sustain the continually growing human population, current agricultural methods are designed to maximize yields from croplands. In many areas, the overuse of land results in the erosion of topsoil. This soil erosion, in turn, causes the over-silting or sedimentation of rivers and streams.

One answer to the garbage problem is recycling. Some towns have passed ordinances that encourage or require residents to separate glass and aluminum cans and bottles from other refuse so that these substances can be melted down and reused. Although lightweight steel, cardboard, and paper are also economically recyclable, most industries and cities still burn or bury large amounts of scrap metal and paper products every day.

Radioactive Pollutants

Radioactivity has always been part of the natural environment. An example of natural radioactivity is the cosmic radiation that constantly strikes the Earth. This so-called background radiation has little effect on most people. Some scientists are concerned, however, that humans have introduced a considerable amount of additional radiation into the environment.

Another immediate environmental problem is the disposal of nuclear wastes. Some radioactive substances have a half-life of more than 10,000 years, which means they remain radioactive and highly dangerous for many thousands of years. In nuclear physics, a half-life is the period of time required for the disintegration of half of the atoms in a sample of a radioactive substance. Science has not yet found a safe method of permanent disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Even temporary storage of these wastes is a dangerous and expensive problem. Experiments are underway to investigate the possible use of salt mines several thousand feet below the surface of the Earth as repositories for spent nuclear fuel rods and similar highly radioactive substances.

Thermal, or Heat, Pollution

While the concept of heat as a pollutant may seem improbable on a cold winter day, at any time of year an increase in water temperature has an effect on water life. Heat can be unnaturally added to streams and lakes in a number of ways. One is to cut down a forest completely. The brooks and streams that flowed through it are then exposed to the sun. Their temperatures begin to rise. As they flow into larger bodies of water, these in turn are warmed. This can kill fish and other water animals incapable of tolerating the higher temperatures.

Average worldwide temperatures can be affected when the products of combustion--carbon monoxide, water vapor, and carbon dioxide--are emitted into the air, especially at high altitudes. Since the normal level of carbon dioxide in the air is quite small, any significant addition is a potential threat. Although solar energy on its way to the Earth's surface easily passes through layers of carbon dioxide, some of the heat escaping from the Earth would be absorbed by increased amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, much as heat is trapped in a greenhouse. A worldwide greenhouse effect of this type might produce a dangerously warmer world. Since the late 19th century, the average global temperature has increased between 0.54o F and 1.08o F . Internationally, 1990 was the hottest year on record since official weather records first started being kept by the British in about 1860.

Noise Pollution

The hearing apparatus of living things is sensitive to certain frequency ranges and sound intensities. Sound intensities are measured in decibels. For example, a clap of thunder has an intensity of about 100 decibels. A sound at or above the 120-decibel level is painful and can injure the ear. Noise pollution is becoming an unpleasant fact of life in cities, where the combination of sounds from traffic and building construction reverberates among high-rise buildings, creating a constant din.

Efforts to Halt Pollution

The solution of some pollution problems requires cooperation at regional, national, and international levels. For example, some of the acid rain that falls in Canada is caused by smokestacks of coal-burning power plants in the United States. Thus, rejuvenating the lakes of eastern Canada requires the cooperation of electric utilities in Indiana and Ohio.

The Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (known as Superfund) are among the laws that set standards for healthy air and water and the safe disposal of toxic chemicals. In 1990 President George Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, the second amending legislation since the original Clean Air Act of 1970. The new law called for reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide by half, carbon monoxide from vehicles by 70 percent, and other emissions by 20 percent. The number of toxic chemicals monitored by the EPA would increase from 7 to about 250, and industry would be required to control their waste release by means of the best technology available. In the same year, the California Air Resources Board introduced the strictest vehicle-emission controls in the world. By 2003 the hydrocarbon emission of all new cars sold in California would have to be at least 70 percent less than that of 1993 models, and by 1998, 2 percent of all cars (rising to 10 percent by 2003) would have to release no harmful emissions at all. Several Northeastern states followed suit by introducing similar, though slightly less severe, controls.

Car Pollution

2011-09-19T22:24:00.000-07:00

Car Pollution

Air Pollution

“According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do.” This is not a new problem. In the 1950’s the Los Angeles smog made head-line news. Car exhaust causes health problems. There are many solutions to the problem.
Laws were enacted as long as twenty years ago to control pollution caused by cars. Since then laws have been made, such as special nozzles on gas pumps that prevent vapor from getting into the air. We also have more tests on cars to make sure cars are maintained in a way that protects our environment. In cities, laws ask that more people ride on buses, and employees that drive company cars should limit the time they drive and the number of trips that they make.
Cars emit several pollutants that are toxic. This causes many problems. One problem it causes is cancer. Most cars generate hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Hydrocarbons cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, and lung damage. Nitrogen oxide causes acid rain and leads to water quality problems. Carbon monoxide prevents oxygen from going through the lungs properly. All of these problems can be serious and effect the health of the people who live in the United States.
Some solutions to the problem are: cutting down on the number of cars, traveling at steady speeds, and keeping your car in good shape. You should never over fill your gas tank. You should always use clean gas. People should buy newer cars because they are made to create less pollution.
In summary, the problem of pollution from car exhaust is not new and is the single most polluting thing we do. The situation is so serious that many laws have been enacted to protect our environment. The pollutants that are emitted in car exhaust are very dangerous to our health. There are solutions to the problem if we just pay attention.

Water Pollution

2011-09-19T22:23:00.001-07:00

Water Pollution

     Water pollution has affected many people and animals. Water pollution is
the disposal of garbage into a water stream. Some of the water pollution is from
littering, some water pollution is done by chemical leaks, and others by ships.
Also, There is much information about water pollution. I am going to take that
education on water pollution a step farther; and explain how water pollution
affects us, how it affects marine life, what companies affect it the most, and
what people are doing to help.

     There are many causes for water pollution. The main one is plastics. The
reason for that is that plastics take four hundred and fifty years to decompose
in the water. Also many companies use plastic and people throw it in the
waterways. Because water can float and be carried by the wind, it can cause harm
to unsuspecting creatures hundreds of feet from where it was originally dumped.
Such waste includes bags, bottles, cups, straws, cup lids, utensils, six pack
holders, cling wrap, fishing line, bait bags, and floats.

     The second highest cause of water pollution is ship waste. Ships used to
take much garbage with them on their ships and dump them. This was very common
until the government took action. They were giving sailors up to one million
dollars fines for disposing waste. Because of that, ships now carry less garbage
with them.

     Animals are not the only thing being harmed by water wastes. Fishing
lines, rope, and plastic nets are being caught in the rutter and the engine, but
the ships are not exactly perfect.

     The other main cause of water pollution is industrial waste. Industries
do not be harmed by water pollution but the cause much it. Many companies pour
chemicals into the waterways. Some of the businesses that contribute to the
water pollution are businesses that repair and maintain motor vehicles,
electroplate, operate printing and coping equipment, perform dry cleaning and
laundry services, process photographs, operate labs, involve building and
construct roads, provide pest control, preserve wood, and make Furniture.

     Water pollution doesn¹t just effect humans, it affects are whole
ecosystem. Birds and marine life are affected by it. More than fifty species of
birds are known to ingest plastic. When they eat plastic, they feel full, so
some of them die of starvation. Algal blooms are another thing that kills marine
life. Algal blooms are sea scum, whale food, and sea sawdust. Algal blooms are
bundles of fine threads, rusty brown, they have a fishy smell, and are common in
August through December.

     Water is our main source of our life. We need it to live, drink, bathe,
recreation, manufacturing, and power. We need water for almost everything; if we
don't start cleaning up we will be in big trouble. Bunches of families dispose
of chemicals everyday. It affects us drastically and we depend on it to be clean.

     Right now the government is fining people for illegal dumping. But that
is all the government is doing.

