PCBs (Plastic Causing Bad stuff)

This week I chose the second of the two articles given to us, the one about PCBs. I only know what we learned in class, so my knowledge doesn't extend as far as it probably could. From the reading, I learned about exposure to PCBs, health effects to this exposure, and laws that regulate PCB use. People years ago were exposed to this compound because many facilities improperly dumped excess waste all over the place! Even though it was a long time ago, it takes a very long amount of time for the compound to properly break down and no longer be a threat to our health. Prolonged consumption of PCBs can cause may forms of cancer and do permanent damage to your nervous, immune, reproductive, and endocrine system. The United States enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976, which stopped the usage of PCBs. Despite this, the effects of their use will linger for many decades until it all finally decomposes.

This information was brought up in class today when discussing the different types of harm that a disease or substance can have on the body. Based on the information from the article, PCBs are a carcinogen, endocrine disruptor, and neurotoxin. This also comes into play when we discuss different ways to avoid these kind of harmful substances. Having an aluminum water bottle would help us not only to save plastic but to avoid PCBs or other Harmful chemicals from entering our bodies.

A question I have is about the people affected by PCBs. Do they get to sue people who released the chemicals and used them in their products? What if the manufacturers honestly didn't know what they were doing was wrong?

Ew, there's a weird lookin' Population Growth on my back!

Three things that I have learned from the video posted today were how industrialization affects population growth (birth rates, life expectancy, and child mortality rates). As countries become more industrialized, they encounter greater education, better medicine, and more power for women. Birth rates actually decrease, as contraceptives use and more choice for women becomes widespread. Life expectancy goes up as sanitation and accessible medicine is introduced into daily life. Child mortality rates decrease due to more immunization and increased food supply. All these factors show how  more industrialization can actually create a more populated ans stable country (eventually).

Two ways this information ties back into class is during our observation of exponential growth and human impact on the natural world. When we think of more people, we think of more habitat loss and resource use, which is true. However, as we saw in the other video (s/o to Hans), eventually the population should level out as people keep reproducing at a smaller rate. Currently, the population of the world is growing exponentially, but hopefully will slow down around 12 billion.

A question I have is what will happen to countries with decreasing populations. I imagine economic conditions will blow, and the amount of empty space will be pretty sad. It makes me curious what the future of places like Norway or Japan have in store.

The Population Confrontation

The article that Schreer gave me this week taught me three things about human population and how it relates to the natural environment. This includes freshwater availability, food security, and carbon dioxide emissions. As a population within a country grows, it is shown that over time freshwater availability drops dramatically. This is most likely due to a combination of human consumption and also water pollution. This is also the main reason why developing countries, the ones with rapid population growth, experience an extreme shortage of food and declining population sizes for many animals. These kind of things occur because of a lack of means to obtain food at a sustainable level. Eventually people will resort to hunting and eventually hurt animals they aren't supposed to. And as expected, the CO2 levels of countries rise along with population, who need to drive and stuff.

These issues relate to APES when considering the effect of human interaction with aquaculture and the carbon cycle. As people continue to dumb crap into freshwater reserves, we ultimately screw ourselves over. Increased waste leads to less drinkable water and less food when you consider that the animals who drink from those sources will also die. Extra carbon emissions mess up our atmosphere and create too much carbon waste in the atmosphere. This throws the carbon cycle way out of balance and according to Dr. Seuss also chokes the birds flying by. Now that's a shame.

A question I have is about countries with smaller populations. I know places like Switzerland on Norway are all super eco-friendly, but is that naturally or because of conservation efforts? They have it easier than places like India I'd imagine.

Whale would you look at what you've done with the place

Three things I learned in the blog this week was how large land mammals were vital to the nutrient cycle, how whales affect how the ocean reacts to climate change, and that the amount of phosphorus moved to plants is about 23% of what it was. Apparently creatures like giant sloths were a big reason why nutrients were moved around so much many years ago. Their feces and decaying bodies helped bring to life the ecosystems we have now. Unfortunately, modern day equivalents like whales have been dying off, so nutrients aren't being passed around so much. This is especially true with things like phosphorus, which get pushed from the bottom to the to then on land by many aquatic mammals. When they die, plants go with them. And that also means us for anyone wondering.

