Hey, everyone! Sadly, this will be my last civic issues post regarding the environment. Last week, I discussed a topic that is fairly close-to-home with me, treatment of animals through intensive animal farming. The treatment of these animals must be reformed and social action should be taken in order for humane conditions for animals. As a science major, I am highly interested in technology and what it entails. Therefore, this week, I will discuss the impacts of nanotechnology on the environment and its applications.

What exactly is nanotechnology and how is it used?

Nanotechnology is simply defined as the manipulation of matter on any level less than supramolecular. It is used in the environment, medicine, and science to make life easier. It involves the manipulation of atoms or molecules in order to create materials and devices that have vast application. Some of these applications include nanomedicine, which includes drug delivery to certain parts of the body, assistance with clinical trials, and seeking and binding to destroy tumor cells in people. In particular, nanotechnology has vast environmental impacts such as the creation of materials and devices for the perceived benefit of the environment. It is known as a primitive field because there is not much research about it. People are just beginning to find out the practical uses of nanotechnology with the benefit of the environment. One common way that nanotechnology is used in the environment is with what is called green nanotechnology. This type of nanotechnology involves sustainability of processes used, which often results in negative externalities. Thus, there are many civic issues brought up with how organisms and the environment are affected by these negative externalities.

What are some of the negative externalities brought up with green nanotechnology?

Green technology includes the creation of solar cells and making them more efficient and practical; however, the negative externalities of these solar cells are that they require vast maintenance, expensive and impractical materials, possible land misallocation, and water pollution. All of these can result in death of organisms and thus less biodiversity, food, and other issues. In addition, nanotechnology is being used to nanoremediate soil and treat water but can result in the inhalation of harmful nanoparticles by the people who consume the water. For instance, if the nanoparticles are used to bioremediate soil infested with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, I have completed research on them in the past regarding bioremediation with Arabidopsis thaliana plants), they could still have some PCBs in the soil still if the uptake percentage is less than 100% or if some nanoparticles are left in the soil. Then, if plants are grown in the soil and animals or humans consume the plants grown in the soil, they could be at risk to development of diseases such as cancer. This feat is actually relatively prone to occurring because nanoparticles are so small that the skin can absorb them or they can be inhaled straight out of thin air. There is now an environmental field known as eco-toxicity, which completely revolves around studying the negative effects of nanotechnology on the environment. According to research gate, metal hydroxides, clay minerals, and allophane are several other types of particles included on the nanoscale and some of these can seep into soil and pollute the environment. Lastly, there are many microorganisms that live in the soil itself. Thus, even though nanoparticles aim to remediate the soil, with all of the contamination of the soil by nanoparticles, microorganisms will simply die off. One prominent example is with phytoplankton, the basis of the food chain in bodies of water. When nanoparticles are forced into the water to decontaminate the water, they actually have a high risk of killing the phytoplankton in the process. With the bottom level of the food chain destroyed, all of the organisms living in that body of water will eventually starve. This is a clear environmental civic issue that must be addressed in the near future.

How can scientists and engineers solve the vast and prominent environmental issues brought up by nanotechnology in the environment?

Due to the fact that nanotechnology is a relatively new and undiscovered field, there is not much that can be proposed for fixation yet. However, I propose regulations on nanotechnology, particularly in the water and in the soil. If the nanotechnology hurts or kills organisms in any external way (thus coming across as an externality), then the issues must be fixed until it is implemented. Organisms should not die off with some sort of “animal test” that the testers believe to be a way that humans can better and more easily remediate soil or water. In addition, I propose that all of these various types of technology are tested in a laboratory before they are tested in real-life. For example, as I discussed previously, innocent organisms need not die for the benefit of making the lives of humans better and easier. Lastly, I propose that nanotechnology is government-regulated in particular. For instance, quotas and regulations should be placed on the use of nanotechnology in the environment in the same way that farmers are regulated by the government with pollution.