     People in cities are organizing water pollution groups. A lot of people
are producing fliers and giving them out. The are asking people to adapt a
waterway. In Australia they had a national clean up day and went out to the
ocean and cleaned it up. I think the people are taking this more seriously than
the government.

     We need to start cleaning up the water or we will be in big trouble. the
government needs to get active and so does the public.

     In some places water pollution is a main concern. The last defense of
water pollution is water treatment. Their are two main reasons for water
treatment. The first one is to protect the public's health. The second one is to
protect the water quality. Most of the waste water comes from industries, homes,
businesses, storm runoff, ground water, and schools. Also sludge is being
treated to remove some of its water. Then it is further processed by stabilizing,
dewatering, and disposal.

     If more effort isn't being made the human race will die. Eventually all
the water will be infested and unable to drink out of. We will have no places to
bathe or anything. We will have to do something soon or else we will not make it.

Pollution and Environment - The Earth Charter - Good or Bad?

2011-09-19T22:22:00.001-07:00

The Earth Charter - Good or Bad?

The United Nations held an "Earth Summit" in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The result of this international conference was a program labeled "Agenda 21." Agenda 21 is the blueprint for a "sustainable earth." The plan is to sustain the environment and the economy of the earth in the twenty-first century via international treaties, protocols and standards. Critics, however, view Agenda 21 (and its subsidiary initiatives, such as the Earth Charter) as a blueprint for global government.

In September 2002, the United Nations will assemble national leaders and delegates, various experts and sundry Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Johannesburg South Africa for the World Summit for Sustainable Development-- a 10 year review of progress made toward implementing Agenda 21. Several preparatory committee meetings have already been held to define the terms of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD).

The purpose of the WSSD is to move the "global community" closer to an interlocked governmental control over the earth. The rationale offered to the nations for this global control is a possible environmental meltdown and the need to curtail the "hordes of people who pollute" the earth.

Each United Nations conference since the U.N.'s under-reported Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, has been shaped by a political plan to achieve a "world community." This political impetus toward global hegemony in turn calls on a supposed crisis of population, environment, housing, women, children or poverty. Thus we had the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo Egypt, in 1994; the Conference on Women in Beijing, China in 1995; Habitat, Istanbul Turkey, 1996; the World Summit for Children scheduled for 2002.

In some manner each of these conferences advances global control over sovereign nations and their people. A "safe" environment is touted as a human right. Therefore, if human rights must be insured for all people, a global power must be empowered to allocate natural resources and to protect the environment of the entire earth. The U.N. forms new agencies to manage these initiatives, such as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

The past two decades have seen the subtle, then militant insistence on a religious duty to revere the earth. Campaigns such as "Earth First!" or "Love you Mother (Earth)" led to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Many denominations have adopted this program (and others) that elevates the earth to a deity. The New Age mantra insists that the earth has a spirit and that each organism, plant or animal, is spiritually equivalent to humans. The earth is worshipped as a goddess. This is pantheism-a religious system that worships the creation, rather than the Creator.

As the WSSD approaches, massive educational programs, public relations campaigns and religious hype will be employed to persuade the people of the world that an environmental crisis threatens our lives. Unless we consent to global control of resources, production and population, we face environmental peril, global chaos and even war as precious land and water are lost to pollution.

The primary vehicle used to promote the "global commons" is the Earth Charter. This charter is a brainchild of Mikhail Gorbachev and Canadian financier, Maurice Strong. Both are advocates of global governance. Gorbachev is the founder of Green Cross International and Strong is the founder and director of the Earth Council. Both organizations promote socialist political structures for the governance of the entire globe.

The Earth Charter is promoted in schools and churches as well as in local communities as an opportunity to "save the earth." At the same time that the Earth Charter proponents worry about unproved claims of global warming or "holes" in the ozone layer, the specter of AIDS epidemics engulf whole continents. Yet, the U.N. and other affiliated agencies promote sexual immorality that causes AIDS by distributing billions of dollars worth of condoms and contraceptives each year-thus financing the actual degradation of the earth by fostering the conditions that spread AIDS! A cursory investigation of the programs and claims of the Earth Charter agents quickly uncovers their true agenda: Control of the people of the world under the guise of controlling the environment.

Christians agree that man is set over the earth as God's steward, and as such man is given dominion over the earth. This is not a license to ravage the earth. We must care for God's creation, while using it for the benefit of that singular creation that is made in the image of God-Man.

The battle before us is: Whose worldview will prevail? The utilitarian, global government worldview would employ population control, abortion, and control of all means of production and distribution of goods and control of education in order to form "global citizens." In short, a Brave New World. This worldview would banish a religious teaching that protects the dignity of human life at all its stages; the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly.

Pope John Paul II addressed some of the concerns surrounding the environment in his remarks given at the 1990 World Day of Peace. The pope firmly anchored all efforts to protect the environment in Revelation. He said: "The fact that many challenges facing the world today are interdependent confirms the need for carefully coordinated solutions based on a morally coherent world view. For Christians, such a world view is grounded in religious convictions drawn from Revelation."(Message)

The Holy Father points out that Christians have a moral obligation to preserve and protect the environment and to share the bounty of the earth. Yet he is careful to draw the attention of Christians to the worldview that insures freedom and dignity for the human person.

The United Nations and other international organizations in the forefront of the sustainable development programs and the Earth Charter are deaf to the Holy Father's admonition to keep Man as the centerpiece of creation. The threat to Christian practice from many of the U.N. programs is grave. Even now some UN relief agencies refuse doctors and medical personnel the right to abide by their conscience on matters of abortion and contraception. Catholic countries are forced to accept contraception and abortion as a part of international development aid packages. Population control in some form is a feature of all U.N. programs for the environment.

Pollution and Environment - Our Environment is Doomed

2011-09-19T22:21:00.002-07:00

Our Environment is Doomed

Some environmentalist doomsday scenarios have already saved our lives -- for example, the alarm sounded about the ozone layer. Environmental science is like any other branch of science; it is a human activity that finds consensus on powerfully-supported theories, and disagreement on weakly-supported ones. That some conservatives would take only the disagreements that later proved wrong, compile them into a list and provide this as "proof" that environmentalists are conducting "junk science" is highly disingenuous.

It's hardly true that environmentalist doomsday scenarios have always been proven wrong. A major one they got right was the destruction of the ozone layer -- without which the sun's deadly ultraviolet rays would have killed most if not all life on the planet. Thanks to quick and top-level scientific research, the alarm was sounded and all the nations of the world agreed to ban the chemicals responsible. F. Sherwood Rowland, Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina deserve far more than their Nobel prizes.

However, science is a human activity, and mistakes are often made. This is why scientific consensus is so important. When the arguments of any given theory are so strong and compelling that they sway a majority of scientists, the chances for human error are greatly diminished. Not eliminated, mind you -- just greatly diminished.

The following is a list of well-supported theories that enjoy broad scientific consensus:

* Man-made chemicals are destroying the ozone layer. (1)

* Man-made chemicals are causing global warming. (2)

* Most agriculture, fish and water resources have either reached their limit or are declining, despite a growing population. (3)

* Death and cancer rates are higher around toxic waste sites, the chemical industry and the nuclear industry. (4)

* The extinction rate is climbing. (5)

* The world's rain forests are declining. (6)

* The world's coral reefs are declining. (7)

* More insects and bacteria are becoming immune to the pesticides and vaccinations used against them. (8)

Still, it's possible to find scientists who hold beliefs outside the consensus, including cranks on the margins who espouse bizarre and crazy theories. They might be right -- but if so, then the evidence that they find so compelling should be compelling to other scientists as well, and eventually this initially odd theory will itself become mainstream science. More often than not, however, these strange theories languish on the margins, for want of compelling evidence.

