AP Environmental Science


How can you save the planet?
April 15, 2007, 6:37 pm
Filed under: Chemicals, Clean Air, Global Warming

Usually for vacations, especially ones that require long plane rides, I buy a couple magazines to read on the way. One of the magazines that I bought this time was Glamour. As I was sifting through the articles, only reading the ones that I have a real interest in, I came to an article entitled “The woman’s guide to saving the planet.” The first thing listed was the top 10 ways to help. This list was very predictable including: changing to flourescent light bulbs, driving fuel efficient cars, conserving water, recycling, etc. The common ones.  Then it went on to state that the average American throws away 21 bags of garbage each month. I was amazed at this number. It also said that one of the studies indicated that 75% of things in landfills could have been recycled, mainly plastics and electronic goods.

Next was the discussion about dry-cleaning clothing, microwaving in plastic, and cooking in Teflon pans, all of which may be bad for you and are definitely bad for the environment. The issue with dry-cleaned clothes is that it a chemical used may be linked to cancer and reproductive damage. Not ony could it damage your health, but also air and the producing the plastic that is wrapped around your clothes when you get them from the dry cleaners uses a lot of energy.

Eco-friendly beauty supplies and clothing that is good for the environment is the next topic. Included in the clothing section are: clothes that have been colored with vegtable dyes, organic cotton, washing your clothes in cold water, and buying shoes that can be resoled easily. Eco-gadgets that are do not put a drain on energy and resources including: Water pwered clocks, Eyemax radio, Soldius solar recharger, Vessel Candela lights, and Muji cardboard speakers. Why these products? They are recharged by sunlight, rechargeable batteries, or they are biodegradable.

 The magazine also gives some statistics including:

” 10 times as much energy is wasted when you run a computer screen saver instead of using sleep mode.”

“14 plastic grocery bags contain enought petroleum to fuel a car for a mile. Make friends with a cloth tote.”

“20 gallons of water go down the drain daily when you have a drip-drip-drip faucet. Call the plumber!”

“75 percent of energy used to power electronic items is consumed while they’re plugged in but not in use.”

“31,600 planes could be built with the amount of soda cans and other aluminum stuff thrown away every year.”

“100,000,000 trees are made into junk mail every single year. And no, that is not a typo. What a waste.”

What really got me were the statistics at the end. I think that my family is guilty of every thing listed above. The computer that I am writing this on has a computer screen saver not on sleep mode. When my Mom goes to the grocery store she comes home with plastic and sometimes paper bags. In some of the faucets in my house, there is a drip-drip and we leave our electronics plugged, whether they are off or not. We try to recycle our soda cans, but sometimes it doesn’t always happen. And the junk mail we get all the time in the mail. Sometimes we get more junk mail then mail that it actually worth our time reading. This is a real eye-opener.

Article in Glamour April 2007



Mercury Reductions
November 11, 2006, 3:10 pm
Filed under: Animals, Chemicals, Pollution

 

Mohave Generating Station, coal power plant in Nevada

The Environmental Protection Agency required coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury pollution earlier in 2006. Many individual states disagreed with this rule and watned the standards to be set highere.  About 12 states have increased the requirements for coal-fired power plants.

One of the states, Michigan, is going to require that plants “to cut 90 percent of mercury emissions by 2015.”

Is it really possible? Yes. In fact, 1 power plant, We Engeries, has already began reducin as much as 90% of its mercury from its emissions. “It is the first in the country to permanently install the necessary equipment.”

Althouh We Engeries in Michigan is doing this, pollution controls will not be needed to be installed accross the US for mayny years to come.

However, some argue that decreasing the mercury emissions from coal-fired plants will not necessarily decrease mercury in the State’s fish.

 I think that is worth a try and even if it doesn’t decrease mercury in the fish, it would probably still help the environment. Plus it might. We won’t know until we try.

States Toughen Federal Mercury Pollution Rules    By: Elizabeth Shorgren Information from: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6444174  Picture from: www.wikipedia.org



Toxic Waste Mystery in Ivory Coast
October 14, 2006, 3:41 pm
Filed under: Chemicals

Toxic waste was illegally dumped off of the Ivory Coast main city Abidjan. Somehow toxic waste on a tanker which was docked at the city’s port excaped and was dumped at 17 different “mostly open-air sites in the lagoon area.” “We have now reached 10 deaths, 102000 (medical) consultations and 70 people have been hospitalized,” according to the helth ministry spokesman Simeon N’Da. Most people who were sick from these toxic wastes were vomiting, and had diarrhea, nosebleeds, and nausea.