Hello, everyone! It’s been quite a long time since I last posted (over a month!) but I am finally returning with another civic issues post regarding the environment. Previously, I discussed human overpopulation, which included various policy reform proposals and the detrimental effects of too many people living in the world. This week, I will discuss intensive animal farming and how animals are treated poorly and inhumane in order to increase agricultural production.

How is intensive animal farming defined and what does it entail?

Intensive animal farming is the practice used by farmers and revolves around maximizing the output of livestock food such as meat, eggs, and milk, while also minimizing the overall cost of production. Intensive animal farming is often referred to as industrial livestock production or factory farming because the practice generally involves the keeping of livestock in high density areas. For example, below is a picture of cattle that are involved in intensive animal farming. The cattle are kept in small, closed quarters to the point where their heads are coming out of the fence enclosing the structure.

When exactly did intensive animal farming begin, what does it look like today, and why is it considered morally wrong?

Before 1965, family farms were the primary way that chickens were raised. During this time, chickens were raised for eggs rather than meat. Chicken was always considered a “specialty dish” that was served on holidays or celebrations. Farmers were unable to keep chickens in confinement during the winter due to a lack of vitamin D, which is found in sunlight. Thus, people did not consume chicken to the extent that they do today because it remained such a hot commodity. Although, once researchers discovered vitamin D, farmers realized that they could keep chickens in confinement year-round. Thus, companies began to mass-produce chickens and other animals they could raise year-round. Family farms began to run out of business and factory farms took over the industry. As concerns increased over red meat such as the cholesterol content, people began consuming chicken more. As the demand for chicken skyrocketed, conditions of the habitats where chickens were raised plummeted. Not only were the conditions inhumane but to human standards, they were considered uninhabitable.

This issue hits close-to-home with me. When I was in tenth grade, I watched a documentary entitled Food Inc. in health class. In the documentary, they discussed intensive animal farming, particularly chicken farming. It showed the true horrors of chicken farms and how the small number of people who own family farms are negatively affected by the large corporations such as Perdue who mass-produce chickens. Perdue has been slammed in the past for animal cruelty and false advertising about the way they raise and produce their chickens. Below is a picture of a Perdue chicken farm in North Carolina. Clearly, there is no room for the chickens to walk and the chickens appear oversized.

Large intensive animal farming corporations also ensured that their chickens would increase in size in order to increase the amount of meat that the chicken provides. Below is a graphic showing the relative size and weight of chickens from 1957-2005. Clearly, chickens are raised to be large solely because their meat is in demand to feed humans and are not fit to live when they are such a large size. 

Not only have chickens increased in size but their nutritional modes have hit rock bottom. Many chickens often take part in cannibalism as they have insufficient food but a vast need for energy. This usually results in chickens possessing the inability to walk or even stand up. Food Inc. highlights that chickens can only walk a few inches before flopping down because they weigh so much and cannot support their own weight. Chickens are also treated like objects in these facilities and often brought to slaughterhouses for painful mass-killings. In addition, many chickens expunge their energy quickly and tend to throw up uncontrollably. To make matters worse, the other chickens are starving and view the vomit as a source of energy and consume the throw up. This brings about an issue of health for the human consuming the chicken as well. The consumer is essentially eating metabolized throw-up from chickens raised through irrational practices.

After learning about the history of intensive animal farming, specifically with chickens, in my health class, I decided to take a stand and refuse to eat chicken. It has been over three years since I’ve eaten chicken and I do not plan to eat it for a long time unless reform comes about.

What policies can be put into place to ensure change and reform?

There are several policies that can be put into place to put an end to the inhumane practices of intensive animal farming. Although many people believe that we are able to use intensive animal farming due to “survival of the fittest”, animals cannot be raised in such horrid conditions and treated as objects based on moral standards. One main way to prevent this practice from continuing is to place a fire hazard capacity on places that raise chickens, have people monitor the farms, and to have slaughterhouses solely kill the chickens in the least painful way possible. There is obviously a dire need for food in the ever-growing population of the world; however, at some point, the fact that we must care for other animals besides ourselves must convey. Animals are not objects and their well-being must be accounted for.