Environmentalism is no different from any other branch of science -- scientists have competing theories; on the more fundamental questions they have arrived at a consensus, and on the more cutting edge ones they are still researching and arguing. Now, if a conservative were bent on a little mischief, he could visit the history of such arguments, find the ones that eventually proved wrong, collect them together in a single list, and present this list as incontrovertible proof that environmentalists are conducting junk science. Conservatives should realize that if a similar exercise were conducted against them -- for example, all the conspiracy theories that later proved wrong, or the millenarian claims that Christ was coming in a certain year -- well, a very rich list of embarrassments could be produced indeed.

The following are frequently mentioned examples in the anti-environmentalist's list of failed doomsday scenarios:

* Thomas Malthus' prediction that the expanding human population would run into limited resources, causing intense competition and suffering. Malthus failed to consider that improving technology would increase those resources dramatically and allow the population to continue growing without discomfort. Malthus was correct in principle but wrong in his timetable; today scientists have a better understanding of the state of the world's resources. They confirm that the world has reached its limit in crop harvests, and is declining in animal species, rain forests, top soil, fish stocks, and fresh water. Indeed, technology is not increasing these resources, but actually finding faster ways to consume them.

* The predictions made by the first Earth Day in 1970. Some environmentalists predicted that the oceans would be fished out in 10 years time. Again, this was a hasty and ill-informed prediction. Today scientists have a much better understanding of the world's fish stocks. Soaring demand between 1950 and 1989 drove the world annual fish catch from 22 to 100 million tons. But something unusual occurred over the next five years. Despite growing demand, the fish catch hit its limit, even declining slightly. A search for the reason why reveals that all 17 major fishing areas of the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits, and nine are in serious decline. (9) Industry horror stories began as early as the 1970s, when Iceland's fishing industry was decimated and the Peruvian anchovy catch fell from 12 million to 2 million tons in just three years. In 1993, some 50,000 Canadian fishers had lost their jobs due to disappearing cod in the North Atlantic. (10) If we continue in this direction, the world's oceans will indeed be fished out. The first Earth Day prediction was off only on its timetable.

* Carl Sagan's prediction that the 1991 Kuwaiti oil fires would throw up so much soot and pollution they would darken the sun and catastrophically cool the earth. Sagan, an astronomer, was speaking outside his field of expertise, basing his prediction on the nuclear winter theories that atmospheric scientists had formed in their study of a potential nuclear war. Needless to say, nuclear wars are far more serious than oil fires, and Sagan's prediction did not come true -- at least to the degree that he thought it would.

A common theme links all of these examples. In each case, the scientist was commenting on a field of science that was very young. Malthus was the pioneer of population studies. Environmentalism was a new branch of science on the first Earth Day. The nuclear winter theory is also not only a relatively new one, but an untested one. Those familiar with scientific history know that when a new branch of science emerges, no one knows much about its fundamentals because, after all, it's a new branch of science. After much argument and trial and error, a consensus on the fundamentals begins to emerge. There is still debate and trial and error, of course, but most of it occurs at the cutting edge, while the consensus on fundamentals continues to grow. What some conservatives are doing is concentrating on the mistakes that occurred on the cutting edge in the past, and ignoring the fundamental consensus today.

Pollution and Environment - The Environment and Big Business

2011-09-19T22:21:00.000-07:00

The Environment and Big Business

Since the rise of environmental awareness, business and industry have always considered environmentalism a waste of time, only getting in the way of profits and production. From the perspective of business, environmentalists push for regulations and restrictions on businesses which cost them more money and frequently restrict some of their practices. What business an the economy doesn't know is that they can actually save money by being environmentally responsible, while protecting the very resources they depend on . The protection of the environment not only has intrinsic value, but also economical value. Business and industry, can also benefit. These factors can lead to a newly developed economy that protects what it needs instead of destroying it. Despite historical differences between advocates of business and the environment, the fact is the two can and must utilize eachother for the future success of both.

It is important, in order for the economy to see the environment worth something, to put an economic value on it. For this reason, a group of scientists for the Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment have developed an economic valuation for the environment. According to them, it is necessary to impute a value to environmental goods or services (Pearce et al, online). This value is necessary because the economy needs to see that the protection of the environment can prove cost worthy to business and industry. The purpose of valuation is to show true costs of using up scarce environmental resources. It is a way for environmentalists and economists to put a dollar figure on the services the environment provides. Robert Costanza, an ecological economist from the University of Maryland, has done just this. The estimate of services provided by ecosystems worldwide is 33 trillion dollars annually, surpassing the gross national product of al the countries on earth combined by eight trillion dollars (Zimmer 105). The environment provides services not only commercially, such as timber, but also in less visible ways. For instance, forests protect from soil erosion, which proves costly to correct. With these facts in mind, depleting ecosystems an resources proves costly, while protection them can only save money.

Business and the American economy has much to gain by altering their current practices. One prime example of how protection the environment can prove beneficial to a company is a program created by 3M called Pollution Prevention Pays. This program creates incentives to prevent hazardous and toxic wastes by changing processes, redesigning equipment, and recovering waste for reuse or recycling. Since the program was designed in 1975, 3M has been able to save over $537 million, while reducing its air pollution by 10,000 tons, its wastewater by one billion gallons and its solid waste by 410,000 tons (Hawken 61). This is one example of a business making money fro preventative waste, while becoming environmentally responsible. While at the same time, not being environmentally responsible can cause businesses to lose money. The cost of cleaning up waste can be extremely expensive, while reducing waste and recycling can prove worthwhile. From a surface view, it would appear that the American economy doesn't need to make any change to its current practices. After all, the U.S. is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The problem rests in the foundation of the economy. America was founded on and flourishes because of its natural resources, most of them non-renewable. These resources, such as petroleum, natural gas an timber, will run out someday, it is inevitable. Research of programs to prevent this or to incorporate alternate forms of energy have barely been researched. Perhaps the reason for this is that actions that deplete lands an species are rewarded in the market, because they are less expensive, while actions that preserve them are not (Schuss and Western 329). It is much less expensive, for instance, to buy a car that is fueled by gasoline than to buy a car that runs on hydrogen, even though hydrogen is a renewable resource an produces barely any waste.

As Paul Hawken, an environmentalist and author of "Ecology of Commerce", explains, "the single most damaging aspect of the present economic system is that the expense of destroying the earth is largely absent fro prices set at the marketplace" (13). Market prices set for products don't include the cost that future generations will have to pay to clean up the mess the current economy is fueling right now. An economy based on the rapid depletion of its own non-renewable resources is certainly destined for doom, while protection of these resources will save the businesses or corporations money while protecting what fuels it.

Pollution and Environment Essay - The Population Explosion

2011-09-19T22:19:00.002-07:00

The Population Explosion

According to the Population Reference Bureau, in 1991, there were about 5.4 billion people in the world. The global birth to death rate was 27/9, meaning that for every person that dies, three more babies are born. From 1990 to 1991, the population increased by 95 million people, and now has continued to grow at that rate. This may appear to be no danger, but if one were to think of it as a pond doubling its amount of lily pads for 40 days, they'd see it differently. It would start out with one lily pad, the next day it has two, and on the 39th day it is half filled. However, in one day, on the 40th day, it will be completely filled. The Earth's population is doubling about every 40 years. We don't want to wait until the 79th year to fix our problem or else humankind will not have enough time to change the inevitable obstacles that come with overpopulation.

In his book, The Population Explosion , Paul Ehrlich, a famous population controlist, came up with the equation I = PAT. He believes the impact on the environment is equal to the population multiplied by the affluence (meaning the amount of energy and food supply the population consumes) multiplied by the amount of destructive technology a country has. He showed that the impact is directly affected by the population. Therefore with a larger population, there is a greater impact on the Earth's water, air, and land. A common problem that people think is associated with overpopulation is running out of space to live, but there are also many other environmental predicaments that it causes. More people use more cars, need more firewood, drink more water. This causes more air pollution, more land ruined, and more water to disappear. Therefore, population control is necessary on an international level in order to protect our environment .

