Genetically Modified food problems

Link to article: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food

Article summary: Lots of food we eat today has been somehow genetically modified. As we move forward in time the technology used in this process is improving. The problem is that there is concern from lots of citizens and scientists are worrying that developing countries can not afford the technology and could experience food shortages. Many biotech firms are supporting crop uniformity which sadly would eliminate much of the genetic diversity and make the crops more vulnerable to diseases and pests. The organizations are profit hungry and using the developing world to their advantage to market their technology. This creates questions about the ethics behind Genetic engineering of food.

Reflection: While genetically modified food is a great technology, I certainly don't like hearing that the companies in control of the technologies are making it difficult for developing countries to afford. Are the people behind this process morally sound. Well I honestly don't pay attention to that and just eat the food I am given because frankly it is much cheaper than organic food. Biodiversity truly is important so I disagree with crop uniformity 100%.

Questions:
1. Is this a political problem, economical, or environmental?
2. Is crop uniformity a good idea or bad idea? Why?
3. Do the morals and values of those behind the technology really matter? Why or why not?

           

From Sequoia National Park's Beetle Rock (Pictured Above), 
a smoggy haze hints at the park's ozone level.


Matthew Newman

Sequoia National Park: Worst air pollution

By: Associated Press

May 29, 2012

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNC61OOM6M.DTL

SUMMERY

The air quality in Sequoia Park in California is not good. When you should be able to see far away clearly but is not, the view is limited like the picture. The ozone levels in the area above the National Ambient Air Quality standards. the park has broken this over 87 times. The ozone levels are so bad that park rangers are warned they may get lung diseases from the unsafe levels of pollutants. The unsafe ozone levels have also harmed the nearby pine trees. Scientists are finding yellowed trees in the park. The plants that live there are having problems with photosynthesis process and harming the pine trees survival. Most of the air pollution comes from a nearby valley. Which is where many farms give off pollution from there tractors and stuff. Another source is from the high way nearby which is also the 2nd busiest in California.  since the  park is in the valley it has a high pressure which keeps pollution down scientist are trying to find a solution but are unsuccessful

OPINION 

I was saddened by this by this article. I feel that California really needs to get there pollution problem down be none it is not only in the major cities but in national parks. It is interesting to me because this park like Donora PA also has a problem were the pollution would not leave. I remember when I went to see the Sequoia trees and to know that the are in danger upsets me. Those trees have such along history and now it is threatened.

Questions

1) Would you be interested in working as a park ranger in this park? why or why not?

2) What could be done to stop this problem? How?

3)If you were a farmer would you worry about what you are causing? why or why not?

Genetically-Modified Foods

                As of late, foods that are grown in plants have been increasingly being altered in the genes of the organisms for general improvement in various areas. This has resulted in greater amounts, larger plants, changes in taste, and decreased necessity of pesticide use. This helps keep up with human consumption, reduces pesticides and is usually more common on factory farms. Organic foods, which are foods grown without pesticides or genetic engineering and are generally more expensive, so in many areas of the world, GM’d foods are often more popular, whether the consumer knows of its modification or not. This technology has been opposed by some who believe that the genetic modifications could possibly cause adverse effects in humans. Some also see the genetic alteration of plants morally ambiguous or wrong.

                Personally, I think that Genetic engineering of human foods is an important technology to be used. Those that wish to continue to purchase completely organic foods may, but many cannot afford that kind of expense. Genetic modification of food organisms should be improved so there is little to no potential of long-term adverse effects. Then we can use GMO’s much more and greatly reduce pesticides that are harmful to the planet and to the consumer.

1. Do you think we should grow genetically modified foods at all?

2. Would you rather purchase normal foods that may be altered, or more expensive, organically guaranteed foods?

3. Do you think that the morality of genetic engineering is relevant and can be used as an argument against it or not?

Main article: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

ADHD Linked to Common Pesticides

 

An array of non-organic vegetables, all with pesticides present.
Link to article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/035156_pesticides_children_ADHD.html

Summary: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.5 million kids have been diagnosed with ADHD. There has to be a reason, and one could be in the food that the American children eat. According to a study done in 2010 by Harvard University, even low levels of pesticides double the risk of ADHD in kids. Urine samples of almost 1200 children aged 8 to 15 were taken. They were tested for exposure of various pesticided, and compounds were found in almost 94 percent of them. After the tests, researchers talked to the childrens' mothers. Approximately 10 percent of them showed signs of ADHD.

