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?