Two ways this relates to APES is by looking at the human activity in the oceans and back at the nutrient cycles. As people continue to whale or remain inconsiderate with their oil and fuel spillages, we continue to kill of whales, which as we have learned is pretty awful for everyone. Their absence disrupts the nutrient cycle of phosphorus, but also just reduces general biodiversity. Without whales, I'd imagine that the krill population would explode to a fairly unnatural level. The imbalance all this could cause is scary to think about.

A question I have is how connected are whales? We learned of a few examples in the article, but I bet they play a much bigger role in the world than you'd be led to believe. Can we link whale deaths to some economic issue? Maybe we'd care then.

Rather have Bees than B's

Today I learned how size can affect data collected on species, how important pollinators really are to people, and how pesticides can pose a threat to certain insects. In regards to size, butterflies and bees are in major trouble. In all seriousness, it turns out smaller animals are more likely to be overlooked when conducting biodiversity studies. This is an issue when you look at what these tiny yet necessary creatures do. The blog says in the next decade we will lose over 20,000 species of plants, which could cause massive unbalance in food webs across the globe. One method of destruction that is particularly prolific in these examples is pesticides. Agricultural areas in particular can have a massive amount of deadly runoff in the events of rain or storms, which can potentially annihilate an entire population of pollinators.

Two ways this relates back to class is our study of biodiversity and the food web. Biodiversity is the measure of diversity of ecosystems,species and in this case; genes. When any amount of, say, butterflies are killed, the genes possessed by those individuals are gone forever and can't return without some form mutation or introduction of another species. Also, the food web that includes those butterflies and all the flowers they pollinate would be thrown out of whack and eventually collapse. We learned of this and how human activities can cause this to happen.

I wonder what insects are safe from pesticides? Does the mosquito spray we use at home affect all other insects? We imagine this all happening at farms, but perhaps our stuff at home is doing just as much damage.

Mo' Timber Money, Mo' Timber Probelms

The reading provided this week had many interesting points I could say I was aware of, but had specifics I wasn't. Food security is one I doubt many people think about. Rarely do our own food sources at home become insecure, but the Irish potato famine is an example of how biodiversity is necessary for our food supply to be healthy. Economic issues are always ones that surprise me when brought up with the environment. apparently while large amounts of harvest initially is the most immediate way to generate revenue, there are ecologically friendlier ways to make money with wildlife while maintaining biodiversity. Like that sweet cow example Mr. Schreer shared with us! Water purification is the last aspect of life i learned is affected by biodiversity. According to the article, many microorganisms are destroyed due to habitat loss, resulting in the water sources having nothing to filter certain compounds out.

Two ways this info relates to APES is economic and through food webs. Already I mentioned the potential loss of revenue that comes with a loss of biodiversity. Another point of interest is the conservation costs that are accumulating. The money needed for things like sanctuaries or bounties on invasion species is far into the billions range. The damage to our biodiversity is just as great now as the damage to our wallets. Another point of interest is the connection between biodiversity and the food webs we learned about. When a certain species goes missing from a web, it ultimately allows species above to dwindle and below to flourish. Very rarely does it work out where everything else survives, there is always collapse. The more diverse an ecosystem is, the more stable the web remains.

A question I have is about invasive species. Is there money in hunting these things? This is not an ethics or philosophical question but more about cold hard cash. Can a man make his living traveling abroad and killing all the animals and plants that are doing more harm than good? Maybe that's a good solution to our 2nd amendment infestation.

I'd Rather Work Alone than be Called a Cheetah

Three things I learned from the article this week were the necessary number of a species needed to repopulate, the importance of genetic diversity, and the bottleneck issue involving cheetahs. As stated by the author, it takes more than two of a kind to produce a sizable population. This is because a lack of diversity that comes from only two organisms leaves a group open to threats of disease, disasters, or natural selection. Genetic diversity is attained when there is enough variation within a species that at least some are able to survive and reproduce in the event of some misfortune. Cheetah in particular face this issue with having 99% similar DNA between two individuals., This means if any of them catch a fatal disease, about 99% in total will also.