Opinion/Reflection: After reading this article, I believe that organic foods may be a good option for many families. Anything that could increase a chance of having a diagnosis of a disease like ADHD is always a concern for parents. If parents are mad aware of how dangerous the pesticides in the food that their kids eat, they could seriously change the way that they purchase items at the grocery store. I think that any link to ADHD is a serious concern. Organic foods seem like a good option at this point for families to consider, for the risk of ADHD to be doubled by eating habits is something that can be prevented.

Questions:

1. Do you think that organic foods are the best options for purchase, even considering price?

2. Does pesticides linking to ADHD cause a huge concern for families if they are made aware?

3. Why isn't the linking of ADHD and pesticides being published by the media?

Mercury in the Arctic

Mercury has been found here, in the Arctic.

 (Original Article)

       

Summary:       

     Mercury goes by many names like quicksilver or liquid silver. Mercury's ultimate nickname is dangerous. The element of mercury is found naturally in the environment at low levels. When the level of mercury is high enough, it can cause severe damage to fetuses, cause serious pain, and damage to multiple organs because it is a neurotoxin. This mercury is coming from the atmosphere and into the rivers and streams that run through the Arctic.  This mercury in the water flows into larger bodies of water around the world and will only get worse as the Arctic begins to melt. The rivers that the contaminated water flows into some of the largest rivers in the world that also carry ten percent of the Earth's water into the ocean. The start of this vicious cycle began with the pollution caused by humans in the atmosphere. This mercury is harming those living in the area as well. Many of the people living there are experiencing symptoms of mercury poisoning. 

Reaction:

     I was very surprised by this article. The fact that we, as global citizens, let this happen to one of the most rapidly depleting landscapes in the world is atrocious. There should be laws, regulations, statutes, or codes that could help lessen the amount of pollution that goes into the air by one city. We are poisoning ourselves by polluting the air and oceans.There should also be care provided for those with mercury poisoning in the Arctic regions. This mercury is also having an adverse effect on the wildlife in that area. The effects of mercury on wildlife could speed up the extinction process exponentially. 

Questions:

1. Are there any other methods of reducing the mercury in the Arctic? What are they?
2. Is there a way to remove the mercury from the water? Any ideas?
3. Should we as Americans worry about Mercury in the water? Why or Why not? (More on mercury)
4. Whose responsibility is it to solve this problem? Why? Who is to blame? Why?

Goodbye Nuclear Power — and Hello More Carbon?

By Bryan Walsh

Time Science

May 8, 2012

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2114166,00.html#ixzz1uVVTohqr

A demonstration in Tokyo celebrating the suspension of Japan's nuclear power plants on May 6, 2012.

SUMMERY

The article that I read was about how Japan and German plan to shut down all of there nuclear power plants. According to the article the last nuclear power plant in Japan was shut down for “maintenance” on May 5^th 2012.  Also German plans to soon follow in Japan’s foot steps. However nuclear energy provides 30 % of japans energy and has 54 reactors and by shutting all off them down it can cause power shortages.  If that was snot enough nuclear energy has the least amount of carbon emissions. The Japanese government it’s self doesn’t but faces great opposition for its citizens.

OPIONION

            I think that this is bad because this rarely happens and when it does it is blown out of proportion (no pun intended). I think that nuclear energy is the best because it can produce a lot if used and has low carbon emissions. I think that the US should do what India and China are doing BUILD more because the last power plant to be built in the US was decades ago.

QUESTIONS

1.) If you were a Japanese citizen would you want the power plants closed or to remain open? Why or why not?

                                

2.) Do you think that the US should stop nuclear power production too? Why or why not?

3.) what other problems could happen because of energy shortages?

Recycling- Not Always an Energy and Resource Saver

This is a picture of recycled tires that are retreaded after being collected by tire companies that are trying to manufacture as many tires as possible.

Link to article: http://www.naturalnews.com/032465_recycling_energy.html 

Summary: A study has been conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The study has found that in some cases, reusing products requires more energy to be used rather than using new material. Through 25 different studies of various products pertaining to automobiles, the institute found that not only did the amount of energy used increase in recycled products, but that the performance of the products that were made with recycled material were lacking in performance over time. The products that are being focused on by the institute are mainly set on  automobile tires and motor cores. Many people think that reusing tires is just as good as using new ones. However, even after being retreaded and made like new in the eyes of manufacturers, the performance can falter greatly. After being studied, the institute found that more gas is needed to power a car that uses these tires that are retreaded after being recycled.