There are experts who believe that population control is not needed such as in Singapore. The government in Singapore decided that it would be better for the country to grow in population so that they are able to help their economy. Many less developed countries promote population growth because they want their economy to grow. The experts who believe that it is better for us to let the population increase or decrease on its own also think that overpopulation will never become a problem. Justification for this argument is that humans will adjust themselves to the growing population because they are a species that are able to think, make decisions, and find solutions when they encounter a problem Advocates for this argument think that there is no need to worry about environmental problems because there is or will be technology to fix the problems. As for with the limited amount of resources, they believe that there would be more people to think of new ways to make it easier or faster to get newer and more food and energy resources. Even during this time period, scientists are trying to discover a new way for people to live elsewhere such as under the sea. Many people believe that overpopulation will cause and has caused many environmental problems, but they don't think telling families how many children they are allowed to have is the way to control the population. However, there has not been any other plausible suggestion on how to lower population growth, so limiting families to two children is the only solution.

The worry about overpopulation started when it was noticed that many of the earth's resources and environment were being hurt. It was traced back to three revolutions that humans populations had grown, where at first it didn't effect the environment, but later on with more advanced technology a lot of damage was done. The graph on the top of the next page shows the world's population growth for 1025 years. The information is from the Population Reference Bureau in 1989. It shows the population is growing geometrically, and will continue to do so unless population control is started.

World Population 1000 AD to 2025 AD

The first revolution was the evolutionary revolution, about 100,000 years ago during the Ice Age. These homosapiens had larger, more culturally elaborate communities than the earlier human forms. They hunted on a large scale, and as the food supply increased, so did their population. At the end of the Ice Age, there were about 5 million humans. The second revolution occurred around 8000 B.C. and was called the Agricultural Revolution. At this time, humans were able to have a reliable source of food at a location of their choice. This was when villages and towns had started to form, and were able to store more food they needed at the time. This caused birth rates to go up, and families to get larger. Up to this point, only 6,000 years after the discovery of farming, the population increased by at least 4000%. Each century afterwards the population grew a little faster, with certain setbacks like during the Black Death, an outbreak of the bubonic plague. This killed a quarter to a third of the people in Europe during the 14th century, but still in 1650, the world population had grown to 500 million. It was the third revolution, a century later, that really increased the population and hurt the environment. This was the Industrial Revolution. During this time coal, petroleum, natural gases, and other new energy sources started allowing the world to have factories, railroads, automobiles, chemical and plastic industries, and automated industries. It was also during this time that the death rate had been lowered, meaning people were able to live longer. This revolution introduced many positive things such as pest-control chemicals, modern sanitation, and medicine. These made life expectancy increase and infant mortality decrease. From 1750, when the Industrial Revolution started, to 1991, the life expectancy increased from 25 years to 65 years, and the infant mortality rate decreased from 400 to 68 per thousand births.

It was during this Industrial Revolution that environmental damage started to occur. In Greece, they had worried about soil erosion from too many trees being cut down in their mountainous region. Deforestation also caused water runoffs, flood, and droughts in China. In Rome, the air and water had been dangerously polluted. In addition it was at this time that negative things started to occur such as oil spills in sea, automobile exhaust making too much smog, and chloroflourocarbon gases that destroy the ozone layer being released into the atmosphere. The landfills were full and water sources polluted because of toxic waste from plastics and chemical manufacture. It was an increase of population that caused these things such as using up more landfill space, releasing more chloroflourocarbon gases, and more toxic waste to be dumped out in the ocean.

Overpopulation is degrading the Earth's oceans and other water sources, and by doing so will not only lessen our water supply for the future, it will also hurt the animals living in the water. It is obvious that we need water to survive, but it will not do any good if the water is polluted. If there is a pond that is being degraded, when the pollution is released slowly, the microorganisms in the pond could break down the pollution. However, if it was released all at once, the pond can not get rid of the pollution fast enough and the water becomes degraded. With fewer people there is less pollution released, leaving more time for the pollution to be degraded. (Randers, 257)

In aquifers or natural underground reservoirs such as in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Egypt, the natural water has been depleted by more than 50 percent. As there is less and less natural water in them, more and more salty water from the Mediterranean Sea seep in contaminating the water. Under the Great Plains in the United States, the Ogallala Aquifer, that supplies one-fifth of the crop land in the United States with water, was half emptied in the late 1980's. If this aquifer is completely drained it may collapse causing sinkholes in the land above, and never allowing it to be refilled again. Not only will low water supplies affect a human necessity, it could also cause "water wars." Ethiopia, for instance, wants to build dams along the upper part of the Nile river. This action, however, could prevent enough water from getting down to other countries that rely on the Nile such as Egypt. Also the Turkish government wants to build 21 dams along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This strategy would cut 40 percent of the water flow from those rivers to Syria and 80 percent of the water flow to Iraq.

Even though about two thirds of the Earth is water, not all of it is available for use. A lot of it is not even in the places where it is needed most. Between 1950 and 1980 in the United States, water use increased 150 percent, while the population grew by only 50 percent. In 1975, 19 countries in the developing world did not have enough renewable water resources, and it is expected that by the year 2000, that number will increase to 29 countries. By 2025, at least 37 nations could experience a severe demand for water. As said by the Population Institute's Werner Fornos in 1991, "The water crises of the 1990s will make the oil crises of the 1970's pale in comparison." ( Stefoff, 67)

Besides water, overpopulation is polluting the air we breath, and causing many unwanted results such as the greenhouse effect, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer. The greenhouse effect had probably started around the industrial revolution when a large amount of carbon dioxide was released. These gases build up around the earth's outer atmosphere turning the earth into a greenhouse. What happens in a greenhouse is heat is allowed in, hits the ground and reflects back out. But instead of escaping back out into space, it is trapped inside the Earth's atmosphere, raising the Earth's average temperature. This greenhouse effect affects the temperature, which inadvertantly raises sea levels causing natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding, and heat waves not allowing crops to grow properly. (Stefoff, 39)

Along with the greenhouse effect, there is the deteriorating ozone layer. The ozone layer regulates the quantity of UV light from coming down to the earth's surface from the sun. It has started to deteriorate from chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) being emitted into the air. These chemicals are found as fluids in air conditioning systems, as aerosol propellants, and as industrial solvents. Scientists say that each chlorine atom that is a part of a CFC compound can destroy up to 100,000 ozone atoms. However, even if we stop releasing CFC's into the air, it can remain in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years and continue to degrade the ozone layer. With less of an ozone layer, more UV light enters the atmosphere and causes skin diseases such as skin cancer. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the degradation of the ozone layer will cause 12 million people to develop skin cancer within the next 50 years. Significantly, more than 200,000 of those cases will be fatal. (Keeling, 4)

Acid rain is a direct result of air pollution which occurs when too many people are releasing toxins into the air. Fossil fuel that is burned is released into the air as a gas and reacts with sunlight, oxygen and moisture in the atmosphere. This changes compounds like sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid, and nitrogen oxide into nitric oxide. It precipitates to the ground and pollutes water and the land, killing fish, damaging forests and crops, and corroding metals. Main causes of air pollution are the needs of too many people for the use of cars and industrial plants, both which release many harmful fumes into the air. An increasing population leads to more CFC's emitted into the air from the car's air conditioning. Also when the cars are not able to be used anymore, they are taken to the junk yard, and occupy more landfill space. Furthermore, cars have damaged terrain when vacationers go over more land with off-road vehicles (Bouvier, 51). Again, increased usage of energy produced by oil, coal and natural gas-fired power plants will have a negative effect on the world's air.

