Organic Farming

Title: "Can Danilo Atilano feed the world?"

Authors: Robin Broad and John Cavanagh

Publication: BBC
Date: Winter 2012
Link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=5&contentSet=GALE|A274409080&&docId=GALE|A274409080&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

Summery: Many farmers are finding it more efficient to switch over to organic farming both for their wallets nut also for the environment.With chemical agriculture, farmers must buy new seeds each planting season which is a costly. Atilano, an organic farmer, uses seeds saved from the previous harvest for it grows best in the local soils and ecosystems where he lives. With the fact of not harvesting enough food for our hungry growing world, many farmers were asked why not chemical for chemical based farms produced increased fields. Atilano knew the answer for the history of the United States back in the day used these chemicals that were known as the "Green Revolution". Overtime these farms became known as fields compacted and depleted of nutrients thus making farmers abandon or sell there farmers.

On the left is organic soil and right is chemical soil, both placed in a jar of water.
The Chemical soil would clearly have more run off then the organic if this was the lab we did during class.

Some freshly grown organic food! 

Opinion: I think more if not all farmers should switch over to organic farming because it saves them money but also keeps my backyard and river ways clean! This article really caught my eye for I had no idea how chemicals effected soils over time. The picture of the soils and water also really intrigued me because it really goes to show how strong the organic soil is and just so much more!

Question 1: If you were a farmer, would you make the switch? Why?

Question 2: Do you think the chemical farmlands effect the animals that live around it? If yes, how?

Question 3: If you were in a grocery store and stumbled into the produce section where one label said "Organically grown produce"  with a higher price then the leading label next to it that said "Fresh Produce", which would you buy?

Question 4: After reading this, does your opinion change about the way foods are grown and sold? Why?

Alaska Airline

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R20&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=7&contentSet=GALE%7CA273786252&&docId=GALE|A273786252&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

This article focused on Alaska Airlines switching to bio fuel.  Bio fuels are alternative energy sources that help the environment.  This airline uses already used cooking oil in place of the usually fossil fuels.  By doing so this holds a smaller pollution rate. There are many benefits to using bio fuels other than the environmental impact though. For example an economical benefit is that this is an inexpensive alternative. It also would create many jobs by opening a new industry that will hopefully, one day, be very common and successful. Alaska air lines stated that they think that all commercial airlines should switch to bio fuels because they are all equipped to make the switch. Alaska Airlines flights’ take place on the west coast mostly in Washington and Oregon and plan to expand their “green” flights.

       

This is a picture of one of the planes within the airline. The picture on the left shows the logo of the plane powered by biofuel as it says.

I personally believe that this is a great idea and that all airlines should follow suit. Fossil fuels are very harmful and outrageously expensive. This idea is a smart fix for both situations. If there is any way to limit environmental damage I think they should be done. I feel that if air lines begin to use an alternative source eventually others will go along and hopefully before you know it cars will no longer be using fossil fuels to fuel their cars. This is a great idea and I think that more Airlines should do it to!

1.       What is a down side to using this bio fuel?

2.       Is there any other airlines doing this?

3.       Would you fly on a planes powered by bio fuels?

4.       What is another example a bio fuel?

Will Water Take Over?

Title: "A sinking feeling: this satellite map shows some of the Pacific island nations threatened by rising sea levels"
Author: Junior Scholastic
Publication: BBC
Date: November 21, 2011
Link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R9&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=4&contentSet=GALE%7CA274791337&&docId=GALE|A274791337&docType=GALE&role=BIC1

Summery: The polar ice caps are melting and the sea level is rising. The coast of Nauru's island is slowly but surely being swallowed up by the Pacific Ocean. This not only threatens this coast, but many other islands around the world. As many may see this as a new fresh water source, The President of Nauru island, Marcus Stephen, said "where a steady onslaught of droughts, floods, and heat wave ... shave displaced millions of people and led to widespread food shortages". With this, many people are losing homes and having to find new resources to get food. A prediction was made that by 2030 2,000 of the archipelago's islands could be underwater.

An edited picture of what could happen if the polar ice caps keep melting. 

A picture of how much of the polar ice caps have melted.