Opinion/Reflection: Recycling has always been a great thing in the eyes of Americans. Recycling is becoming a large movement that makes the Earth green. However, if performance of material is lacking when using recycled products, recycled products may not always be necessary. The issue at hand when talking about recycling tires is that the consumer may not be satisfied to know that the car he or she is purchasing is not as well in performance as others that are literally brand new and not retreaded after being nearly destroyed by the wear and tear of the road. I think that the first thing that has to be done is that the consumers have to be aware of this issue and the long-term effects of purchasing a tire that has been recycled. Once this happens, and if consumers are not purchasing these recycled tires because they know of its effects, the price will either dramatically drop or these kinds of tires will almost stop being sold due to lack of sales. The consumer should know how their tires will perform in the long run. However, if there is no more recycled tires being used, landfills will be even more filled than they are currently. Either way, recycling has become an issue in the amount of energy being used.

Questions: 

1. Do you think that there should be no more recycled tires retreaded and sold?

2. Do you think that consumers would still purchase recycled tires at the same price knowing that they use more energy and lack performance?

3. Do you think that other types of recycled materials should be tested for energy use and performance over time?

                                       

Nuclear Power

 

In past years, nuclear power has begun to be seriously viewed as a significant power source once again. This is due to our obvious recent need for alternative sources of energy and power because of the Earth’s dwindling amounts of non-renewable resources. The main current drawbacks to nuclear power are the non-renewability and the cost to maintain it. Creating the energy is not necessarily expensive, but the cost of safety measures is high, and safety is essential due to the dangerous potential of producing nuclear energy, which is another disadvantage in itself. One must only look back to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to see the great risk involved with using nuclear power plants. However, though nuclear power is limited and expensive to maintain, it is very powerful, efficient, and cleaner than coal fuel. There are lower carbon dioxide levels released, and the technology is well-developed, though there are still rare issues with radiation and safety. The output level can also support cities and industry. But in the rare even that there is an issue with the reactor, the risks are high and the total consequences are unknown.

            I think that if we can find deserted, remote areas to build reactors in the US, we should use them as emergency, backup, or any kind of substitutional power source for the country to rely on if necessary while we develop alternative energy sources that can support us completely. If a disaster were to occur at one of the reactors, the area could be easily evacuated of all workers and officials, due to a lack of civilians, so radiation would not reach any public areas.

1.      Do you think nuclear energy is too risky to produce?

2.      Do you think that if an energy source produces waste at all, it’s not worth using?

3.      Do you consider possibility of terrorist attacks a valid issue with nuclear reactors?

Article Used: http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/

Walmart- Go Green, Save Money.

                                          This is a picture of a Wal-mart supercenter which has
                                           recently "gone green"
link to article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/04/business/la-fi-walmart-green-20110604


Summary: Several different wal-marts have begun installing solar panels for part of their energy needs, and have kept buildings cool by painting the roof white. They punched holes in the roof to provide natural lighting during the day. In total about $1 million was saved on the electricity bill since they installed the panel. Not only is it now known for being eco-friendly, but wal-mart is also saving lots of money. Wal-mart was once the source of outrage among activists because of its widespread span of suppliers, but is now one of the top eco-friendly businesses out there today.

Reflection: I think more businesses should start doing things like this, if not for the environment then to save some money on their annual electricity bills. It was smart of wal-mart to gain new customers by reaching out to those who had once hated them for being insensitive. If other companies learn from this they could gain plenty of new customers and while saving, also make money.

Questions:

1. Should more companies be "going green"?

2. What is the bigger purpose, to help the environment or save money?

3. What other big companies have gone green that you know about?

4. What other ways could wal-mart become more eco-friendly?

Fertilizer Runoff and the Midwest

 The link for this article is (here)

Picture:This is a picture of what is happening in the Midwest where there are numerous amounts of fertilizer runoff.