A larger population also increases usage of air conditioning when it becomes warmer. Air conditioners cause more carbon to be emitted, heat to be trapped in the atmosphere, and UV light to enter in. Likewise, if there are less people, less air conditioning is used, and global warming and a deteriorating ozone layer could be prevented. According to the United States Nations Population Fund, they predict the developing countries will double their carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. What the population is causing, air pollution, is harmful to them. With air pollution, humans, plants, and animals do not have clean air to breath. Air is one of the necessities to life, and the cleaner it is, the better. As well as the Earth's water and air, there is another part of the environment that is a threat of too many people. Overpopulation is destroying the land and therefore could end the life of all the creatures on

Earth. There are many examples that there is not enough land. For instance, there is not enough landfill space. Every year, the United States alone creates 13 billion tons of waste. This is 50 tons a person. How can there be enough room for all this trash? An example of this is in the state of Ohio. In 1988, Ohio started running out of landfill space. To solve this problem the government decided to make it easier to open new larger landfills. This allowed the owners of the landfills to lower their prices so businesses will want to use their landfills. Doing this could make people recycle less, take up more landfill space, and ruin the earth more. (Overpopulation, 3) Overpopulation also threatens the Earth's agricultural resources. An example of this is desertification of land. It occurs when fertile land is turned into infertile land. This can happen from overgrazing of cattle as in the southwestern United States, or erosion where the topsoil is carried away. Even irrigation can cause desertification if too much water is used, flooding the land, and not allowing crops to grow there anymore.

Desertification is caused mostly by a growing population. More people need more food, causing more land to be used unproperly. The most serious desertification occurs in places such as China, India, and Africa, all places with large, fast growing populations. Each year about 82,000 square miles, the same size as the state of Kansas, of the earth's surface is made useless by desertification. According to the United Nations Environment Program, by the mid-1980's 13 million square miles of the earth's surface had lost 25 percent of its productivity and 6 million square miles lost 50 percent its productivity. Also in the United States, at least one-fifth of its land (not including Alaska and Hawaii) is desertified or is threatened by desertification.

A third example of the deterioration of the Earth's land because of too large a population is deforestation. The Population Institute and the United Nations estimate that half of all the remaining forests will be destroyed by the year 2000. Forests are cut down for humankind's demand of fuelwood, agricultural space, paper products, and more space to live. However, forests are needed for more than human needs. They stabilize global weather, and when large amounts are cut down soil erosion and siltation of rivers occurs. They also regulate the amount of carbon dioxide let out into the atmosphere. When they are cut down and burned, not only are they not able to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released anymore, they increase the amount released because burning wood makes carbon dioxide (Keelings, 2). Rainfall is absorbed by trees and other vegetations into the ground, and then flows to springs, streams, and aquifers. With no forests, rainfall flows without being absorbed and aquifers and streams are not refilled. This, then, causes water shortages and droughts.

Studies conducted by the United Nations show that between 1973 and 1988, 79 percent of total deforestation was a direct result of population growth. This is greatly due to the fact that 70 percent of all families in developing nations, which is about two billion people worldwide, rely on firewood as their only fuel. If they stop using firewood as their fuel they will have to use fuels that release gases to pollute the air. Already developed countries such as the United States also account for deforestation. In Canada, at least one million hectares are cut annually, and in Siberia, the rate of deforestation can be up to four million hectares annually, which is twice the rate of Brazil. An example of land being destroyed by overpopulation happened in the Sahel, a place along the sothern border of the Sahara desert in Africa. It is not a true desert, usually receiving 10 to 30 inches of rainfall a year. However, in the 1950's and 1960's, it received a high amount of rainfall. Also during this time the population increased greatly. For example, in Niger, one country that is a part of the Sahel, the population increased by 1.3 million in a 14 year period. Everything seemed fine until in 1968 when a 20 year drought started. This affected everyone, but especially the nomads who travel with herds of livestock. The land became infertile, the soil was carried away by the wind in enormous amounts, and any vegetation grown was either burned for fuel or eaten by the starving animals. Also because there was no vegetation to absorb the rainfall, the water quickly ran off, carrying more topsoil with it. Even now, much of the Sahel is still in famine.

With more and more land being destroyed as the population grows larger and larger, there is not enough room for other species. The larger animals that need to travel over hundreds of square miles are left with less and less room as each town grows. Some animals such as frogs, are slowly decreasing in number because of pollution, which is caused by humans, that affect their eggs. Animals that live in the forest are also slowly disappearing because even though you can replant the trees you cut down, the animals that live there can not be brought back. An example of this is the Eastern migratory songbirds in Central America and Northeastern United States. Finally, it is estimated that each year 27,000 species vanish forever, meaning three plants, animals, insects or microorganism disappear every hour. Scientists estimate that about one fifth of all life forms will be gone in the next thirty years. None of them being named, and even less being studied or understood. The key to the answer to a problem could be lost forever. (Keelings, 2)

Overpopulation is not a new issue. Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean is an example of when population control was needed, but was not used; the end results being disastrous. Around 1600, Easter Island had 7,000 Polynesians. They used the trees on the island for fishing boats and housing, and soon all the trees were cut down. When that occurred they were forced to live in caves. Soon they started to group together to fight with each other for resources, and even practiced cannibalism. When the Europeans arrived there in 1722, there were only 3,000 Polynesians left.

Another example is of Mauritius, a tropical island nation in the Indian ocean. Fortunately they have a happier ending than the Polynesians. On this island there were as many people as in Bangladesh. The country had a balance of a good economy and ecosystem. The government officials of the nation had noticed that many ebony forests had been cut down causing erosion and the extinction of the dodo bird. Because of this they decided that they should set up population control and educate the people about stabilizing population growth. Now it is one of the most prosperous countries in Africa. As Richard Grove, an environmental historian of Cambridge University, said, "I would be much less pessimistic about the future if the rest of the world could act like Mauritius." (Linden,70)

It should be known that population control will not end all the problems mentioned above, but they would definitely allow more time for them to be fixed. Also, population control helps alienate environment problems. The alternative, letting the population grow indefinitely could only hurt the environment. Overpopulation is a negative solution for everyone; plants, animals, land, water, and humans. According to the Index of Human Suffering in 1987, sponsored by the population Crisis committee, countries with a larger population increase also had higher suffering.

The Earth's environment is finite and can be destroyed if we do not start population control. Measures need to be taken now to correct the current situation which includes the increase of deforestation and desertification, the decrease of farmland, more water pollution, the deteriorating ozone layer, and the greenhouse effect. Additionally, three new kinds of plants, animals or other species disappear every hour. It is evident that there is no way our population can keep growing at the rate it does now without severely negatively impacting our environment. We should learn from the mistakes of the people on Easter Island, and the solution the people on Mauritius used. It is our obligation to keep the environment in good condition for future generations. As most population scientists say, "Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause - unless we come to grips with overpopulation."

Pollution and Environment - Alternative Fuels

2011-09-19T22:19:00.000-07:00

Alternative Fuels

The environment is a hotly debated topic in today's society. Some of the subtopics that are going to be discussed are going to be those related to the way technology is changing, what industries are doing to help prevent further pollution, some of the methods used in paper recycling, and some discussion of renewable energy sources. For the most part, this section of the research paper, unlike the other sections, is going to attempt to discuss some of the ways the public has been dealing with, and are finding new ways to deal with environmental problems that we are presently facing.

There are currently three main sources of pollution: they are, water pollution, waste pollution, and air pollution. Of these three forms of pollution, the one that affects our health most directly is air pollution. Scientists believe that all cities with populations exceeding 50,000 have some degree of air pollution.1 Some sources of air pollution include emissions of sulfur dioxide and other noxious gases by electric power plants that burn high-sulfur coal or oil.2 Air pollution can range from factory emissions, to auto emissions, and even house hold product emissions such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once found in abundance in spray containers and has been drastically reduced in these products.