This relates to APES with regard to our recent discussion of the bottleneck effect and biodiversity. The bottleneck effect, as we learned, is usually caused by human intervention in the form of poaching, farming, or habitat destruction. These activities combine to not only affect individual species, but entire ecosystems. Biodiversity is extremely important when considering how a food web remains in balance. In class we learned the effect and saw examples of how a collapse can affect animals, plants, and humans.

Do species naturally become more diverse over time? I wonder this especially with humans, They say one day all people will look nearly the same, which makes for a good TIME magazine cover, but is it true? And if it is, does that go for genetics as well? Will all our DNA become so similar one day that we just create a bottleneck effect accidentally? I guess this is really more than one question, but its all kinda one idea.

"Yeah, our office has to do biodiversity training today."

The economic benefits of biodiversity, importance of large carnivores, and how crucial bees are to humans are just a few of he things I learned from the blog this week. Bees are necessary for the survival of over 130,000 species, which accounts for 1/3 of all the food eat. The problem then comes when environmental pollution and pesticides come into the frame and cause a steady decline in bee population. As we all saw in the 2007 blockbuster Bee Movie, this decline can lead to massive problems. The importance of large carnivores is their ability to keep herbivores in check. When we kill all the wolves in a forest, nothing is stopping the rabbits from eating everything, leading to a collapse in the food web. The final point I found interesting was the economic value of biodiversity. While the article pointed out that it's strange and somewhat wrong to put a price on nature, it was estimated that spending around $25 Billion on reducing emissions could save humans an average of $3.2 Trillion.

The politics of carbon emission reduction and studying inter-species interactions relate to what we cover in APES. Convincing any government to invest the aforementioned $25 Billion in the environment is a stretch. Facts seem to always get ignored, and no one can ever think further than a week in government. Interactions between species such as bees and producers is a topic we cover in class as well. Observing things like energy transfer, reproduction, and consumption help us to see how the degradation of one species can potentially irreversibly harm another. 

One question I have after reading this is what carnivores have we replaced? If people hunt enough deer annually in Texas, for example, do we really need coyotes anymore? Does there exist some third level species that we don't need to exist anymore? 

Well guess what Tree; you're fired!

Three things I learned from the article by Ted Schuur include the effect climate change has on lightning, precipitation, and moisture in soil. From the reading, it is stated that increasing temperatures in North America due to climate change is increasing lightning strikes during storms and reducing precipitation and moisture levels on the ground. All these factors combine to rapidly increase the number of forest fires occurring the the northern part of North America.

The article relates to Environmental Science through the studies of the carbon cycle and animal habitats. As more organic material burns, more carbon is released into the atmosphere, further heating the earth and surrounding climates. Habitat loss comes into play when you consider how many animals will need to relocate to accommodate for their homes being burned down. This will definitely interfere with different food webs in different areas and create serious problems regarding survival of certain species.

A question I have after reading this is what point will the forest fires affect  populated areas? A fire in Alaskan wilderness generally doesn't get as much attention as one in Central Park. Which factor needs to change for a large group of people to be directly affected?

How about we ask Mr. Owl.

Cycle for me Baby, Yea!

I learned about the many nutrient cycles in our world that human activity has changed for the worse. The first example of this is excess phosphorus released by fertilizers into the ocean. This causes a bloom of sea-life, which kills the other organisms. Another, which I kinda already knew about, was the increase of carbon in the atmosphere due to the burning of the fossil fuels. What I didn't know was this simultaneously reduced the carbon sink levels underground. The last thing I learned was how excess legumes (Peanuts, peas, green beans, etc) planted create an excess of nitrogen in our soil.

Two ways this information relates to environmental science includes the effects on nutrient cycles and the political implications of the damage being done. The cycles being interrupted change fundamentally how the species involved can interact or even live in their environment. Less or more of something can be the difference between life or death of some species. The political side deals with how we stop these problems. On one hand, the positive feedback loops created by these issues with teh cycles in destroying ecosystems. On the other, how do you tell a family of peanut farmers to find new work?

A question I have is which cycle being affected is the most dangerous? Will changes to the sulfur cycle really matter? Which do I need to be conscious about when i spend money or go somewhere?

Bro This Shit's Important!

