National park not clear

National Park not beautiful
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNC61OOM6M.DTL
Sequoia once a beautiful park is now jeopardize by deadly smog. Forest fires are causing deadly smog. You used to be able to see about 100 miles out, but now the view is foggy. People are comparing Sequoia to the LA sky. There is almost never clean skies anymore. The smog also affects the trees turning the needles an icky yellow. It also affects the seedlings, and puts a lot of stress on them. Also, there is now some trails closed that are to dangerous to walk because of the smog. On top of that, on the government page there is a warning to work there. It worns future employees it is unsafe to work there because of smog. The smog causes heart problems, and cancer. This is very sad.

Reflections: This is very sad I have been to Seguoia, and have many memories there. My family has pictures of them trying to wrap there arms around the Giant Sequoia. People spend a lot of money trying to preserve the national park. It's sad I have strong emotions towards the park.

1. How do you think we can stop the smog in the park?
2. Have you ever been to a national park? How does this make you feel?
3. Do you think other parks should be worried about air pollution?

Air Pollutation In The City

Sources: "Exercising In The City?" -Published by Science Daily (May 12, 2008) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512150141.htm
Picture link- http://tinyurl.com/6ulefma


 Summary: Lots of people live in the city and are at somepoint outside during the day and or night. Wheather its for exercise or just daily commutes, stepping outside puts you at risk to inhale pollutants. With all the cars, trucks, and busses driving around they together produce an extreme amount of pollutation. With all the high buildings, the pollutants will sit, "stuck" inbetween the buildings if they do not rise. Buildings also block the wind and weaken their strength to blow away the pollutants. Environmentalists say that exercising outdoors in a city is like trying to exercise right behind a bus or a car. By running, riding a bike, etc. you increase your heart rate, making you breathe faster. The more you breath, the more toxins you take in. After a couple of hours you most likely have alot of pollutants in your body, as your liver is hard at work trying to get rid of them. Pollutants irritate the lungs and many other parts of the body. "This could lead to diseases and infections", states Dr. Crystal. He also describes how studies have linked pollutants to varius lung and heart diseases, as well as many other hospital admissions, and sometimes, even death. Carbon monoxide has the ablilty to force oxygen out of the body and being over exposed to it can kill you. This is why doctors and environmentalists both advise city folks to be aware of your surroundings in the city. For example if you walk to work near a road that is always backed up with traffic, choose a different route that has less automobiles. They also highly advise people that exercise to exercise indoors in an air-conditioned room. If not possible they advise people to not over work yourself and run or bike in a park instead of on the sides or roads.

Reflection: To me, cities are big fun places to be. I live in the suburbs and so we dont have alot of pollutants just sitting in the air. This makes it easy for people to go outside and exercise. My uncle lives in the city, and he goes to a gym to work out. I dont know if its because there are pollutants outside or if he just likes to watch tv as he runs. Now I will have something to tell him about walking and exercising outdoors in the city. I also find it good that doctors and environmentalists are comming together to help warn citizens about what could happen to them while exercising. If every citizen read this article, then lives could be saved and diseases prevented. Carbon monoxide is a slient killer and it is for the best that people in the city know what could happen because of overexposure. Hopefully this article will limit the amount of drivers in the city as well.

Questions:
1. Do you think pollutants from automobiles is another factor that helps create "smog" that could form in cities? Why or why not?
2. If you were an everyday citizen who ran in the morning for exercise, would you change or not change how you exercise after reading this article? Explain.
3. If you were a city citizen who drove a car to work in the city, would you change your mode of transportation? Why?
4. Do you think the people that are incharge of a city (the city counsole I think) should test for dangerous levels of pollutants in the air every week?
5. What are some ways that we as a human population could make cities "greener"?

Cleaning the Air on Mercury

Article by the Los Angeles Times

Blog By Luke Nugent

A diagram showing how mercury can pollute the air and water

Summary

        This article shows how dangerous mercury can be to humans, especially unborn fetuses. High amounts of mercury pollution are released by coal mines and processing plants every day. Recent studies show that almost one out of every ten birthing age women have damaging amounts of mercury present in their blood. This can lead to health problems, and many times causes their babies to develop with autism. Luckily, President Obama has recently taken a stand against this pollution by passing laws that regulate coal companies and force them to make pricey adjustments to their factories to make them more environmentally friendly. As well as mercury, these new laws will help clear the air of other dangerous pollutants, such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium. President Obama expects to face opposition and lawsuits by these companies, but he and the rest of the government are prepared to fight these companies off. These laws, and hopefully other laws presented in the future, will help us to maintain a safe and clean environment for everyone.