Air Pollution has been that target of some of the most complicated legislation ever discussed. In 1970, the United States Congress passed legislation aimed at curbing sources of air pollution and setting standards for air quality.3

One of the strongest weapons against industrial pollution that many factories are currently using to combat air pollution is a scrubber. A scrubber is a series of filters placed in smoke stacks and other points of industrial emissions to try and filter out many of the contaminants that tend to be released into the atmosphere.

In addition to factory emissions, auto emission pollutants have also been reduced by the use of a tool that has been around for quite some time, the catalytic converter. Because gasoline is not completely utilized upon combustion, many toxic gases are able to escape in the form of exhaust. A catalytic converter is a box-like device that is placed somewhere in the exhaust system between the point of exhaust release from the engine, to the actual release of the exhaust to the environment. A catalytic converter works by transforming harmful gases through a series of chemical reactions to essentially non-harmful gases. Catalytic converters have been proven to be very beneficial in reducing the amount of harmful gases released into the atmosphere.

Instead of just trying to reduce auto emissions, car companies are also researching alternative fuel sources. The most popular forms of alternative fuels currently are electricity, which can be harnessed directly in the form of solar energy from the sun and stored in batteries, or natural gas which is a much cleaner burning gas.

In addition to wanting to know what was being done to prevent the air from becoming more polluted, students also wanted to know something about recycling, and what methods are used to turn old waste into new products. Many reused paper products are normally turned into cardboard boxes and tissue products. Rarely is paper that is collected reused as reading/writing paper again.

One of the largest waste products in the United States today is paper. It has been found that the U.S. is currently collecting between 26 and 30% of all paper wastes for recycling.4 One astounding fact is that the U.S. also exports 22% of this paper waste, which amounts to some 28.9 million tons of paper, abroad to European countries and to countries in the Orient.5

How many trees saved by recycling is still not clearly known. It has been widely reported that every ton of paper, if made from 100% recycled fibers, saves approximately 17 trees.6 In reality, the number of trees required to generate a ton of paper depends on many factors including tree size, species, and the type of pulp and paper being manufactured.7

For a paper to be reprocessed into a new product, many steps must take place during the transformation. A process known as deinking must be utilized. There are many methods of deinking and each uses different physical and chemical properties or sometimes both to make a new white pulp again. Some of these process are discussed and listed below.

Washing is a process whereby detergents, wetting agents, and other chemicals are added to make the ink hydrophilic (attracted to water). Another method used is called Flotation. This process makes the ink hydrophobic (repelled by water). The pulp is continuously aerated and the air bubbles attract the in particles as they rise up to the surface. Dispersion is a process that involves breaking up the ink particles to such a small degree that they cannot be seen by the eye. Theses are just some of the methods used to recycle old paper in to new pulp.

In addition to the recycling of various wastes into new products, another topic that is of great interest to environmentalists is alternative or renewable power sources. Some of Nature's most cleanest power sources are solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, and geothermal energy.

Solar devices now exist that are capable of supplying all the energy needs of a residence, including electricity, water and space heating, and space cooling.8 Some of these devices are too expensive to be put into use by the average homeowner. The problem that faces many of today's researchers is too make this technology competitive with other forms of energy that are already in use.

Hydropower cannot be used directly by the homeowner, however, while still a better method of harnessing power in a cleaner manner, it still has environmental drawbacks. Hydropower has the capability of liberating a country such as the U.S. from any foreign power sources such as oil. The process of obtaining energy from water is quite simple because the kinetic energy of water is what is being utilized. Water is first damned up, and then allowed to flow over turbines which spin and thus form energy. The rate at which water passes by these turbines can be controlled. One of the major drawbacks of this form of energy is the damage it can do to surrounding ecosystems. Lowlands behind damns now become lakes, and fish have a harder time of getting up streams to reproduce. "Nature's" natural balance can be altered quite severely but new methods of getting around these problems have been, or are currently being developed.

Hopefully this paper has been able to give you, the reader, more insight on some of the possible solutions to today's environmental problems. As one can see, there are clearly many alternatives. It is just a matter of acting upon them and instating these alternatives.

by anurag

Environment, Pollution and the Living Water

2011-09-19T22:18:00.001-07:00

The Living Water

Water, a substance that is so often taken for granted yet is such an intricate part of our very existence. In the essay, Becoming Water, by Susan Zwinger, we are asked to make ourselves one with the waves. But why? How can a substance that has no taste or color be so important to life? Like the bonds people form with each other, water has bonds to all aspects of life. "Let them know in their viens that you both are connected everywhere." (Zwinger, 243). These bonds are constantly being broken by our irresponsible actions. More precisely, by our tendencies to pollute.

Many of us have sat and listened to lectures on how important water is to everything from humans to trees. Eight glasses a day is the recommended daily amount that should be consumed by humans. The human race depends on water for a variety of things. It is used in our hygiene, helps the body to maintain a constant temperature, flushes unwanted items from our systems, and of course provides us with many recreational activities, from swimming to water balloon fights. Indirectly, we are dependent on water because it allows vegetation to grow and animals to live. Also, remember that statistic that sixty percent of our body is water? Without water, there would be no us. For this reason, water has a bond to the human race.

Water also has a bond to the land. It allows plants to grow. In fact, without water, try to get something to grow. You will probably end up with a beautifully dry, yellow looking plant. Many beautiful things like flowers, green grass, and tall trees would be nonexistent without water. Like humans, these living things are also dependent on water. The earth is two-thirds water and one-third land. "View the waterways of the earth as dendritic viens." (239). Water is like a bridge connecting one place to another. "Swell up under fishermen in Viet Nam, caress skin divers in the Caribean, strand a cruise vessel in Glacier bay." (240). Water also has the power to destroy the land through storms. To demonstrate this power, Zwinger asks us to "Become fascinatingly deadly. Travel further north toward the poles, go to the extremes." (240). From flooding to hurricanes, water can change the land and lives in the blink of an eye. This power of destruction is not something to be feared, it allows for the land to rebuild and start over. It is like an unbreakable contract linking the land to the water.

I feel that Zwinger was trying to make us realize how important water is by writing Becoming Water. She points out the places which water travels and the things that it "sees". "You have a pulse, the waves, and a metabolism, your food chain." (242). Zwinger makes a nonliving thing take on human characteristics to stress her point. "A personality, a character, a conciousness, and a sense of purpose." (242). I have to agree with her. All to often, we take for granted something that ensures our existence. We allow our waste to be thrown into the our water supplies. Motorized vehicles churn up the sediment from the bottom of a water source causing the water to become very turbid. Some industries even dispose of harmful chemicals into our water sources.

In my home town, we have a lake named Crystal Lake. It is a spring fed body of water so, theoretically it should be relatively clean. On the contrary, the lake is disgustingly dirty. Many of the fish have died and swimmers itch has become a common aliment of lake's many swimmers. The problem has been attributed to the increased use of motor boats on the lake and the increased population that uses the lake. Another example of a water source filled with pollution is that big river called the Mississippi. Have you ever tried to look to the bottom of the river? Good luck. The river is so turbid you would be lucky to see one foot down. Besides the many gambling boats, the Mississippi is used to transport things by means of barges. Barges are very heavy; their weight causes the sediment from the bottom of the river to be churned up, hence the turbidity. Another problem is that things fall off barges into the water contaminating it even more. The Mississippi, like the lake in my hometown, has also been blessed with an ever increasing amount of motor vehicles on the river. These motor vehicles also add to the amount of sediment that is churned up. These are examples of how our society has allowed a precious resource to be wasted. So, after reading Zwinger's essay, I found it to be a reminder of how important water is to my existence.

Water has bonds to both the land and all living things. Becoming Water was a wake up call. It put us, the reader, in a perspective we had probably never thought about. We were able to experience everything water experiences. This new perspective was a very interesting and original way for Zwinger to express her point of view. By making the reader "become" water, she allowed for a first hand view of the importance of water. By becoming more responsible and more aware of problems around us, we will be able to preserve something that is essential for our existence.