Summary:

In the Midwest, Agriculture is common. With the Agriculture Industry, the use of fertilizer is a must for a good crop. The downside to this is when it rains, the nutrient rich fertilizer over pollutes the closest bodies of water. One of the dire outcomes of nutrients pollution is the elevated level of nitrates found in the water at around 10ppm. In infants this causes illnesses and even death. In adults, problems with the thyroid can occur. It hurts those who live downstream even more because they rely on shallower wells.Efforts have been put in place but they are draining the wallets of the taxpayers. Some plants already remove the nitrates from the water but people are still at risk. Now, they are moving to install buffer zones for the fertilizer. Even though actions are being taken, this runoff still poses a threat to people living in the Mid-West.

Reflection: This problem happens in every agricultural area in the world. It is sickening that people are not aware of their actions. Fertilizer runoff can also cause Eutrophication (Algal Blooms). These blooms can remove the oxygen from the water and dispense toxins which can kill and asphyxiate marine life. These people need to be educated about pollution. Also, farms could put up berms to protect their investments in fertilizers. They may need the national government to step in.

Questions: 

1. How else could we reduce fertilizer pollution in rivers?
2. Which methods would be the most effective for removing said pollution? Why?
3. Is there anything the people can do?
4. What are some other problems that could endanger these streams?

Toxic Waters

This is a picture of a man drinking contaminated water

Toxic Waters:

Near Charleston, W. Va the residents know not to drink the tap water as it could be very costly to their health. Children have burns in places the bath water has touched them. It was discovered that local coal companies were pumping chemicals into the ground and it was affecting the groundwater. There was found to be lead, nickel, and arsenic in the tap water. While it was easy to find evidence that the coal company was mostly responsible, but state regulators never punished them. In the past 5 years many companies and manufacture plants have disregarded the law and failed to show what was found in the tap water testing. However, they are still not punished, not even by the EPA who doesn't want to intervene.

Opinion/Reflection

I think something should be done immediately to hold the coal company accountable for their actions. They have gotten away with it for far too long, often harming the residents in the area. The amount of chemicals found in the water was dangerously high and could sometimes cause birth defects or cancer and this is unacceptable anywhere, let alone 20 minutes outside a states capital. The need for punishment is obvious, but the need to fix the problem is more important.

Questions: 

1. Should the coal company be punished for polluting the waters? Why or why not.

2. Why do you think the EPA refused to intervene?

3. What can be done to fix this problem?

Drinking Lead Contaminated with Water

Lead in Water at Home

 A typical sink with lead-contaminated water: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/faucet-running.jpg

Summary: Learning disabilities, shortened attention span, and behavioral problems in children are just a few of the possible issues that can occur from consuming lead. Also, a buildup in lead can lead to many health issues, especially in women's pregnancies.The environmental protection agency, or EPA estimates that over 40 million U.S. citizens consume water contaminated with water every day.  Lead is predominantly found in typical faucets at homes. The reason for this is that even though the original water isn't always contaminated with lead, the pipes that carry the water concentrate the water with lead as the water passes. Homes built before 1986 are known to have pipe systems contaminating lead, but even newer homes from that point run the risk of drinking water with lead, unless things are done to prevent it. The best possible way to prevent water from being contaminated with lead when drinking from the faucet is to purchase a water filter to attach to the faucet. Most water filters are said to be priced thirty dollars and under. This is just one possibility.

Opinion: I think that lead in water is a fairly large issue at hand that is not being noticed by the U.S. in general. With masses of tens of millions of people drinking this type of water everyday, a lot of people can be negatively impacted, and most people are unaware of the possible harmful effects of drinking this type of water. I think that buying water filters is a good idea in removing the harmful contaminants from water, but I think that we need more options than buying a filter to have clear tap water. Although filters are sometimes said to be 100% effective, that is actually quite doubtful. I think that drinking lead-contaminated water can have many harmful effects, as the EPA has acknowledged, and I think that we need more methods of completely removing lead from our faucets. Drinking lead contaminated water is very risky health-wise in my opinion. 

Source: Title: Forty Million Americans Drinking Lead Contaminated Water; Author: Linda Symonds; Publication and Date: Ezine articles in 2006

Questions:

1. What are some ways that you think lead can possibly be removed from our water systems?

2. Do you think that drinking water contaminated with lead is an issue that needs to be faced fairly quickly or over time?