Opinion: I thought this was a really amazing article because it shows how the fresh water that goes into the ocean from the ice caps is effecting living space and resource capability to the U.S. but also the rest of the world. Although the picture of the city is not real, it's pretty amazing to think that this could happen. I just couldn't imagine having to move because where you have lived is now under water due to a rise in the sea level. As wanting to live on the ocean my whole life, this would be devastating if I couldn't because the sea level would keep rising and the coasting would keep going underwater.

1. Do you believe the reason for the polar ice caps to melt has to do with global warming? If not, what do you think is causing this?
2. Do you think the polar ice caps could completely melt? If so what would happen to our world and if no, state why.
3. Is it good that the polar ice caps melt? Why or why not? Doesn't it give us more fresh water to drink since only 3% of the worlds water is drinkable to humans?

Acids

Title: “Acids and Alkalis”

Author: Author Unknown

Publication: BBC

Date: 3/27/12

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/chemical_synthesis/acidsalkalisrev1.shtml

Summary:    Most people think all acids are bad and harmful but that is not true. There are acids in some of the foods we eat. Acetic acid or ethanoic acid is found in vinegar and citric acid is found in fruits like lemons and oranges. Acids are found in many household items like batteries, oven cleaners, and tea. There are many acids that are not harmful but there are some acids that are dangerous. Concentrated sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide are some of the dangerous acids. Dangerous chemicals and acids are always marked so don’t worry, you will always know.

These are some of the foods that contain citric acid.

This is a sign to show a dangerous or harmful acid.

Opinion:        Personally before learning about acids in science and reading this article I thought all of them were harmful. I would never have been able to guess that there is acid in simple thing like tea. I also didn’t know acid was in cleaners but it is good to know that they are the not the harmful kind. It was interesting and crazy to read that they have acids that can burn through skin to get to the skeleton. It is also slightly scary that we have acids that powerful. I guess who ever it handling it must be extremely cautious.

Questions:

1.      Have your views/opinions of acids changed after learning more about them?

2.      What are two good acids and two harmful acids?

3.      Can you name any household acids that were not mentioned in the article?

Earth's Carrying Capacity

Title: What's the Earth's Carrying Capacity?
Author: Julia Layton
Publisher: HowStuffWorks
Date: Sunday, March 25th 2012
Link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carrying-capacity1.htm

Summary: It is estimated that the carrying capacity of Earth ranges anywhere from 2 billion to 40 billion. Right now the population is just around 7 billion, but there are many limiting factors that can alter Earth's population in the future. These factors are balanced with the lifestyle of most humans, which includes producing food and living in high-rise buildings. When trying to determine the carrying capacity of our planet,   knowing the amount of resources available is necessary. This is important because people in different parts of the world all consume and use different amounts of resources. If everyone consumed the same amount of resources as the average middle-class American adult, the Earth would only be able to support 2 billion people. Although, if everyone on Earth only consumed exactly what they needed in order to live, the planet could support up to 40 billion people. As you can see, Earth's carrying capacity all depends on the amount of resources of available, compared the amount of resources used.


This picture is a line graph showing the major increase in population that has occurred. It also show's what many people expect to happen in the next 40 years or so.

Opinion: In my opinion, the planet will not be able to support even 20 billion people unless a lot of changes are made. Even though the population is booming, the amount of resources available are decreasing in effect. This will continue to happen, but also get continually worse. Like we learned about in class, our world population is an example of exponential growth.

Questions:
1.) Have we exceeded Earth's carrying capacity? How?
2.) Do you think the world population is too big? Why or why not?
3.) What were the main causes for the huge increase in population?

The Future?

Source:http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/09/overpopulation-no-problem/

Anissimov, Michael. "Overpopulation? Not a Problem!" ]Accelerating Future Transhumanism, AI, Nanotechnology, the Singularity, and Extinction Risk. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. 

Many scientists believe that out climbing population of seven billion is threatening our stability as a species because the Earth’s carrying capacity is unknown. According to the article “Overpopulation? Not a Problem!” the Earth is nowhere near carrying capacity. They have found creative and unique ways to maximize the space on Earth. The United States has 10,000,000 km squared of land and the Earth has total area, including water, of 500,000,000 km squared.  Population density by region varies, and that is why they say that in order to get the most out of what we have, we have to place people in the most beneficial places.