Opinion

        I was very shocked by the fact the 8% of birthing age women have that much mercury in their blood. If so many babies are born with severe mental problems, what would our society be like? I think that this was a very good decision by the government. Too often, big companies such as coal companies think they are too powerful and important to care for the environment, and it is up to the EPA and the government to set them strait. I also didn't like how the costs for remodeling the factories would be present in the electricity bills. Those types of companies already make so much money, remodeling would not be a huge deal, and even if it was, they should still pay for it. I can't imagine what the world would be like if companies were allowed to do anything they pleased. One of my cousins has Autism, and it would be very sad if the reason they developed it was because of the mercury present in the air. They would have been able to have lived a more normal life if they were not born with the mental deficiency. 

Questions

1) What would the world be like if companies could do as they please?

2) Do you think the government or the EPA should have more power in these types of situations? Why?

3) Are there more types of similar problems the government should be helping out for? Give examples.

4) Do you think similar laws will be passed in the future?

5) If they sued, is there any way the coal companies could win? Why or why not?

Air Pollution Hates Obese Children?

Air Pollution Hates Obese Children?

By: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040525061725.htm

Summary: Obese Children get worst reactions from air pollution compared to normal weight children. The lungs of of an obese child would have an effect that's two times to five times worst than a normal weight child. There was also an increase of fat tissue, white blood tissue, and elevated c-protein which makes scientists believe that, that might be the reason why obese children have a stronger effect on air pollution. Scientists also did a experiment with 611 children with 10% of them being obese and they did checked their lungs with air pollution and the obese children had a bigger effect. They also stated that obesity can cause the host a lot of problems such as diabetes, heart problems, and asthma which is probably obvious.

Reflection: My thoughts about this is that it's pretty astonishing how obese children are more sensitive to air pollution rather than normal weight people having a mild effect. I think that parents should be more careful on what food they give their children and not give their kids fast food on a daily basis. Hopefully this article can make people realize how bad it is to be obese or overweight and make people try and exercise more. I think that the reaction on the air pollution to obese people aren't probably horrible but it could potentially be really bad but I would never know because they didn't say what the effects were in the article.

Questions:
1. What could be done about this?
2. Do you think this could be solved from genetic engineering? If so how?
3. What percentage of the population do you think will be obese or overweight and why?
4. What could we do about the air pollution to make it better?

Parental Exposure to Pollution Harmful for Kids with Asthma

Parental Exposure to Pollution Harmful for Kids with Asthma

Written By Petra Rattue 

Published in Medical News Today 

Created on 5/23/12

Link here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245755.php

Summary: Asthma is now commonly being discovered in mothers and young children ages 6-15 because of their mother’s exposure to air pollution during pregnancy. Pollutants found included gases like carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. After running experiments they discovered that in both boys and girls that they had a low volume of air that can be exhaled in one second after a full inhalation, and a low speed of the air that is exhaled immediately after being inhaled. After these findings, scientists are convinced that air pollution is only creating more health problems for humans, even before birth. Who knows how far the pollution will go so it needs to be stopped immediately.

Reflection: This is a very important topic, but it does not shock me. The items you put into your body while you are pregnant all affect the unborn child during all stages of development, weather it is food, drugs, or alcohol, they can be harmful. My mom said she drank Ice Tea all through her pregnancy with me and now I love Ice Tea. What the mother does with her health while pregnant affects your health.  Air pollution is another one of those things that is ingested by the mother that can harm the baby. Unfortunately they do not have a choice if they want to inhale air pollution or not. This article reminds me of in class when we watched Gasland and the people had asthma from the air pollution caused from fracking. It’s a terrible thing that can affect many people in the future.

Questions:

1: What can be done to help soon to be mothers?

2: What should be done about air quality all together?

3: If this problem persists, most people will be born with asthma, and may eventually become immune to it. Should this be considered a form of natural selection? Why or why not?

4: What could our future with air pollution look like?

5: Where do you think the majority of our air pollution comes from? How could we stop it?

Burp the Ocean

By: Luke Nugent

Article by: Don Walsh 

Written: November 2008

Methane Crystals

Summary

Scientists are constantly finding alternative fuels and creative ways to make sure the world never runs out of fossil fuels, or is at least prepared when it does. One of the latest discoveries was massive amount of methane gas (CH4) located on the ocean floor. This is very significant, because this methane is incredibly plentiful, and is found in hydrate form. This means that it is on the bottom of the ocean floor and looks like large crystals (picture to left). If this methane can be harvested, then it would be a tremendous help to the problem of the increasingly smaller amounts of natural gasses left. This methane does not come without dangers and downsides though. Methane is incredibly toxic, and could pollute an area where it is released or leaked. It is dangerous to humans, and could potentially cause underground landslides and huge tsunamis. Scientists are discussing the benefits versus downsides of "burping the ocean" for this gas, and they may not make a decision for years to come.

