Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
December 07, 2005
US wins pesticide exemption ban
A recent CNN.com article stated that the US won a pesticide exemption ban, which has actually been banned by an international treaty. The pesticide is methyl bromide which many farmers use as a pesticide for their crops. It basically stated that there was not another substitute that farmers could use and without the pesticide their crops and corresponding economic sector would suffer. The exemption was lobbied for by the agriculture and manufacturing industries which show where their interests lie.
Methyl bromide, as described in the article, is a very serious toxin. Workers who inhale much of the pesticide can experience convulsions, comas, neuromuscular and cognitive problems, and sometimes even death. Researchers, however, do not know what the effects are from long-term, low contact exposure. Some growers still believe that problems so not exist if the pesticide is used correctly. However, a few workers feel their bouts with headaches and vision problems are the result of working with the toxin and a community who suddenly became ill around the time the pesticide was being applied to local fields actually settled a suit with local fruit producer who used the pesticide. A school located near fields fumigated with methyl bromide had elevated levels of the toxin the school’s air. In fact, the American Association of Pesticide Control Centers had 395 reports of methyl bromide poisonings in the last six years.
There is a current conflict in whether farmers actually need this pesticide. A former user of the pesticide switched to organic farming. Even though she claims a smaller yield, higher crop rotation and intensive plant management costs, she also gets a price premium for her organic fruit. Another farmer in the area produces a small pesticide-free crop yield, but feels he would not be able to compete in the market if he switched to organic fruit only.
This article angered me. This pesticide has been banned internationally for obvious health reasons, yet the US feels they need to use it to grow their crops. A small amount of the actual pesticide stays on the crops and kills the pests. However, pesticides can seep into groundwater or other area waterways. People drink the water or eat the fish in the local streams with the pesticides. Pesticides can travel through the air to other places and people breathe the contaminated air.
The use of pesticides can be changed in many ways. If people are aware of the health risks of pesticides, they could lobby the government, instead of only agricultural and manufacturing interests vying for governmental recognition. Those who have had health problems related to the pesticides could educate others or take a stand themselves against pesticide use. I don’t think people know much about organic food to purchase it and also sometimes it costs more to buy. By increasing the amount of organic food at the same, or lower, price as treated food, consumers are given more choices. Subsidies or incentives for farmers to grow organic food would help initially offset the high costs of producing organic food, and perhaps more people would be willing to grow organic food. Again, teaching about the possible health effects of pesticide use may increase the demand for more organic food. Finally, funding research on finding alternatives to pesticides use is important to wean farmers off pesticides and provide them with suggestions for ways to grow their crops. Some research has focused on using mulch with or instead of methyl bromide with the plastic covering has actually been positive. The most important ways to achieve results are through education to consumers and a commitment by farmers and government officials.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/pesticide.politics.ap/index.html
Posted by Shannon Sellnow at 05:14 PM | 3. Principles in Environmental Science
Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
November 10, 2005
Free The Salmon
Alterations to the Columbia River have severely altered the landscape, and the ability for Salmon to migrate. As biologists learn more about our surroundings it can be better understood how to preserve our ecosystems. People who rely on the dams have a good reason for doing so. Many farmers rely on the heavily engineered river to supply them with water for farming. In addition some people feel that their electricity costs will rise. But if all ecosystems are treated like the Columbia basin imbalances will occur and the results will not be benign. The four dams on the lower Columbia need to be breached in order to prevent the collapse of a species and an ecosystem. The dams that should be breached are not main sources of irrigation they are simply power facilities that use inefficient and old technology to do so. The dams that cause the most harm are the ones on the lower river where slow moving water is detrimental to the salmon population. which provide fractional amounts of electricity compared to many of the other dams further upstream. "Some will say that we have not done enough science," Kitzhaber told the American Fisheries Society. "I say that we can always play that card as an excuse for inaction and as a justification for avoiding tough choices. But exactly what additional scientific experiment is necessary to demonstrate that it is easier for salmon to migrate in a free flowing river than to negotiate a several hundred-foot-high concrete barrier?" Woody Guthrie in his songs talks about the great engineering works that were built by engineers who said, "no possibilities, either biological or engineering, have been overlooked in devising a means to ensure perpetuation of the Columbia River Salmon." Now with one species extinct and more on the endangered species list, the Columbia River needs to be de engineered to allow the salmon to swim freely.