Hello, everyone! I am back again this week with another environmental civic issues post regarding the environment. In case you forgot or didn’t read it, last week, I wrote about radiation as pollution and how it harms the environment and those living in it. Many died in several different disasters such as Chernobyl and also polluted the environment for the next 20,000 years. This week, I will discuss the civic environmental issue of human overpopulation and carrying capacity.

What exactly is human overpopulation?

Human overpopulation is when the population of humans living in a certain area exceeds the carrying capacity (the maximum population size of a certain species that an environment can sustain). In the case of human, it is when the entire human population is more than the amount that the Earth can sustain. The Earth cannot provide the necessary nutritional diets such as proper food and water, and habitat. It can also be considered the “maximum load” of an environment.

So, if Earth has a certain carrying capacity, what is the number? Are we at it already?

In a UN report published in 2001, it was found that the estimated carrying capacity of Earth falls between 4 billion and 16 billion people with a median report of 10 billion. As of December 2017, there are 7.6 billion , with the number climbing up to an estimated 11.8 billion by 2100. Thus, based on estimates that I outlined above, we are most likely a little under or at carrying capacity right now and will most likely be over carrying capacity by the year 2100. Therefore, by the year 2100, it is highly likely that the Earth will not be able to sustain the population of humans living on Earth any longer.

If/When the Earth reaches its carrying capacity, what are the environmental issues associated with it?

There are several environmental issues associated with human overpopulation. For example, animals can suffer. If humans are using all of the food supply present on Earth, there will be none left for wildlife. Not only will humans die as a result of this but the animals will die as well, limiting the biodiversity of a certain area. Also, since animals are used for food, even more humans will die out due to more of a lack of food supply. Also, with more humans living, there will be more of a need for energy and goods. Thus, more pollution will ensue and there will be more of a demand for fracking, which I discussed in another post. With more pollution into the atmosphere and against the Earth, more climate change will ensue and there will, in hand, be a lower supply of drinking water due to contamination, etc. Lastly, with human overpopulation, the demand for jobs will most likely not exceed the supply of jobs, due to technology in the future resulting in tasks being completed in a more efficient manner. Clearly, there are many environmental issues associated with the vast overpopulation of the Earth.

How can us humans solve the issue of human overpopulation?

One of the most efficient and most effective ways to limit the amount of people living on Earth is by placing a quota on the number of children a couple can have. Although this law will disallow certain religions from fulfilling their duties, for example, orthodox Jews are told to have as many children as possible, the burden of having many malnourished children vastly outweighs the burden of having less children but all of them having the perfect amount of nutrition. If there were laws implemented throughout the world that only allowed for couples to have “replacement” with their children, meaning each couple can only have two children, then populations could be controlled better. China, the most populated country in the world, has had a law that states couples can only have one or two children in order to control the population. The rate has actually slowed down, as shown by the graph below:

One last and the only other way that the population could be regulated is if carrying capacity is reached. The amount of food supply present in the world will not match the proper amount to nourish the population. Thus, the population will fall and move under the carrying capacity due to equilibrium factors.

Clearly, human overpopulation is a prevalent issue in the world today. It must be solved soon or else the entire human population, particularly in Asia and Africa, are going to be in trouble. Countries such as the United States have their population under control; yet, countries such as India do not have their populations under control and are contributing to the overpopulation of the world and a possible shortage of food. If a child limit is not implemented soon in many countries throughout the world, great amounts of starvation and mass death will ensue. We must act soon to end the overpopulation of humans and a possible mass starvation.

Hello everyone! I am back this week with another environmental civic issues blog post. Last week, I talked about oil spills, particularly the BP oil spill at Deepwater Horizon. Many people died and countless barrels of oil were spilled into the ocean, polluting the environment and losing energy for the world. This week, I will discuss the civic environmental issue of radiation.

Radiation is defined by the emission of energy through a certain type of medium. It can be released in some of the following ways: gamma rays, microwaves, beta radiation, acoustic radiation, and gravitational radiation. Radiation damages various cells in the human body and high levels may kill people exposed to it. If someone is exposed to high levels of radiation, of 500 -1,200 rem, death will ensue in a few days. If someone is exposed to higher levels of radiation of 10,000+ rem, death will ensue within just a few hours. Not only can humans be exposed and harmed from radiation but the environment can as well.