Opinion

I have the feeling that harvesting this gas could cause more problems than it resolves. Scientists have not tried "burping" it out yet, so they don't know how harmful it could be to the ocean and surrounding wildlife. These methane hydrates could be the home or food to a keystone species in an ecosystem, and this could effect all the surrounding areas. Similar to "Fracking" for natural gas, the companies who extract it may be so motivated to make profits, they would not consider the people or the nearby environment. Also, if people knew they had a huge amount of usable natural resources left, then they wouldn't feel any pressure to not use as much fossil fuels and wouldn't be motivated to use alternative energy. It would also probably cause problems between countries over who owns it. I do not think that scientists should follow through with this discovery.

Questions

1) Do you think that this methane could be beneficial? How about in the future?

2) Should people spend more energy on discovering fossil fuels or alternative energy? Why?

3) Who would the methane belong to? Why would it cause conflict?

4) What is the most significant downside to this methane? Why?

5) What changes or ideas would make this more plausible?
6) What could organizations like the EPA do to protect the environment in situations like these?

4 smart thermostats that save money and energy

4 smart thermostats that save money and energy

By Katherine Gray, Tecca

Published on usatoday.com

Posted 3h 7m ago, updated 1d 21h ago

Link:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/story/2012-05-06/smart-thermostats/54750056/1

Summary: 4 brand new types of thermostats have been invented to save the environment. One, seen in the picture to the left is called “The Nest” is new and improved to learn the energy and heating usage of your home and make a note in its system to help save money, and the environment. The thermostat raises or lowers its temperature or usage gauge when you leave, or when you are in the house. It works with any type of power source your home uses like solar, gas, geothermal, and heating oil. Its calibrating system notices if you are home or not and will control the amount of energy being used in your house. If you want more or less while you are not at home you can simple override the Nest’s orders from your smart phone or any internet source. By cutting down on heating and electricity use you are saving yourself some money and you are helping the environment by not wasting its fossil fuels and natural resources used for your home.  

Opinion: I think that this is a great tool to use because everyone has smart phones these days and I know that sometimes when you leave the house you forget to turn the lights off. This wastes up to 7 or 8 hours of electricity when no one is even home. This would be a good idea to use if you are not going to be home for a long time like if you are on vacation. Like in the summer I know that when we turn off the air right before we leave, it is saving energy, but when we get home it is super hot in the house. If we had this thermostat we would be able to turn on the air right before we got home, so we could still save energy, and not have to worry about the house being uncomfortable.

Questions:
1: What flaws does this thermostat have?

2: Is there any aspect of this idea you would change to make it better or more efficient?

3: Do you really think it would save energy from all energy sources like solar, gas, geothermal, and heating oil? Why or why not?

A new type of mining

Sources:
Title of article: "Mining for Heat"
Picture: http://tinyurl.com/28rjqua
Date & Publisher:  ScienceDaily May 2, 2012
Article Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502112931.htm

Summary: Mining is obviousilly a very risky job. When too many things go worng, or the mine becomes usless it is left abandoned. Normally it just sits there useless and becomes a home for bats or another type of animal if there are any left around. Recentally scientests have come up with an idea of how to turn these abandoned mines into geothermal energy sources. The heat given off by the Earths mantle and their convection currents travel through the rock above and scientests have figured out that every kilometer of a typical deep underground mine could produce about 150 kw (Kilowatts) of heat. Thats enough to heat about 5 to 10 houses!! Scientests have also observed how the heat travles through water. Some abandoned mines are filled with water and then instead of the heat just being in the air, the heat is in the water. To figure out with way is better, scientests will be preforming certian tests in the near future on these and other heat extraction scenarios. Though they have figured out that while using the water method, people or a company would only be able to take the heat no more quickly than it could be replenished. Or else it would mess up the system. Also after extracting the heat from the water, the cold water would then be pumped back into the mine to be reused.  A number of communities in Canada and Europe have already started useing geothermal heat from abandoned mines, and scientests estimate that up to one million canandians could benifit from the geothermal energy. Or even a greater benifit to the people living in Great Britian. This heat source provides heat all year round if needed, and so the colder regions of the world are taking thought to this idea as an alternative energy source.