3. Do you think that drinking water contaminated with lead is harmful enough to completely stop drinking it?

Prescription Drugs in Our Drinking Water

Summary: Recently, issues have come up regarding exactly what is contained in the drinking water reserves of public areas such as towns and cities. Drugs have been detected in the water of 24 major cities in the US. Information of the contents of drinking water is difficult to acquire, as water departments do not freely give detailed reports. Many water departments have stated that the reason for this is the public would learn of this and become alarmed, when the extra substances in the water are supposedly harmless in the small quantities they exist in. But how did these substances even get into the waters? Prescription drugs are consumed by humans, and the remaining substances of the drugs are transferred in the waste and go through the waste systems. The wastewater is then treated and sent out. That water is treated and cleaned, then recycled through the public distribution. The waste is removed, but not all of the drug contents. Because of lack of information and other unknown factors, the possible effects, the severity, and the locations cannot be exactly determined at this time.

Response/Reflection/Connections: I think that this could become an issue eventually, but is not currently one of the most important topics of today. However, this does make us stop to think about where our tapped water really comes from. So far in recent history, extra substances in water reserves has not been a part of any major events, maybe minor differences from city to city. In my opinion, we’ll eventually have to attend to this, but as of now, there are some other issues that are quite a bit more important and urgent. And if I may go on a bit of a tangent, I’m a bit sick of hearing about whether people should drink bottled water or tap water. This may be part of the argument of tap vs. bottled water, but I haven’t actually read anything about that topic, so I’m not sure. I recently read a short story by Stephen King titled An End to the Whole Mess that I didn't follow all too well, but I believe was about this man that discovered that a certain chemical in some water reserves caused the area drinking the water to live with a low crime rate and little violence, and he planned to isolate this chemical and distribute it to all water supplies.

·     
            Do you think we need to handle this issue now? Or can it wait?

·         Do you think water departments do not give information freely because of the reason mentioned above, or do you think it may be something else?

·          Do you own a water purifier in your home? Do you know why? Do you think it works?

Source

 

The Struggle for Water in India

Picture: Many people in India struggle to get clean water. Sometimes they struggle to get any water at all. In the Picture above, the people get their water from wells, puddles, drains, and aqueducts running through the streets.
Summary:
    Recently, India has been facing a clean water crisis. The water that flows from the sacred Yamuna River and runs through New Delhi is full of sludge and garbage. Most of the population is getting the dirty water from this river. A ruling from the Supreme Courts has not been acted upon for years which stated that the treatment of the water that flows through the Yamuna is necessary. Only parts of India actually treat the water that they get from rivers. In some areas on India, private tanks of water are brought in for the community. The thing is, the water almost never gets there on time. The wives of India have had to quit their jobs in order to watch for the tanks that pass through to get their fair share. There are pipes that run through India, but those pipes leak more than 30% of the time. To make things worse, new apartment complexes are popping up in New Delhi that use the water crisis as a means to market their amenities. Some of the public have already become complacent with the quality of their water.
Response/ Reflection/ Connections:
      This water crisis has been going on since before 2006. It is heartbreaking to learn that children and wives are forced to stay home from school and work, which are means of making money, to wait for trucks that carry low quality water. The precedent law has not been enforced which gives people the right to preform rituals over and in the Yamuna river. India is the world'd largest democracy, but it seems like the government is struggling to give people the freedom to access clean water. This makes me and other think about how precious a commodity water is. I remember learning about water pollution in middle school, we only talked about how it happens here in the United States. This article shows the rest of the world the problems that face countries throughout the world. The lack of drinking water affects populations, economies, infrastructure, and even the government. Sometimes we forget just how important a little thing like water is.
Think about it!:
   1) What ways can the people of India get fresher water besides the tank trucks?
   2) How they make their sewage systems more efficent at holding ans distributing water?
   3) What do you think about the fact that families are losing income just for fresh water?
       a) Do you agree?
       b)Why do you agree/dsagree
(Source)

Coral Reef Bleaching

                                                                             Matt Newman

Some Corals May Adapt to Warmer Seas

By: Dennis Normile

“Science Now” - March 12, 2012

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/some-corals-may-adapt-to-warmer-.html

Summary:

Global Warming has affected more than just the temperature. It has caused Coral Reef Bleaching. It has been discovered that coral is more adaptable than once thought to be. Global Warming has caused coral to change colors to a bleached white. The article that I read discussed the fact that some of the types of coral were able to survive Global Warming which biologists study and are areas for much marine life. Coral depends on symbiotic algae which is responsible for giving the coral its color. When the water gets above a certain temperature, some corals will die off although as the article talks about, some can survive.  There are more studies taking place now to look further at the impact that high temperature has on coral and reefs.

