Get the Leach outta here (sorry)

Leach-ate is a problem that isn't talked about much in the environmental conversation (in my nine months of experience). It starts as rainfall, and travels down through the waste that exist in landfills. Along the way, it collects toxic metals that are contained such as cadmium, lead, mercury. This in turn makes its way down into the groundwater, poisoning it and making it undrinkable to all people and unsuitable for fish habitats.

In class, we discussed how many landfills don't meed to the requirements to properly decompose and can be a potential leach-ate producer for decades. This is why most landfills that were constructed in modern times have a layer of clay and plastic along the bottom to stop the infiltration from occurring. Our practice for the AP exams also cover the fact that the leach-ate can be captured and converted into water for other uses like drinking water or plumbing.

A question I have is for you, Mr. Schreer. Do you read all these? I tried all year to make you laugh and I don't even know if you see it. I've enjoyed this class quite a bit, it has been the only science class I've looked forward to coming to, much less get a decent grade in.

Trying to Land on a solution

This weeks articles covered a subject that was extremely interesting and also quite relevant to our class (Quiz on it tomorrow). They discussed how land use is a growing concern for people across the globe. Many forests, marshes, and swamps are being converted into either cities (with impermeable surfaces) or farmland. To get here, the habitats of thousands of plants and animals is destroyed to create a nice and flat surface to construct an Arbies on. This demolishes food webs on a global scale and is causing many ecosystems to collapse or clash with human migrations.

In class, we discuss foresting and the effect it has on nature. If I cut down all the pine trees in my home town to plant coconut trees, all the woodpeckers, owls, squirrels, and insects that lived there have to move somewhere else. The resources in that area will then be strained, which leads to a collapse of the ecosystem due to lack of food, and lots of baby owls trying to figure out where their mom is. Seen here -> https://goo.gl/images/XxHhdm

A question I have relates to mountains. I predict that mountains are the last sort of ecosystem that remains undisturbed by human construction due to their inconvenient terrain. Is this true? I wonder if the populations of mountains have increased due to many species retreating towards them from their demolished homes.

Making the Precision Decision

Cold, shiny, hard, PLASTIC

This week I read about the three plastic islands that exist in the Pacific Ocean. I want to start by saying that this is something out of WALL-E. Are we seriously having to worry about mounds of plastic larger than Texas floating around, disturbing aquatic environments? Very sad and low energy is you ask me. Materials like Styrofoam even absorb other toxic chemicals on their journey to the ocean floor. Then they get ingested by the same fish we buy from the Fresh Market section at HEB. Cool. How do they get there? Well, many ships drop the trash off on accident, but about 80% comes from litter being blown into the ocean. And that crap doesn't even break down either. That bag of sun-chips you were too lazy to stop from blowing away on the beach can kill sea turtles that aren't even born yet.

In class, we watched an episode of VICE that went over a similar situation in the rivers of India. People have no regard for sanitation and bather, dink, and fish in the same river where their shit and trash also visibly inhabits. Not only is that totally disgusting, but it's very deadly. Cholera and other diseases are a major issues in India, especially for children. The fish and other plants existing downstream also get a literal taste of their waste and suffer from it. More toilets and better hygiene education is necessary if we want the people to stop living this disgusting stereotype.

I have a question about crime and liter in the water. Are people charged for what ends up in the ocean? people obviously don't care about the ocean or fish suffocating on bottle openers. How can the legal system better incentive people to not litter on the beach or dump anything in the water? Felony punishment? May see, harsh, but I think I have a right as a human to clean water, and people across the world are infringing on my right.

I think I'm suffering from Groundwater Withdrawals.

The article this week covers an aspect of California's water crisis in the form of groundwater depletion. Cali gets about 60% of all its water needs from the aquifers underground and aren't replenishing them at a nearly quick enough rate. It's another one of those problems that is simply out of sight and out of mind. Even more today, during California's infamous drought it currently suffers, the aquifers are virtually non being filled at all. Once the resource runs dry it will take thousands of ears to fill them back up. It won't take long to use up the water either. Will many aquifers becoming contaminated, the options are becoming more and more limited for people choosing to live in these areas with no natural source of water.

In class we discussed events similar to these in which aquifers either run dry or become contaminated. Once an oil leak or fertilizer dump reaches an aquifer, it will never be pure again. This may not affect wildlife forever but in terms of human consumption it matters a great deal. Naturally fresh water is a finite resource but we treat it like it will be around forever. Even today I'm learning that the average American uses over 500 gallons of water a day. That's almost 100 ties more than a family in Africa has for a week.