Opinion/Reflection: Once I read this article it opened my eyes to all the simple things around us that could be used as an energy source. I would of never guessed how people would turn a useless old abandoned mine into an all out source of energy. This shows how eager some people are to find alternitive energy sources as we start to run out of our fossil fules. Although this atricle did not explan the inpact that a energyplant or powerplant would have on the surrounding land if built next to a mine, but I assume that it would impact the environment in some way or another. Otherwise than that I see this as a great idea to replace other methods of creating energy. I hope the whole world soon sees this idea and can help chip in and make this plan work globaly instead of only in the cold regions of the world where it is being used now.

Questions:
1. Do you believe that this is a clean alternitave energy source compared to other methods? Why?
2. If this method becomes popular around the world, do you think it would be safe to be building mines right next to (basically right under) populated cities and or towns?
3. If you were incharge of a mining company, would you mine for metals or mine for heat? Explain your choice.
4. Do you think mining for heat would be easier if mined on land or in the ocean? Why?
5. Is this a renewable or nonrenewable source of energy?

Radioactive Fish!?

Radioactive Fish
http://lagunabeach.patch.com/articles/fish-off-laguna-beach-may-have-ingested-radioactive-kelp-after-fukushima-study-finds
                      If you think about going to California for vacation soon watch out for Laguna Beach! In Japan a failed nuclear reactor in Fukashima led radioactive leaks into the California Coast. Scientists also think that the fish might had eaten the kelp or each other which help spread the radiation. According to the scientists the cesium and iodine is spreading in the coast and it is probably in the fish and the kelp. Fortunately in South California the seaweed radiation
                      My reaction to this is not that surprised because of Japans nuclear disaster in 2011 but I am kind of sad since I eat fish sometimes. I hope that they can somehow clean up the radiation in the California Coast.

1. How do you think this is going to affect Fisherman
2. Do you think this will spread out to oceans?
3. From the rating of 1 - 10, 1 being the worst and 10 being the best  what would you choose and explain why.

 Diaper Power?!?

 A baby with potential energy. http://www.sassweb.ca/3bb3/crazy/bottoms-up-the-great-diaper-debate-gains-energy

                                                                  
            What do elders and babies have in common. They both have potential alternative energy. Diapers first introduced in the 1940's is now filling land fills. Disgusting right, but Canadian researchers have found a way to turn these diapers into oil and char that can be used for fuel. The process these Canadians use is called Pyrolysis where they put the diapers in a tank that gets heated to 400 degrees celsius! A Canadian company called Amec is using pyrolysis to make fuel. Canada isn't the only country doing this Japan is also getting into diaper power. Japan found out that in 2030 25% of the population will be older than 85. This means there will be a big need for adult diapers. Japan also doesn't have a lot of energy, so Japan's super faith company is researching using diapers for energy. Japan is taking a different approach than Canada. Japan is planning to pulverise the used diapers into pellets that contains 5,000 kcal that can be used to heat enrgy plants. When life gives you used diapers you make alternative energy.

           I looked up on the internet weird alternative energy, and this is what I find. I found this pretty funny, and saw it's relevance. I think this would be a great way to get energy it would cut down on trash, and help the enrgy crisis.

1. Why do you think there is energy in used diapers?

2. Do you think U.S.A should research diaper power? Why?

3. Would diaper power be renewable or nonrenewable? Why?

Barley Experiments

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125091101.htm

Source: (website above) Title: "Barley adapts to climate change" Author: Elhuyar Fundazioa 
Date Published: Jan. 25, 2012