Opinion:

After reading this article, I learned that Global Warming is more than just higher temperatures. I also learned that the increase in temperatures negatively affects the environment even including coral and reefs in the ocean. I remember when I was on vacation in the Caribbean and went snorkeling to see the beautiful coral reefs which were filled with colorful sea life, fish and coral. After seeing first hand how beautiful coral is and how important it is to sea life and the eco system, I am happy to know that biologists are studying Coral Reef Bleaching.  

Questions:

1. Are there areas in the United States where there is Coral Reef Bleaching?

2. Are there factors other than Global Warming which can cause Coral Reef Bleaching?

3. Does the time of the year affect Coral Reef Bleaching?

 This picture shows coral after it has been bleached. 

Electric Cars: Can They Really Help?

http://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/the-electric-car-2014-a-green-transport-revolution-in-the-making

http://electriccarsfacts.com/

There is no doubt that in a matter of decades, humans will need to have more reliable sources of energy, other than fossil fuels. One of the greatest uses of nonrenewable energy now is in transportation, specifically, something that almost every person uses every day- the automobile. Electric cars have actually been around since the 20^th century, but only recently have been looked at as something necessary to saving the planet.

Opinion/Reflection- As of now, fully electric cars are driven by some, but are not very popular. Another car that is a bit more popular is the Hybrid, which still runs mostly on gasoline, but is helped by an electric motor. This is not enough though, but is a good way to introduce people to a gradual switch to electricity. However, there are strong, legitimate reasons why electric cars don’t sell very well. They tend to cost double a gas-powered car, and though their power source is cheaper and renewable, it can take years for the car to just even its price out with buying a gas car and paying for fuel, let alone pay for itself in the foreseeable future. Also, filling a fuel tank takes several minutes and can run an average sized car several hundred miles. Charging an electric car takes several hours or is done overnight and usually takes the car 100 miles. Imagine driving to a vacation that is a few states away. With gasoline, you may have to refuel maybe two or three times. With an electric car, you may have to stop and charge five to seven times. Then, while the car is charging, you have to find a way to kill several hours, or even find somewhere to stay for the night. This points out that the main issue is that our current technology for electric cars is only in infancy. It’s a relatively new idea to use these cars in helping the planet, and because they are so underdeveloped, they are less efficient than gas cars, so less of them are bought, the industry receives less money, and less research and improving can be done. What we need is for some of the wealthier countries that are in a better economic state put a bit of the money towards researching ways to power cars with electricity. We don’t have to make them perfect, just efficient enough that they will be used more. That way, more money will go towards the research and development and the cars will improve so that eventually, they will outnumber gasoline-powered cars. Currently, the slowest part of this idea is starting it, and the conflict is that we need it to start working now.

Questions-

1.      Are electric cars a good investment for the world? Or are there other efficient methods of transportation that don’t harm the planet or use nonrenewable resources?

2.      What could we do about other forms of transportation, such as boats, aircraft, or trains?

3.      Do you ever see this possibly working out and this plan actually succeeding in the world?

Population Control Eco-terrorist

Picture: This is a mugshot of the gunman, James Lee, who is now 

deceased.

On September 1st, 2010, a gunman came rushing into the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland. He took hostages, saying that he was strapped with bombs that were ready to go off. The gunman, James Lee, was shot by police 4 hours later and no hostages were harmed. Lee ran a website called SaveThePlanetProtest.com, starting in 2008. protesting the Discovery channels television shows. He complained that the shows on the channel were for profit and not humanitarian purposes. Lee had been charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 for a protest outside the same building. The police tried to negotiate with Lee for over 4 hours, his demands very similar to those listed on his website a few days before, demanding that the channel show how to save the planet by decreasing human population. He specifically asked that they not show “the birth of any more parasitic human infants,” and that “in those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed.” Lee was shot and killed by police after most of the people had evacuated the building, including the day care center. 

Picture: Here is a picture of Lee in his 2008 

protest which later became a bit more violent

Opinion/Reflection:

Some people don't know where to stop when it comes to protecting the environment. Lee also has the view that we must take down our population in numbers. In further research I find that he finds infants disgusting creatures, and on his website has many misspellings and uses capital letters most of the time. Personally, I think it was right for the police to shoot him, and that we shouldn't have to stop growing as a nation, that is not our problem.