How is something or someone exposed to radiation? People can possess various levels of radiation in the following ways: x-rays, CT scans, nuclear energy such as bombs or nuclear reactors, malfunctions in plutonium-processing, neuron counter exposure, radium penetration into the bones, nuclear reactor malfunctions or leaks, and nuclear ballistic missiles. All of these forms of radiation, when someone or something is exposed to it, can have detrimental effects on those exposed.

 

Here are some of the most detrimental radiation disasters in Earth’s history and some of the effects on the humans and the environment:

1. Chernobyl disaster in the USSR. From April 25^th-26^th, 1986, safety systems were turned off on purpose and water turning into steam created a steam explosion and a graphite fire. Fission products shot into the atmosphere and radioactive products fell onto the USSR and Europe. 134 possessed radiation symptoms and were forced to go to the hospital and 28 people died. 14 more cancer deaths ensued in the next 10 years. The reactor is now enclosed in a concrete enclosure to limit the amount of radiation that escapes into the environment. A lot of radioactive waste was produced and lava-like fuel-containing materials were produced that harmed wildlife and plants throughout the area. In addition, the area was and still is uninhabitable to humans (20,000 years until it will be safe for humans to live there again). Lastly, radioactive materials can cause vast forest fires if lit on fire. In a prior blog, I discussed how forest fires greatly limit the amount of biodiversity in the environment and add a lot of pollution to the atmosphere.

   

2. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: On August 6^th, 1945 during World War II, President Harry Truman ordered the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. This event killed 70,000-80,000 people living in Hiroshima, including another 70,000 injured and 69% of the buildings being destroyed and a lot of radiation being released into the atmosphere. Many of the wildlife, including plants and animals in Hiroshima were destroyed immediately and radioactive dust fell from the sky onto the city and surrounding areas. A lot of the food in the forests were contaminated such as berries and other plants and genetic mutations and diseases ensued from the bombing. A similar event occurred three days after the first bombing on August 9^th, 1945 in Nagasaki, Japan. After the Japanese refused to surrender in World War II, the U.S. dropped another atomic bomb. The bomb, nicknamed “fat man” possessed 11 pounds of plutonium. 35,000-40,000 people were killed and at least 60,000 people were injured in this bombing. Nuclear weapons in the short-term, when released, can cause debris pollution, which can kill many, hair-loss for people, mouth bleeding, internal bleeding, and other tissue damage. Nuclear weapons in the long-term, when released such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can cause vast climate change and contribute to global warming. In addition, food production was inhibited which could force many to face starvation.

   

3. Mayak Production Association Nuclear Waste Disaster (Kyshtym Disaster): in 1957, in the Soviet Union, one of the storage tanks exploded, which resulted in the release of 50-100 tons of radioactive waste into the environment. 290 square miles of land were contaminated and many humans, plants, animals, and other areas in the USSR were killed mainly due to radiation poisoning. The accident was kept secret for 30 years and is the third largest nuclear reactor disaster in history (this is the reason why you have probably never heard of the disaster). Although it is still active today, Russia has kept it secret about the exact effects of the disaster on the environment and its people. Although, it is estimated that disease has ensued and about 200 people have died from it. In addition, the environment is polluted with even more radiation. In 2017, it was released that there were abnormally high levels of radiation there. The facility dumps into the Techa River, which leads to the death of fish and other wildlife that live there and the pollution of drinking water for humans and animals alike.

Clearly, there are detrimental effects of radiation of humans and the environment. The main way that one can stop radiation is by better monitoring the nuclear power plants. In addition, humans can attempt to be peaceful for once and stop dropping and testing nuclear weapons.