The hospitals were packed as residents claimed illness due to the toxic wastes; however, the government supports the position that the numbers are so large because some people just wanted free medicine.

It is still uncertain how the toxic waste was disposed of. Investigations are still underway. The waste was unloaded from the Panamanian-registered Probo Koala which is chartered by Trafigura, a Dutch based oil trader.

The company says that no wrongdoing was committedk, claiming that Tommy, a waste disposal company, was in charge of the slops.

“The company’s director and West Afrcia regional director have been detained in Abidjan and face charges under Ivorian toxic waste and poisoning laws.” As well, the Probo Koala has been impunded in Estonia’s Paldiski port.

At this poing 14 out of the 17 toxic waste sites have been cleaned.

It is really unfortunate that these toxic wastes were disposed of leaving people dead and seriously ill. Whoever did this, whether it was an accident or on purpose, should fess up and take the consequences. I believe whoever did this knew exactly what they were doing because it wasn’t just dumped at one site, it was dumped at 17 sites.

Ivory coast toxic waste death toll rises to 10  BY: Peter Murphy and David Mardiste http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=SA0112&articleID=C22AD21309A726D5666C93E080AC



Petroleum Potential v. Wildlife
September 15, 2006, 1:50 am
Filed under: Animals, Chemicals, Our Oceans

The US Administration had planned on leasing wetlands near Teshekpuk Lake in Arctic Alaska for oil development. This, however, will not be happening in light of a federal judge’s decision which temporarily halted this plan.

These wetlands are home to migratory waterfowl from 3 continents during their featherless molting period, as well as to a herd of caribou.

If the US Bereau of Land Management (BLM) was able to complete the sale as expected on September 27, 1.4 billion barrels of oil would be up for grabs.

According to US District Court Judge James Singleton, the BLM did not consider what the oil development would do to the areas near the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The sale stipulations did, however, include that the

Both sides are able to dispute this preliminary ruling until September 15.

As of September 8, both sides were considering what they should do next in the very touchy issue.

In my opinion, this is a lot of oil that could be put to good use; however, we should wait until better ways of getting the oil are developed. Another solution is to develop a more fuel efficient car…that way not only would we be disturbing wildlife in the arctic, but we would polluting our air less.

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=9E9A30B74C49D07D8150C8C83B1

By: Yereth Rosen (September 8, 2006)



Sulphur Dioxide in the Atmosphere
August 28, 2006, 11:21 pm
Filed under: Chemicals

Last year, acid rain affected the food safety in China. This acid rain was caused by sulphur dioxide from factories and power plants. Over 50% of the 696 cities and countries that were monitored had acid rain, according to a report from the standing committee of parliament. One third of China’s land was affected by the sulphur dioxide, according to Sheng Huaren, the NPC standing committee cice chairman. China is the world’s leader in contributing sulphur dioxide into the air. Their numbers rose 27% from 2000 to 2005, making the amount emitted to 25 million tons. The amount of sulphur dioxide released into the atmosphere by China were double the acceptable limit according to Sheng. The excessive sulphur dioxide amounts are mostly contributed to coal-burning power stations and coking plants. In Shanxi, China’s main coal-burning province, 650 out of 680 coking plants emitted too much sulphur dioxide.

Air pollution is also on a rise affecting 40% of Chinese cities. This air pollution can be mostly attributed to sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. With the 2008 Olympics coming up soon in Beijing, China has agreed to get rid of the smog filled skies and replace them with clear skies.

In my opinion, it is a shame that China’s food is being jeopardized by sulpher dioxide, something that they have the power to control. I would be nervous if I was a farmer that my crops and animals would be affected by the acid rain and would die, thus leaving me with no money. Other countries should be concerned as well because the acid rain could travel and ruin their lands.

<a href=”http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=A9E18CB5DD9D3AB420946FA19EBBBF52&ref=sciam&chanID=sa012″>Scientific American: Acid rain affects large swathes of China: report</a>