This shows the population density in each country

This shows how condensed the world population could get and how much room we have to grow.

Just looking at the United States alone, if 5% was converted to an urban area, 45% was made suburban, and the other half of the United States was left rural, the population of the U.S.A alone could hold 12 billion people. If this method was spread to every country the world population could easily reach 100 billion. To reach the goal of 100 billion, we would have to overcome the main obstacles of colonizing deserts, living in highlands and mountains, providing energy and food, and disposing of waste.

            In the deserts, air conditioning, heating and water sources would be the biggest challenges. The article proposed, using solar-powered airships to hold giant shades to keep temperature low during the day, also at night heaters underground would provide sufficient heat for living. Water in the desert can be found by drilling deep into the water table or using plants that are able to produce water.

            To live in the highlands and mountain tops we would get around by personal flying machines, which should be affordable in the mid 10’s . High altitudes would also be survivable with the injection of artificial red blood cells that store enough oxygen for us to live off of.

            Finding energy for 100 billion people would be costly and would need the newest technology. Nuclear fusion and Helium-3 are possible sources, but little research has been done and we will have answers soon.

            To provide food to the whole population we would have to use all of the fertile land. Vertical farming is an efficient way to grow lots of food using little space. If we build oceanic cities to manufacture seafood and algae into different forms, then the seafood industry would boom, there is another place for people to live, and there would be plenty of food.

            Getting rid of all the waste the humans would produce would be taken care of by specially engineered bacteria that can break down anything organic. For things like plastic we would incinerate them in giant sealed autoclaves. Chemists would oversee the removal of waste of a regular basis.

Opinion: I personally think that this plan would be amazing if it could work out, but it sounds a little far-fetched. I don’t know if we could live underwater or in deserts, but if we could then, yes, the carrying capacity would increase. I like that this scientist isn’t limiting the population and thinking efficiently.

Questions: 1. Do you think that these ideas are realistic? If no, explain how you would change them. If yes, explain.

2. How would these changes affect how we live now?

3. Not using any of these changes, how would you change the way we live to reach such a high carrying capacity?

eutrophication

The seaweed and shellfish solution: using nature's filters to help curb pollution and fish farm waste

url: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R17&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA268601590&&docId=GALE|A268601590&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

Eutrophication is when you get excess nitrogen and phosphates in the water due to run off, pollution or dumping. Some common causes are from sewage and fertilizer. This causes “dead zones” which are areas with no life due to the pollution cutting off the oxygen in the water. Charles Yarish came up with a plan to save the Bronx river. His plan is to bring seaweed and shellfish to use up the excess nitrogen and phosphates. He explained that the seaweed would use the materialized substances and the shellfish would use the natural aspects of the pollution. Although this plan would cost about 2.4 million dollars it could save the river. He wants to use red seaweed which would work well the spring and fall and also bring in kelp which would work in the winter. The shellfish used will be mussels. After some time the seaweed and mussels will slowly be removed as the water begins to clean up. Scientist will then study them and see just what they have picked up while there. They expect to find biochemicals, animal feed in the seaweed and mussels. His goal is to clean up the river, prevent dead zones from forming. He fears that with the nearby wastewater treatment plant that he will never be able to raise species that edible species.

This photo exhibits people trying to clean up the river. It shows that the newyork environment in the background is still there and that some of the pollution comes form the vegetation in the back of the picture.

My reaction: I feel this is a great idea. People are constantly doing things that affect our environment and they don’t think twice about it. It is important for people to take charge and attempt to fix things and that’s exactly what Charles Yarish is doing. I think it was a good idea to bring in seaweed and mussels to eliminate the unnatural problem in a natural way. One concern I do have is what affect the organism will have to the current environment. I said that it will create a “multi-trophic aquaculture” if successful. He hopes that people could use the fish in the river one day. Although this project is very expensive and risky I think it is worth it to try and prevent the water getting worse and creating dead zones.

Questions

1. How do you feel about bringing in different species to the river

2. Do you think that bringing these organisms will affect the ecosystem in a negative way? Why? How?

3. Do you think that this is a waste of money? How much is to much to spend for a project like this?

4. What other precautions could be taken to prevent further pollution?