Three things I learned from the article were many specific instances of introducing a new species to an ecosystem and it screwing up a food web. The titular example presented involved palm trees being planted instead of native trees near the ocean shore where giant Rays lived. Since Palms make crappy homes for birds, they moved away and there was no poop (nitrogen) flowing into the water, creating life for the Rays to strive off. The other two examples I learned about were similar situations involving Salmon off the west coast of the United States and Foxes killing birds in Alaska. Both times nutrients were removed from the land or sea ecosystem, endangering the nutrient cycle involving the other.

Two ways these events affect Environmental Science include the use of Chemistry and Economics. The cash crops being grown (palms) are there to support life of humans there and other places, so the argument comes to the forefront of weather or not they need to protect the rays, even if it means losing their line of work. The chemical side of the equation comes in the form of the Nitrogen cycle involving the guano. A special isotope called Nitrogen-15 was the key variety of nitrogen that enrich the ocean and soil near the shores. Without it, the trees, plankton, and other sea-life would suffer greatly.

A question I want to ask now is what can I eat as a person living in Houston that won't support some farm ruining lives elsewhere? What foods can I eat that are grown in places they naturally belong and don't kill the planet at the same time? My guess would be not many.

Coral, yer Mom's dead!

Three things I learned from this article include the alarming rate that coral reefs are being affected by climate change (exacerbated in 50 to 100 years), that water absorbs one third of all carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and that coral reefs support a quarter of all fish in the ocean.

The above info applies to APES when we see the chain reaction caused by the carbon dioxide entering the water. The substance makes the ocean more acidic (three times as of last year) which in turn makes it difficult for clams, mussels, etc. to grow shells. When these fish all die there is no food left for bigger fish, so they go to the shore to eat us and Jaws goes from Science Fiction to Documentary. Another way this pertains to our class is through the political side. The article discusses how the only real way to fix this problem is to drastically slash the amount of fossil fuels burned near water areas.

Even if we stopped polluting the ocean, what do we need to do to restore the reefs?

That Makes Me So Wet

Today I had the pleasure of taking my younger sister and brother to see the movie Finding Dory. It was very cute and funny, but the part that you are interested in was what happened after we exited the theater. A sudden downpour came down on us like you wouldn't believe.

My siblings were soaked and got my backseats all wet, but I didn't mind because I saw something that was funny to me, a pair of birds hiding from the rain under a dumpster. they flew there instead of in any of the nearby trees. It got me thinking about the post I made yesterday and how I argued against urban sprawl and how it harmed animals and took away their homes. But now I'm beginning the wonder if only some get hurt, maybe a few have begun to rely on us building forever.

You hear about it all the, two species that have nothing in common co-existing to benefit each other. There's alligators, and those small birds, sharks and those small fish, so why not humans and say rats, cockroaches, pigeons, etc? Could you make the argument that some animals have thrived greater than they ever could without skyscrapers and malls? Sure, maybe their health isn't all that great but don't we tend to measure success in all species by its population? You would never say that cows and struggling as a species, even though most of them have horrible diets and routines on their "farms." It's an interesting thing to think about.

I probably wont write anymore until I absolutely have to, or I guess if I'm impregnated by an alien species That'd be pretty interesting.

Stomach Bug

A few weeks ago I encountered a man who was friends with my dad. I learned he was recently diagnosed with having a form of cancer in his stomach, a strange side effect that came from a build up of bacteria in his organs.

While this problem may not seem to relate to nature, I think it is relevant when discussing how he got the bacteria. When he was younger, he lived in an extremely poor area of Houston, and often times had to resort to digging through trash to find an adequate amount of food for him and his family. The doctors believe that years of doing this is what caused him to ingest the deadly bacteria. This problem isn't restricted to that of people, we see if frequently with animals as well.

When animals lose their habitat, they usually are forced into civilian areas and are starved for a new source of food. Sharks come closer to shore, bears start licking grills clean, and birds find table scraps for their young. To some it may seem like a natural part of life, but in reality it is far from it. My dad's friend is an example of the harm that overpopulation and urban sprawl does to not only humans, but animals as well.

Again, this particular situation may not be directly related to Environmental Science, the themes do reflect an issue that is ever present in any natural setting.