Questions:

1. Was it right for the police to shoot Lee even though he may have been mentally unstable?

2. In what ways can we improve our living without a decrease in the population?

3. Do we need to set limitations on the number of children a family is allowed to have? Why or why not.

4. While many environmentalists aren't this crazy, why do you think so many take it way overboard?

5. Do you think the environment is more important than a human life? Would you risk others lives to only possibly help save the environment?

U.S. Urban Forests Losing Ground

February 27th, 2012

U.S. Urban Forests Losing Ground

Deforestation in Northern California
Link:http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/deforestation_housing3.jpg


Summary
Declining at a rate of about 4 million per year according to a study found by the U.S. Forest Service, forests are in rapid descension. 20 cities were analyzed in the study 17 of them declining in impervious cover. The greatest percentages of tree loss was founded in New Orleans, Houston and Albuquerque. Researchers believe New Orleans had a huge decline due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The U.S. Forest Service announced that with restoration of urban forests, benefits can reach up to three times as much money put in to the restoration. One main benefit is reduced heating and cooling costs. Still, with tree planting efforts starting to increase in cities, there is still tree loss, just not as much in some areas. Planting trees is just a start in a long process of urban forest restoration.

Opinion
From this article, I have learned a lot of things about the current deforestation issue occurring in a lot of cities in the U.S. I do think that we are far away from making a huge difference in saving trees. Although we are cutting down loss, we should try to get to the point where we don't lose any trees, at least in areas where we can. However, to do so, U.S. citizens need to join together and think of the rewards that can happen when we restore our urban forests. Heating and cooling costs are sometimes too much for some citizens, but if we make a drastic change in restoration, we can make a big difference in that aspect and many others.

Questions
1. Do you think that restoring forests drastically can be done?
2. How should the country face deforestation and what moves should we make?
3. Do you think deforestation is only an issue in certain  areas and should only be handled there?

German government to cut subsidies supporting solar power by up to 30 percent

The picture is of a solar field in Germany

Summery:

Solar panels are a great way to get energy instead of other ways. This article takes place in Germany. The reason that the German government wants to cut subsidies is due to over order and they can just no afford it. It would drop from 30% to 20%. The reason for this sudden rise of solar panels is from the earthquake in Japan and people got worried about a possible nuclear meltdown.  The article also said that in Europe a lot of the energy is made for nuclear power plants. Energy from renew able sources covered 20 percent of all German energy. This is better that the U.S. by about 9 percent.

Opinion

I think that German government should lower the amount it subsidies. I feel this way because more people are able to get solar panels because less is spent by the government on each panel there from more can be subsidies. I also feel that thee German people are a little paranoid because the possibility of an earthquake doing that kind of damage is extremely unlikely. I picked this article because if less fossil fuel are being burned than less damage to the environment can be done. I think that more people here in this country should get solar panels.

Questions:

1. Would you get solar panels?

2. Do you think that the German government is subsidies to much or to little? Why or why not?

3. If solar panels were never invented would we be better or worse off?  Why or why not?

4. what can we do to make sure we live a greener life? 

If picture doesn't work try this link:

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/solar/images/germany.jpg

Grizzly Bears: A Keystone Species

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/21/how-many-grizzlies-are-enough/

Picture: This picture shows a female grizzly with her cub. In Alaska the population of grizzly bears are growing.

Summary: 
     Grizzly bears are an intelligent and surprisingly sweet species. They populate some of Alaska looking for salmon and bearing young. The population of grizzly bears in North America are growing. Though the population is growing, some smaller populated areas are not making it easy for bears to reproduce. In smaller populations, inbreeding is common and causes many diseases. The reason grizzly bears are considered a keystone species is because they hint, scavenge, forage, and put nutrients back into the soil. Though the population of these bears are rising many are wondering if the population of bears are enough. Others believe that the population still needs to bounce back.

Opinion:
  I believe that the population of grizzly bears should be allowed to rise. In class, we saw that the amount of species in a food chain will eventually equal out. People have nothing to be afraid of. If they take care of their properties and livestock then they will not have a problem with the bears. While reading this article I also found that bears are highly intelligent which surprised me. I always thought they were not that smart. Apparently they are smarter than most dogs and can process information almost as well as a human infant. These bears are an important and vital piece in the ecosystem.

Question Time!:

• How else can people prevent bear mauling? 
• Why do you think people hunt these bears?
• What can we do to help the bears thrive?
• Wow else could the bear population be threatened besides human interference?