A question I have is in regard to Canada. They have the most amount of freshwater (in the form of ice) out of any country in the world. Someday will they be able to sell freshwater as an export? Te resorts will have sand from Costa Rica, trees from Hawaii, and water from Canada. It sounds funny,  but can that be our future?

Putting the "H" is "wow tHis sure is efficient"

In the article today, I read about hydrogen energy storage as means to connect wind and solar farms to "the grid." The reason this technology is seen as fit is due to its decreasing cost, job creation, and high efficiency. The hydrogen cells are being implemented more in more in countries such as the United States and Germany as a clean and cheap form of energy transfer. More American scientists are getting work in developing the technology needed to reach even better cells. To top it all off, it is already nearly 100 percent efficient. Hardly any volts of electricity are wasted in the energy transfer process, it really is the technology of the future.

In class, we discussed these technologies after watching a TED talk about hydrogen cells. It seems to me that more and more people are identifying the stagnant growth of renewable energies is the lack of large enough batteries and energy transfer processes. Once these technologies improve to the point of allowing total transfer of solar and wind energy, we can start to push out coal and oil from the energy landscape.

A question I have is about lobbying. Are there green energy companies that have congressmen and women in their pockets as well? I wouldn't mind having some tried and true un-American persuasion in that area be done. Maybe some money should be send straight into their pockets so we can get this show on the road already!

Suns out, guns out

I chose the article dealing with solar and wind energy, considering I know a bit about hydroelectric and I have no interest in geothermal or biomass based energy. Inside I learned that the Sun gives off 173,000 TW of energy continuously, which is about 10 times what humans need to use today. It was pressed once again in the article that battery technology is what is really holding back a large push towards renewable, considering the fact the batteries are too costly to store all the energy that could be captured from solar radiation. I also learned about wind energy's "high payback time." Apparently building the turbines is very easy and fast with a very short amount of time to wait to start profiting off the energy produced. This is what makes creating an entire farm or just a handful of them so viable, very little risk is associated with it.

In class we had to sit in the hallway due to a tornado warning. This gt me thinking about wind energy and the best locations for it. Assuming no damage is done to the turbines would it make sense to place these farms in areas with large storms in addition to the open and windy fields? The placement of solar panels and wind farms is a key component to convincing more people to switch to renewable energy. If they are put somewhere that makes sense and is somehow out of the way, maybe more people can get over how they look and see the clear benefits.

A question I have is about batteries. How soon is that tech gonna be cheap enough for schmucks like me to afford it? Tesla cars, solar panels, and other such environmentally friendly tech is on my bucket list of things to mess with one day, I just hope I don't have to give up doing other cool things to do so.

When reading about Europeans getting blown goes right

This week I'm writing about the article that covers wind energy. More specifically, how offshore wind farms work in Europe and the benefits they present to our impending energy Armageddon. According to one company, a single turn of the blades can power a European home for a day, so the output from these farms is no joke. Around 230,000 households will have all their electricity come solely from wind energy. With 12% of all wind farms now offshore and over $15 billion invested in the field, its clear that many people see this method of generation to be the future. The major problem that prevents this boom from becoming our main source is the fact that the energy storage industry can't keep up fast enough. Companies shave nowhere to put the excess energy they receive. Once the governments of Europe work together to establish a new grid system, renewable energy can continue to expand and Europe will be one step closer to complete use of renewable energy.

This relates to our project in class. Our group is learning about hydroelectric power, and its many drawbacks. The problem with using wind and hydroelectric power is the fact that water doesn't always gush and the wind doesn't always blow super hard. On those days, what are we supposed to do about electricity. Without nuclear or solar energy infrastructure, there could be serious problems with that plan of Europe.

A question I have is about wind farms. How much would it cost Houston to set up a bunch of these farms in Galveston to power the entire city? It would be a great example for the world considering our size. I can see some of the oil companies not letting that happen though.

Tired of all this mother-fracking oil in my mother-fracking water

Fracking is a topic of controversy that most people with even the smallest amount of knowledge regarding environmental science know about. What I didn't know was that these techniques have been around since the 40's, and that fracking is only legal due to a loophole in regulations. Fracking is the process of drilling holes near previously unreachable oil deposits, and shooting high volumes of water into the areas to break up the earth an leaving oil vulnerable to extraction. The dangers of such activity include but are not limited to groundwater contamination, minor earthquakes, air pollution, gas explosions, and infrastructure degradation. In class we have discussed this topic and its many side effects.