Hello everyone! I am back this week with another civic issue blog regarding the environment. Last week, I discussed deforestation, which is a huge issue in the environment. One way, however, that YOU can do to help stop deforestation from wildfires is by avoiding smoking in the woods! Many forest fires start from people being lazy about smoking. This week, I will discuss the civic environmental issue of oil spill pollution.

First of all, what exactly are oil spills? Oils spills are a type of pollution that occurs when oil products that are refined or crude are discharged into water or on land. In this blog post, I will be focusing on the issue of oil spills into water. When oils spills occur, large volumes of oil can leak into the ocean and create a shiny substance on the surface that does not mix with water due to the respective polarities of the two substances.

Oil spills have occurred repeatedly throughout the history of the world and continue to happen today. One of the first oil spill to have happened, occurred in 1910 and lasted over a year and a half into 1911. 1,200 thousand tons of crude oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean. One of the most recent and most infamous of oil spills in human history was the BP oil spill at Deepwater Horizon. On April 20^th, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico near the Mississippi River Delta in the United States, the 10-year-old drilling rigged suffered a wellhead blowout, which left 11 people killed and 17 injured. The harms didn’t stop there, though. Continuously until September 19^th, 2010, the rig leaked 4.9 million barrels of oil, polluting the water and wasting tons of energy that could have been used in vehicles.

Here are some fast facts about oil spills:

1. Iraqis intentionally released over 300 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf as an “attack” for the Gulf War.
2. Over 25% of the entire Louisiana coastline suffers from oil pollution.
3. Vegas has given odds to determine which species will go extinct first as a result of the BP oil spill.
4. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 spilled over 40,000 tons of crude oil in Alaska.
5. One gallon of used oil can pollute 1 million gallons of water.

 

Clearly, a lot of oil has been spilled over the course of the past 100 years into oceans and bodies of water; yet, what are the implications of extreme water pollution? First and foremost, animals are affected the most by water pollution by oil spills. During the BP oil spill at Deepwater Horizon, 82,000 birds across 102 different species were harmed by this spill. Some of these species include but are not limited to: clapper rails, laughing gulls, and northern gannets. In addition, it is estimated that about 6,000 sea turtles have been harmed by this oil spill and all 5 sea turtle species are now listed as endangered or threatened species as a result of this oil spill. Marine mammals have been negatively affected as well by the oil spill, an estimated 25,900 of them, from bottlenose dolphins to melon-headed whales, marine life is diminishing because of oil spills such as the BP spill at Deepwater Horizon. The most extreme case of oil spills affecting animals are with fish. The oil spills directly pollute the homes of these fish, resulting in the complete destruction of tens of thousands of square miles of fishing closures. One last type of animal that oil spills threaten are invertebrates. Countless types of food sources such as lobsters, clams, crabs, and oysters are all killed by oil spills such as the BP spill at Deepwater Horizon. Below is a picture of Deepwater Horizon after the explosion:

With all of these species of animals dying from oil spills, many classify oil spills to be one of the most inhumane and daunting occurrences that humans have caused. Not only are these animals killed for no reason at all, not even for food, but they are killed because of laziness of humans from errors, or man-made forces that could have been prevented. These innocent animals are killed, which limits biodiversity and is simply inhumane. I am no animal rights activist; yet, I believe that the right of these innocent creatures must be protected. If they aren’t providing us food or services, then we have no right to allow our laziness to kill these animals.

There is a solution to oil spills, I believe. Although it has been eight years since the last major oil spill occurred, I still believe that there is some work to be done to limit the amount of oil spills that occur. First, there can be regulations that determine how large drilling rigs can be. Instead of having one extremely large drilling rig, it may be safer to have a couple of small drilling rigs instead. Also, there can be more checkpoints on the rigs in order to prevent these events from occurring. Lastly, stupidity must be minimized. The Iraqis should not spill millions of gallons of oil, threatening the lives of these animals, simply as a war tactic.

Hello, everyone! I’m back this week with another civic issues blog post regarding the environment. Last week, I discussed the vast amount of pollution that fracking plagues on the world’s water supply. This week, I will be shifting gears and will discuss an even more extreme civic environmental issue: deforestation.