The Car, Pollution, and the Environment

2011-09-19T22:17:00.001-07:00

The Car and the Environment

Transportation plays a very important role in America. The automobile is the main form of transportation in America. Connecting people from point 'A' to point 'B'. America is covered with roads that transport cars and people across such areas as the islands of the Florida Key's to under the mountains of the Colorado Rockies. Cars offer fast reliable transportation, offering drivers access to anywhere with roads, but there are consequences. Automobiles are the leading cause to America's air pollution problem. Cars also release toxic emissions that damage our environment. Hurting our environment by adding to the greenhouse effect, damaging air quality, and decreasing the ozone. Not to mention the growing smog problems, disasters done with landfill and the effects done to our water supply. Which all are connected with the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, and air quality. Even though today's ozone is stable, ultraviolet rays are under control, and the air we breathe is still healthy. In the near future these luxuries will not be available if we continue to drive cars of today. Effecting the way humans operate their lives on a regular basis.

Cars damage our environment by the emissions released from the combustion system of an automobile. Certain emissions effect out environment and do damage to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the process where infrared rays from the sun come into the Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere traps these rays after they have entered, keeping the Earth warm and habitable. Toxic gases weaken the atmosphere allowing for more infrared rays to enter. Having more infrared rays reflected on the Earth warms the Earth, raising the temperature. Causing certain vegetation life to die off, the snow caps to melt, and increased temperature. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are two greenhouse gases that damage our Earth's atmosphere. Reducing the amount of these greenhouse gases will greatly help reduce these effects.

Cars release 30 percent of the carbon dioxide in the earth's air. Carbon dioxide is released from the tailpipe of a car and can do much damage to the human respiratory system. Every time an automobile burns a gallon of gasoline it releases 22 pounds of carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide is also a damaging greenhouse gas. Cars account for 76 percent of the carbon monoxide in the earth's air. Carbon monoxide affects the bloods total capacity for carrying oxygen by to the heart, brain, and other important organs. Automobiles also release nitrogen oxide (N0x), contributing 30 percent of N0x in the earth's atmosphere. Adding to the already problem of acid rain, which can damage health by increasing coughing, asthma, and stinging eye. Volatile organic compounds also released by car emissions combine with nitrogen oxides creating smog. Smog contaminates city air and cause respiration problems to humans and harms vegetation. Volatile organic compounds have also been linked to the vague 'Sick Building Syndrome' a cancerous disease that has unknown effects on the body.

The ozone layer is made up of a molecule containing three oxygen molecules. Playing an important role in absorbing radiation from the sun. Protecting us from ultra violet rays. Without an ozone layer these rays would effect humans with non-melanoma skin cancer, as well as damaging plant life, marine life, and animal life. Ozone molecules destroy and create at a stable rate, but when in contact with certain man made chemicals. Ozone molecules are being destroyed faster than they are being produced, creating a hole in the ozone. CFC's, once considered a miracle substance, is one of the major chemicals breaking down ozone molecules. Breaking ozone molecules down at a rate of 100,000 to 1. CFC is a chemical used in the cooling process, or refrigeration process of man made objects. Car's air conditionings release these CFC's, and appropriate precautions are not being taking to deplete the amount of CFC's in America today

The disposal and production of car hurts the environment in two ways, adding CFC's to the atmosphere and creating landfills for tires. In the production of cars, CFC's are entered into the car system. Releasing small amounts of CFC's into the atmosphere, but it only takes a small amount of CFC's to do a good amount of damage. CFC's are also released during the life of the car, and released once again in the destruction of cars. Tires also damage the environment because tires are not biodegradable, and usually discarded in a tire dump. Most tires are sent to dumps or landfills were they must be monitored, in case of a fire breaking out. No one is really sure of the damages done from a tire fire, but they can never be put out. Tires can burn for decades, releasing smoke and haze into our environment. To deal with a burning fire they must be buried, this does not extinguish the fire; it just covers it up. From that point the tire burns within. These landfills also create problems because of the amount of disease spread from the large amount of insect populations growing in these tires. These tire dumps are not a very nice setting and cause much of a threat to humans.

Traveling automobiles also damage the water supply with runoff lubricants, coolants, and gas deposits. These runoffs mix into the rivers and lakes through sewer systems. These toxic chemicals cause rapid growth of aquatic plants, which deplete water of dissolved oxygen, which then kills fish. It also creates a persistent bioaccumulative toxic substance that marine animals eat. This substance then grows in the fatty tissue of fish, then getting passes along to humans in the food chain. This substance breaks done over a very long period of time that can take up to a decade. Causing future health problems for humans and marine animals.

Cars might be seen as a fast and free way to travel, but at whose expense. They are solutions to fix this problem, Americans can support mass transit, electric sources of transportation, or choose other forms of transportation that do not harm the environment. One day in the future we will laugh at how we would stand around and admire the deep hum of a cars tailpipe. Not caring about how the emissions released damaged our lungs, and environment. Cars have the long-term effect to destroy the environment by ruining its natural resources. Global warming, air pollution, and ozone depletion a scare that must be dealt with before the consequences set in. Reversing the effects once done is not an option. Ozone molecules can not compete with CFC's, and technology is not moving fast enough to repair the ozone. What then lies ahead for America and its environment? Massive change must be addressed, reducing the amount of driving time around America. This would benefit every citizen and generations to come. The creation of the automobile has dug America a deep hole. This hole can not be filled in and hidden up. This hole can and will endanger human life in the near future. However America can choose to stop digging this hole, we can choose to select alternatives. In hope that Mother Nature can one day replenish its goodness to the way it was meant to be.

Pollution and Plunging Male Fertility

2011-09-19T22:16:00.002-07:00

Pollution and Plunging Male Fertility

Several reliable studies have confirmed that fertility among men has decreased as a result of pollution.

The average male ejaculation is about three milliliters. This amount of semen can contain between 20 million to 300 million sperm per milliliter semen. To determine the approximate number of sperm per milliliter of semen, technicians must place a drop of semen on a slide and, while looking through a microscope, they count the sperm within a certain sector. Men that have sperm counts below 20 million per milliliter are said to have reduced fertility and those whose counts fall below 5 million are considered sterile.

In 1974, C. M. Kinloch-Nelson and Raymond G. Bunge at the University of Iowa, studied the semen quality of men who had fathered two or more children and were about to undergo vasectomies. Of the 386 fertile men studied, 7% of them had sperm concentrations above 100 million per millimeter and the average concentration was 48 million. When they compared their findings to similar studies done in the thirties, they found that sperm counts had been decreasing for 50 years. "They discovered that among healthy adult males who were not being treated for infertility, the average sperm count had declined by about 40 percent, from 120 million sperm cells per milliliter of semen to about 70 million" (Big Drop 36).

In 1979, a professor at Florida State University, upon analyzing student semen samples discovered surprisingly low sperm counts and alarmingly high levels of toxic chemicals (including DDT and PLB's). "He suggested that environmental pollution might be causing the sperm decline" (Big Drop 36). The results of his findings triggered studies all over the world, showing counts in the range from 55 to 75 million and others showing numbers well above 100 million. Men exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals on the job were found to have semen containing pollutants. "Most scientists held to the view that changes in counting techniques were responsible for the reported dip" and . . . "after a few headlines, the sperm crisis became yesterday's news" (Big Drop 36).

In 1996, Niels E. Skakkebk, a Danish pediatric endocrinologist, began studying male infertility and growth disorders among children . He had been noticing numerous boys with testicles that had not descended and malformed genitals. A study done in 1984 examining 2,000 Danish school boys showed that 7% of them had one or both testicles still inside their bodies. Skakkebk then studied men working in non-hazardous office jobs, and men who did not work directly with pesticides or industrial chemicals. His study confirmed that, despite being normal in every other aspect, 84% of the men studied had sperm quality below the recommended standards set by the World Health Organization.