My family's ranch has been a staple of me and my two sibling's childhood for all our lives. We all shot our first animals there, learned how to drive a car, and hosted numerous amounts of Thanksgiving dinners and New Years celebrations. It was our home away from home. When my family purchased it from the previous ones, they took it withe the promise that we would take good care of the land and use it as a tool to help raise future generations and allow us to develop an appreciation for nature. That ended up being a pile of cow shit.
The previous owners kept the mineral rights, which we had no issue with since there was no available oil beneath us. Fracking activity moving closer to our Pleasanton home proved otherwise. In just a few months our sanctuary turned into a well oiled machine with workers driving in and out building more and more noise makers to scare the animals and decimate any chance of a peaceful afternoon ever again. we were bullied into selling our land, all because the previous owners saw a chance to make a bit of cash on the side. So much for family values.

A question I have is about that loophole. Will the Safe water Drinking Act ever be updated or revisited in any way? I imagine not, but if people become more passionate about this issue, and spun this as a health crisis then some real change could happen. I don't expect it to, but maybe if people cared.

That's Coal Country, Sir

The articles I read covered coal mining and some of the effects that it has on the environment. One such effect is coal combustion waste. This is the nation's second largest waste stream after municipal solid waste. Rain hits the waste that is dumped in landfills and allows the toxic metals to be leached into the soil. Another example is mercury pollution. Mercury is used sometimes to extract coal from rocks and accounts for 41 percent of mercury pollution in the country. Also, a huge issue is air pollution from coal. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,a d heavy metals are all released in the air and can cause acid rain, smog, and diseases of people and animals alike.

In class we did an activity that involved mining for chocolate chips. Our group made such a huge mess we ended up $384 million in the hole. Its not surprising to see how companies may want to loosen regulations and how people may into care about the environment when money is involved. We also discussed real world examples of leaching occurring in many old landfills that exist because of coal mining. Some of these areas will effectively be poisoned in the years to come.

A question I have is about acid rain. If a lake can become acidic enough to kill a flock of birds, which areas are most likely to eventually rain water that is just as acidic? Will West Virginia ever have true acid rain?

When doing Acid is not as fun as you remember

The first article we got this week covered acid drainage and its harmful effects. We talked about it in class to some length, but there were still aspects discussed ere that I may not have fully grasped. One example is just how far the drainage travels. I was unaware beforehand that some acid drainage goes over 8 miles downstream, affecting every fish, plant, or human that comes in contact with it. In addition to sulfuric acid, much of the leakage is other metals, which is what creates that rust colored lining on the bottom of some river beds. These are actually a huge problem as metals don't simply break down and disappear; they linger for years and years until someone physically cleans it out.

Two ways this info relates to class is our studies of mining. When companies use explosives or other disruptive techniques in their mines, many minerals are deposited where they shouldn't be. This creates the acid drainage we just talked about. It also goes hand in and with our lab we did today: the mining simulation. Our group was so concerned with making enough money to not be in debt that we didn't care if we made any smears (acid drainage) while mining. It's not hard to see how a company that's $200 million in the hole may not care about how clean the streams are.

A question I have is about coal mining. How long does it last? As the apparent most advanced country in the nation, we can't always stay on such cruel forms of energy such as coal, right? When does West Virginia become a solar energy capital of the world?

The Irrigation Situation

I read the second article that was provided this week and learn all about irrigation salinity. More specifically, the how, why and what is being down about his problem. It occurs because of over watering and irrigation use on farms this allows minerals underground to rise through the pools of water, effectively poisoning the soil. This usually is involved with salt, which is notoriously bad for crops (see Sherman's March to the Sea). People now are starting to be better about managing their land and water use to prevent the loss of usable soil.

As we learned in lass, it takes hundreds of years just to build a layer of soil only a few centimeters deep. Salting the limited Earth we have creates serious problems. Another thing we discussed in class was the growing human population. We actually need MORE food an land, yet we somehow continue to destroy it all. This is problematic when you think about how our population will potentially double in the next 40 years.

A question I have is about the amount of fertile land that is currently sitting on fertile soil. How much usable and rich soil is unusable because skyscrapers now sit on top. I wonder if there is anyway to get people to move off this land and onto the sandy areas that aren't good for growing anything. Then we could all live on a sunny beach like grandma wanted.

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?