Here are some quick facts about Earth’s forests:

1. As of now, throughout all of the land in the world, forests account for 31% of all land on the planet.

 

2. The Taiga, or Boreal forest that spreads across the northern portion of the U.S. and throughout Canada, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and even Kazakhstan accounts for the largest land habitat in the entire world.
3. In 2015, it was estimated that the tropics alone possessed 1.4 trillion trees, with another 1.6 trillion trees in other parts of the world.

4. Forests provide habitat for 80% of the entire world’s terrestrial biodiversity.

5. Trees in tropical rainforests can receive 100 inches of rain per year and lack winter, with yearly temperatures ranging from 68 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit.

Clearly, the numbers regarding the Earth’s forests seem overwhelming and seem to be kept in quality shape; however, this is not the case whatsoever. The human population is destroying and has been destroying forests at an alarming rate, mainly in the past 100 years. According to National Geographic, if the current rate of deforestation continues, all of the Earth’s rainforests will be vanished within the next 100 years! To put this into perspective, trees have been growing in the world for billions of years and in 200 years, less than .00001% of the time that trees have been growing, all of the world’s forests can be destroyed.

So, who exactly is responsible for deforestation? It’s mainly logging operations that fuel consumers such as yourself. With the growing human population, people are in need of homes that are made of wood. Growing urban sprawls require land to be developed through the use of wood. In addition, paper products are made from wood, which is why logging operations exist. In order for them to stay in business, they must cut down trees. Another reason for the destruction of forests is wildfires. In California exists some of the tallest, most beautiful trees in the world, known as redwoods. Below is a picture of a redwood:

However, with wildfires, these trees are being burnt down and there is no known way of controlling them. With wildfires, not only are trees being burnt down and destroyed at extreme rates, but they are not being used for anything productive! To make matters worse, one of the main reasons for wildfires is sole stupidity. For example, outside of Sacramento, California, a boy was arrested for smoking marijuana in the woods. Little to his knowledge, this spark of fire lead to a wildfire burning down trees in California. One last reason that deforestation occurs is agriculture. Farmers are in desperate need to fertile soil and more area to grow crops. Sitting right beneath many forests is fertile soil. Many farmers clear acres on end of trees and simply burn them without selling the wood or using it for something useful. This technique is often referred to as slash and burn agriculture.

Why exactly is deforestation bad? First of all, trees are one of the main performers of photosynthesis in nature. They take in carbon dioxide, which we exhale, and turn it into oxygen, which we inhale. Us humans need oxygen to survive; yet, with the destruction of forests, we may not receive the proper amount of oxygen to survive, especially with an increasing population. They also provide vast amounts of sugar, which humans use for energy. In addition, many species of animals will lose their habitat due to deforestation. It is inhumane to take away from them, something they have known and loved for so long. Another issue with deforestation is that it is the main driving force behind climate change. They take up the carbon dioxide that is a main contributor to global warming. Deforestation will hinder trees from taking up the carbon dioxide, allowing the world to heat up at a fast rate. Lastly, deforestation can lead to an increase in the number of uninhabitable deserts. Trees possess a canopy, or a sun-blocking tree cover that protects the land beneath it from the sun and helps it stay moist and fertile for animals to live in, crops to grow, and life to flourish. With deforestation, however, many believe and have seen that these areas quickly become deserts due to deforestation. As the land dries because of the lack of a canopy to keep the water in the soil, the areas become deserts.

What exactly can we do about this whole mess? I believe that farmers, as the main contributor to deforestation, should have a quota on the number of trees they are allowed to cut down per year. If they do, in fact, decide to cut down the trees on their property, they must use them for a different purpose than burning them. In addition, I believe that people should refrain from using paper so much. I know that my brother’s school, my middle school, has already taken an initiative with this. They are moving to iPads and eliminating all textbooks and notebooks from the classroom. This huge milestone with the school will help save innumerable trees. You should take a small step as well in reducing the amount of paper supplies you use. While you may not think that you can make a difference yourself, if everyone stops or limits the amount of paper used, a huge difference could be made.