Summary: This article is about how environmental changes (specifically global warming) affect the growth patterns of barely, which is a plant that is similar to wheat. Recent expierments have studied the plant and have came to some conclusions. Throughout their experiment, they analysed how the barley grew under certian circumstances. They grew the same type of barley under to different conditions. One was grown in an environment with about the same amount of CO2  that is in our atmosphere today, and another in the same environment but with double the same amount of CO2 which represents what we expect to see in our atmosphere by the end of the century. Both setups were carried out thorugh a progressive imposition of drought. This effect on the plants would determine which setup was able to recover better from the lack of water. During the expirment facts were recored and it turned out that the plant that grew with double the amount of CO2 in the air recovered more efficientatlly. Scientests noted that because the plant was exposed to a larger amount of CO2, it closed the tiny holes in its leaves to a certian degree. Those holes let excess water and oxygen escape but because the plant partically closed the holes, it was able to use the water over a longer period of time. Without closing its holes, it would have evaporated off of the leaves. Even though a drought is harmfull to barley, its effect is much less when combined with an elevated amount of CO2. This does not happen all the time though in plants exposed a doubled amount of CO2. The scientests also speficied the importantance of the take in of carbon and nitrogen. If the take in level of these two are not balenced then this will throw off everything that happens to the barley. Otherwise than that the barley would do ok in an environment with a doubled amount of CO2. When water was introduced back to the two plants after the "drought" the barley with the doubled amount of CO2 recovered back to its normal state much faster than the barley with todays level of CO2. Overall, it was proven that as our earth starts to warm up and our CO2 levels start to increase, this would not negitiveally effect barely in any way. Researchers are now trying to figure out if this is a gene in the plant and if it can be copied or transfered to other plants to help them survive in an environment with very high levels of CO2. Even though global warming is a bad thing it is important that it does not impact our supplies of food too much. At least not to the point where we cant even grow them anymore.
Opinion: I thought this was pretty cool. I never knew that barley could withstand the increasing amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere. Let alone I think it kind of helps it. I love bread, especially with neutella and if theres no more barley to make bread then I would be pretty sad. Plus I never actually thought about how much global warming effects plants as it affects our oceans, animals, and weather. Global warming is a very bad thing that should be reversed or at least stoped but its also good that scientests are taking into consideration that we may hit that point in life when the earth gets so warm that our water levels may start to decrease enough that we start to see droughts were they never occured before. Overall, I found this very instreating and I hope that they figure out how to transfer that gene (if it is a gene) to other plants, incase we hit that point in our lifetime.
Questions:
1. Do you think that we as a human population will have to wait untill global warming starts majorly affecting our food supply to take action to prevent/reverse global warming?
2. What other problems could long periods of drought cause than just effecting barley and other food products?
3. In your opinion, is it a good or bad idea to see if plants are able to withstand high levels of CO2 and other gases that may increase if global warming continues? Why?
4. If we reach a point in our lifetime when global warming gets bad enough that it effects the growth pattern of barley, do you think the barely will react the same way that it did in the experiment? Why or why not?

More People Moving to Cities Census Shows

Original article is by Lisa Lambert, posted to reuters.com on 3/26/12. The article can be viewed here, http://tinyurl.com/covzdlj

Picture: The picture of the left is a bird’s eye view of New York, New York which is still the highest populated city in America according to the recent Census. Click here to view the picture, http://tinyurl.com/d3abpby

Summary: After the 2010 Census was recorded, officials noticed more people moving out of the suburbs and into the heavy populated cities. Now there is 80% of the population that lives in cities and urbanized areas. New York Currently has an estimated 18.4 million people living there.  California has a higher number of people living there with 35.4 million people, but considering its great size it was expected. 95% of the population is crowded into urban cities leaving more open space out in California. Other huge cities known like Chicago are seeing similar trends. These popular cities are becoming denser with each census taken and this issue is starting to worry people. 

Reflection: I do not really think that this is a problem because there are always other places to live. No one is really forced to live in these heavily populated cities. Once people realize that a place may be overpopulated, they won’t move there. There are plenty suburban or rural areas in America or all around the world, that people can live. It will become a problem when whole states, countries, or continents, get over populated and crowded like the urban cities listed above. I am actually happy where I live because I am not far from the beach, far from urban cities like Philadelphia or New York, and not far from rural areas. I recently went to New York for a day trip for the second time ever in my life since I was little and it made me realize how small and insignificant you really are in the world. Just a single person in such a huge city, with a large name, can be overwhelming. Then it makes you think if there were any more people in this world, how I would feel then. Over population could become a real issue in the near future and the limiting factors we learned in class, and the trip to New York made all of those worries a reality.

Questions: 

1: Why do you think more and more people are moving to highly populated cities? What are the dangers of this?

2: What are some limiting factors that could happen in those cities that could affect the population of the city or world as a whole?

3: What should we do to prevent or slow the overpopulation of those cities? Or should we leave it the way it is?

New Power System

httyp://www.macroevolution.net/power-system.html#.T3D2RNliLf0

Summary:
This picture is a molecular structure inside of a plant and biochemists working with researchers figured a way to use the molecular structure of a plant to transform it into power. This is also called as "Green Energy" One of the founders of this energy is called Bruce and he thinks that this way of using energy is more clean and inexpensive. Scientists get the photosynthesis by using a system called photosystem. This way is also more cheap and helpful to the environment and Bruce hopes that in the future everyone starts using this system.
Reflective:
I think that this system can be really useful in the future and that it's green friyendly. What I wonder is will this system harm the plants where your taking the energy away from? How exactly did the biochemists and researchers find this system did they just research about the molecules and see if it was compatible to transform into energy? I also think that this power system is legitimate because the article gives tons of information about this power system.
Questions:
1. What would you prefer? This Power System or our current Power System and back up your anwser
2. Do you think that this power system will be successful and if yes why?
3. Do you think that this power system is fake or real? If you say fake explain why.