In 1992, Skakkebk and his Danish colleagues reviewed all of the published sperm count studies in the world. There were 61 total, dating back to 1938. Overall there were 15,000 men studied with no history of infertility. The survey showed an overall decline in world sperm counts. Skakkebk found that the quantity of semen produced in the average ejaculation had decreased and sperm counts had dropped from 113 per milliliter to 66 million the past 50 years.

When Skakkebk's findings became known, many researchers world wide began to publish new information about sperm counts. "Their studies show low counts nearly everywhere: the latest count in Nigeria is 64 million per milliliter; in Pakistan, 79.5 million; in Germany, 78 million; in Hong Kong, 62 million" (Wright 4).

Some scientists were skeptical about Skakkebk's work, in particular Pierre Jouannet, a reproductive biologists who is the director of the Centre d'Etude et du Conservation des Oeufs et du sperme at the Hospital Cochin in Paris, and Dr. Stewart Irvine of the Medical Research Council's Reproductive Biology unit in Edinburgh. Jounnet and other French researchers examined 1,351 men, proven fertile, over the last 20 years. They were astonished to find that sperm concentrations had been decreasing at a rate of 2% a year, from 89 million in 1973 to 60 million in 1992. They also found the quality of the sperm had declined. Dr. Stewart Irvine had been conducting a study on Scottish males when Skakkebk results came out. Irvine found out that men born before 1959 had an average sperm count of 98 million. This decreased 20% by 1970 when sperm counts averaged 78 million per milliliter.

Skakkebk "sees the decline in sperm counts as only one part of a larger assault on the male reproductive organs, which is characterized by high rates of testicular cancer, and undescended testicles and hypospadias, a condition in which the urethral opening is on the underside of the penis, not on its tip" (Wright 5). He believes these diseases are developing in the early stages of development, because damage to the male urogenital system is evident in some very young patients . "In Skakkebk's opinion, the most likely [causes] are chemicals in the environment which masquerade as estrogen . . . These chemicals, which can have a temporary effect on adults, can cause permanent damage to boys whose sexual organs are not yet fully developed" (Wright 4).

Skakkebk revealed to Richard Sharpe, a research physiologist with the Medical Council of Edinburgh, his findings about the dramatic drop of sperm counts around the world. Sharpe began researching for sources of estrogen in the environment that cause disruption in the body's hormonal balance in ways such as Skakkebk had been observing. He learned that various synthetic estrogens are used as growth promoters in domestic animals. Sharpe believes that some of the that affect of something unknown on the endocrine system, which governs the body's hormones, are the reason for decline in sperm counts. He tested this theory by introducing minute quantities of DES (diethylstilloestrol known to cause undescended testicles and deformations of the penis) and other synthetic estrogens into the drinking water of rats that were pregnant. Male rats that were exposed via the pregnant mother grew up with their sperm production reduced by 5 to 15%. "[This] also advanced the theory that various industrial chemicals were behaving like synthetic estrogens, and that these chemicals might be responsible for the falling sperm count and the rise of disorders in the male reproductive tract" (Wright 6).

Estrogen is hard to avoid in our society. It is in birth control pills, deluxe shampoos, skin creams, and vaginal creams. To avoid stretch marks pregnant women rub estrogen lotions on their bellies. "Estrogen-like chemicals can pass undetected through a mother's body, creating havoc in the developing fetus" (Wright 7). It is also linked to increased rates of breast cancers, especially among men.

"There are isolated examples of other animals in nature that are experiencing reproductive problems similar to man's, including decreased fertility and sex reversals" (Wright 7). In Los Angeles sewer systems, DDT, an environmental estrogen, had been dumped for more than two decades and, as a result, female western gulls have become lesbians and have taken up nesting together because males have become disinterested in sex. In Lake Apopka, Florida, an alligator population has decreased drastically after a chemical mixing plant spilled a pesticide called dicofol (which contains DDT) into a lake. The female hatchling alligators have twice the normal estrogen levels, and ovaries in juveniles appear menopausal, males have registered no testosterone, and penis sizes are three-fourth to two-third of what they are supposed to be.

Though the affects of estrogen on animals have been proven, evidence has not yet confirmed the effects of estrogen on humans. There is a valid argument with almost irrefutable evidence that pollution effects fertility.

Effects Of Ozone Pollution

2011-09-19T22:16:00.000-07:00

The Effects of Ozone Pollution

The term "ozone" has appeared in numerous magazine and newspaper articles and has been a subject of discussion on both radio and television. Despite all the publicity surrounding this term, however, many people are still confused by it. The confusion arises from the fact that ozone is both beneficial and harmful. We know that the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere acts as a filter for the sun's ultraviolet rays, reducing the amount of radiation that reaches the earth's surface. At ground level, though, high concentrations of ozone can be harmful.

The Ozone Layer
Ozone gas forms a layer all around the earth high in the stratosphere. It serves as a vital and effective protective barrier from the sun's ultraviolet rays. In recent years, scientists have sounded alarms internationally about the depletion of the ozone layer, citing chemical pollution as the major cause.

A specific class of chemical compounds called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are most often identified as ozone destroyers. CFCs were once widely used in everything from air conditioner coolants to the propellant in aerosol cans but have now been banned in most developed nations, including the U.S.

Many scientists believe much more needs to be done to protect the ozone layer, and international efforts are ongoing.

Ozone Pollution
Ozone pollution is really an increase in the concentration of ozone in the air at ground level. Because sunlight has a critical role in its formation, ozone pollution is principally a daytime problem in the summer months. Ground-level ozone is produced when sunlight combines with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, two compounds produced by cars, trucks, factories, and power-generating plants, and found wherever gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, oil, or natural gas are combusted. Urban areas with heavy traffic, and large industrialized communities, are the primary areas with ozone problems.

When temperatures are high and there is little wind, ground-level ozone can reach levels that are dangerous to the health. Weathermen can predict when an area will be subject to high ozone levels and issue alerts according to the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Index (AQI). When the AQI is in the moderate, or yellow, category, for ozone, people who are unusually sensitive may experience problems. A higher level of alert (orange, red, purple, or maroon) carries added risk.

Who Is At Risk?
Some people are at especially high risk for health problems associated with ozone. These include children, who normally spend a lot of time outdoors in the summer months when ozone is highest; active adults who exercise or work vigorously outdoors; people with asthma or other respiratory problems; and people who, for reasons as yet unknown to medical science, are simply more susceptible to ozone's effects. Ozone can effect the health by:

Irritating the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/or an uncomfortable sensation in the chest.

Reducing lung function, making it more difficult to breath as deeply or vigorously as normal.
Aggravating asthma in fact, ozone is one of the most common asthma triggers.
Inflaming and damaging the cells lining the lungs, much the same way as a sunburn damages the skin cells.
Aggravating chronic lung diseases such as COPD.
Making it more difficult for the lungs to fight off infections.
Causing permanent lung damage in children and adults through repeated short-term exposure.
Often people who are affected by ozone will experience symptoms. But that's not always the case. Some damage can occur without any noticeable signs, and lung damage can continue to occur even after symptoms go away.

When levels are high, people at risk should take simple precautions:

Stay indoors as much as possible.
Limit outside activities to the early morning hours or after sunset. Ozone levels tend to go down with the sun.
Refrain from exercising or working vigorously outdoors when levels are high.
Stay away from high traffic areas, and avoid exercising near these areas at all times.
Carpool or use public transportation to help reduce the amount of harmful emissions in the air that contribute to the production of ozone.
Avoid using gasoline-powered lawn equipment or other gasoline-powered tools.
Big Differences
The distinction between the two ozone issues the beneficial ozone layer versus ozone pollution is extreme. The ozone layer in the stratosphere needs to be protected. By the same token, ozone produced by the effects of sunlight on air pollutants must be reduced.

Controlling air pollution will help solve both of these problems, thereby benefiting our health and well-being.