Stemming off of last week’s post about fracking, this week’s post will focus on one of the major issues that fracking brings to the table: water use. One of the major issues with fracking was that it pollutes large volumes of water; yet, if water is a renewable resource and no new water is created nor destroyed, then why is water pollution such an impending issue on the environment? Is it actually such a massive issue, or is it exaggerated?

Recently, in Harrisburg, PA, the Department of Environmental Protection agreed to a certain type of settlement that agrees to reduce the extent in which water is polluted by coal fired power plants. Many of these power plants release different types of metals into the water sources, which include but are not limited to: arsenic, a well-known carcinogen, cadmium, lead, and mercury, which are all highly toxic as well. These pollutants can infiltrate the sources of water through the discharge of raw sewage, chemicals from other factories, agricultural run-offs causing red tides or toxic algal blooms, simple urbanization, oil spills, acid rain, fossil fuel burning, or human litter. The pollution of metal and other toxic chemicals into water supplies is an extreme issue because it is awfully difficult to remove many of these pollutants from the water, in order to make it fit for consumption.

For example, many are familiar with the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Here, there were dangerous levels of lead present in the water supplies in residents’ homes. The water was undrinkable, attributed to the fact that energy source companies polluted the water supplies of many locations in the Flint area. The pollution of water is an environmental concern because the water may never become filtered ever again. With unfiltered water that contains lead and other pollutants, residents could suffer from dehydration from the lack of water, they may not be able to bathe or even wash their hands, and could negatively affect gene expression and the frontal cortex. Thus, lead is known as a pollutant and the EPA limits the amount of lead in drinking water due to all of the adverse health effects.

Not only does pollution in water make it undrinkable, but it also negatively affects the wild life in the area. For instance, in the area where the coal power plant is continuously polluting the water in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, many fear that the fish in the streams are ingesting the pollutants in high amounts. By contaminating water that fish live in, their habitats are destroyed and humans are murdering these fish. As innocent species of wildlife that live in water are killed for no reason, not even for dietary purposes, biodiversity will be limited and fish species could become endangered. Not only can this pollution kill the fish living in the bodies of water, limited the food supply, but the fish can actually stay alive, even while ingesting these pollutants. The fish store the pollutants such as lead or cadmium in their fatty tissue, which humans consume when they eat the fish. Therefore, humans are, in hand, consuming lead and other pollutants by eating the fish. The fish are toxic and can kill the humans, even though the humans are not drinking the polluted water directly.

Another negative aspect of water pollution is that you can simply acquire common sicknesses. Some of these common illnesses include vomiting, diarrhea, stomach aches, or skin rashes. In some severe cases of consuming contaminated or polluted drinking water, some types of cancer can ensue such as leukemia. In other severe cases, reproductive problems, such as infertility, or developmental problems such as learning disabilities can occur after drinking vast amounts of polluted water.

While the countless negative aspects of contaminated or polluted water, health concerns in particular, some argue that the effects of polluting water are exaggerated. During the 2015 Republican primary elections before the 2016 presidential election, many candidates supported this argument. Marco Rubio, in particular, aimed to eliminate most of the regulations that weigh heavy on companies that pollute bodies of water. During an interview, Rubio said that he does not believe that the dramatic changes to the Earth’s environment can be attributed to the activity of humans.

In addition, Fox News has stated in several interviews that they believe that water pollution actually HELPS the environment. They claim that pollution to the water actually helps grow forests in the southeastern part of the United States. Huge corporate companies are actually benefitting and profiting from exploiting water resources and polluting it. Thus, companies will contaminate water because they can make more money from doing so.

Clearly, the cons of polluting sources of water outweigh the pros of contaminating bodies of water. Why do people still contaminate water if there are so many issues with doing so? Corporate interests, cheaper energy, and misinformation by politicians. Is cheaper energy worth the tradeoff of the possibility of the elimination of fish, reduction of available drinking water, and several human diseases? Visit my blog next week as I discuss more impending environmental civic issues!

One environmental technique to release gas held inside of rocks inside the earth is the process known as fracking. Chemicals and other resources such as sand and water are forced into rocks underground at high pressure, which allows gas to flow out of the rock for human consumption. Fracking is an efficient, economically sound method to access oil resources; however, it is an extremely controversial topic for several reasons.

First of all, fracking utilizes vast amounts of water and ends up contaminating the water supply used in the end, making it unsustainable. People could use this water for other purposes such as ending the ongoing drought in California or even helping children in Africa who are without clean water sources. In addition, carcinogenic compounds are byproducts of fracking, which can release into the ground and contaminate large sums of land, making areas uninhabitable to life. Lastly, many argue that fracking causes small earthquakes in the Earth, which can disrupt the tectonic plate system and increase the amount of natural disasters.

In an article posted by the New York Times, written by Roger Cohen, insight into the two-sided debate of fracking is offered. Those who are against fracking include 29-year-old Arthur Melduish, who claims that fracking will poison the water supply and that it is “not wanted here on this planet”. The British activist explains how the United States currently “drinks fire” with their fracking practices and suggests that the action of fracking mustn’t occur in England for environmental harms and other issues raised.

On the other hand, former British Prime Minister David Cameron has possessed a vision to turn West Sussex into an area of heavy hydraulic fracturing. He claims that there are “1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying underneath Britain”, which can be used to provide 510 years of gas supply for the entire nation of England. Cameron and the conservative party are known as strong fracking activists and have argued that the advantages that fracking brings to the economy of England highly outweigh the miniscule environmental disadvantages.

While each side of this heated debate over fracking seem justifiable, I believe that the United Kingdom should not tap into the 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lies underneath the surface. As a science major (chemistry, to be specific), I am passionate about topics similar to this one and I tend to take a liberal stance on various environmental issues. The harms posed from fracking undoubtedly outweigh the benefits of fracking. Some of the harms posed include but are not limited to: human health symptoms such as nosebleeds, nausea, and headaches, rigs popping up, leading to the devaluation of homes, severe contamination of water supplies, seismic activity deep underground, hindering of renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar, and climate change. All of these harms that fracking poses against the environment can lead to great amounts of death among the population, whether from contaminated water, unhealthy amounts of chemicals in the atmosphere or ground causing disease, or even cancer.

The small, miniscule benefits of fracking are solely cheaper gas prices and a more abundant supply of gas; however, at some point, if used, all of the shale gas will be depleted and cars can no longer run on this source of natural gas. Therefore, why should gas companies use up all of the shale gas resources now and not use them at a later date? Also, is a small drop in the prices of gas worth the extreme environmental issues and human health risks that fracking will cause? I do not think that it is worth it. The Earth’s climate is already increasing at alarming rates, with glaciers melting, increased natural disasters, and ocean acidification being direct results of it. With a small decrease in gas prices could come a huge increase in repairs of homes due to natural disasters. Is it really worth it in the end?

There are countless other alternatives to fracking, which lead to many of the same benefits that fracking does but without the harms. Many renewable types of energy exist and are used in countries such as Portugal and Germany. It was reported that 70% of all of Portugal’s electric power in the first quarter of 2013 came from renewable sources. Some of these renewable energies include but are not limited to: solar power, tidal power, and wind power. All of these types of energies can provide vast amounts of energy and are clean, unlike the natural gas produced from fracking. Although these types of renewable energies are expensive to maintain at first, in the long run, energy prices will decrease, without posing long-term harms on the environment that fracking does.

During my sophomore and junior years of high school, I completed research on renewable energies. During these projects, I found that different types of wastes can be used as biodiesel and that plants grown in carcinogenic soil can be used as biodiesel as well. These types of biodiesel are renewable and clean-burning. To make matters even better, one type of waste can be used to make biodiesel for three cents per gallon! Fracking can be replaced by biodiesel, for an even cheaper price, possibly. The Earth is fragile. If us, humans, don’t take care of it, there is not another place for us to move to. Maybe the extra cents to pay for energy is worth it. Besides, why destroy the planet that has given us all we need?