Posted by William Quinn at 08:51 AM | 3. Principles in Environmental Science
Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
October 20, 2005
Natural Attenuation: Strategies for managing urban pollution
There is a great article from the EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union journal titled Natural Attenuation Strategy for Groundwater Cleanup Focuses on Demonstrating Cause and Effect.(Vol. 82 number 5 Jan. 30, 2001). This article discusses the use of natural attenuation for cleaning up ground water.
The EPA’s definition of natural attenuation is “a variety of physical, chemical, or biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.” This is further discussed in the article on how there needs to be a direct cause and effect relationship with the pollutant the natural process, which will cause remediation. This process is then cited in multiple case studies through the article.
One very interesting factor in the cause and effect scheme is the nature of remediation required and its affect on the process proposed. For example, if there is a water treatment plant down stream of a sewage outtake, the need for water suitable to be treated for human consumption is the effect which must be considered. The process then would be tailored to meet those specifications. A very important factor in meeting those specifications regardless of the exact situation is that continual monitoring must be done to ensure that the natural processes are, in fact, working towards meeting the goal.
The article discusses the processes involved in natural attenuation to be: “biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, radioactive decay, and chemical or biological stabilization.” These processes are quite general and broad in scope so I want to discuss one method or process and how I think it’s importance is key to utilizing natural attenuation while facilitating ecological support.
This method is the use of wetland biodegradation, sorption, and biological stabilization to create naturally replicated, self sustaining systems, to counter some of the effects of urban pollution. There is actually a company right now in the Minneapolis area utilizing this method. So it can and is being done, but mostly in an aesthetic sense, with attenuation being a secondary factor. I feel this should shift and be incorporated into urban water shed management.
The current trends of urban sprawl have seen an alteration of viewpoint about the positive properties of wetlands already existing in suburban communities. These wetlands previously were seen as smelly and undesirable. The current trend though has been to appreciate the biodiversity which wetlands tend to support. These newly developed communities have left the wetlands intact, to some degree and I feel that they can be utilized to purposefully channel wastewater and other runoff which has a high potential to transport contaminants into larger watershed areas. Waste water treatment output could also be designed to flow through these monitored wetlands creating a buffer zone for the current receptacle where the waste water is being deposited.
The secondary benefit to utilizing these wetlands and newly designed wetlands, is that biodiversity would be supported, the aesthetics of the area would be greatly increased compared to impervious layouts, and a buffer zone would be created between urban sprawl and the sanctity of our current bounty of water resources.
Either way you look at it, the cost for utilizing pre-existing wetlands would include water transport shifting for waste water and point sources, and monitoring of the effectiveness of the natural attenuation from the wetlands. This could save large amounts of money in the future on water treatment and contamination removal. This hopefully will become a bigger issue as we realize that natural is sometimes best when solving our problems.
Posted by Jason Carlson at 12:18 PM | 3. Principles in Environmental Science
Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
October 19, 2005
The Latest Threat to the Endangered Species Act
Most of the writing below is from a letter I sent to Minnesota senator Norm Coleman recently concerning the possible revisions to the Endangered Species Act, which would give more power to the landowners of endangered species' habitats in deciding how they are managed and protected. The House has already approved these revisions and details about them can be found at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4930486
Hello Mr. Coleman,
My name is Joe Norcross and I am a student attending the University of Minnesota. I am currently a journalism and environmental science major, so it is probably not surprising that I write to you out of concern for the changes being made to the Endangered Species Act. I am strongly opposed to any changes to the ESA that would weaken it. I believe that many of the places being considered for a removal or weakening of their protection status are instrumental to the survival of many species of birds, mammals, fish, and even insects that are not only needed for aesthetic reasons, but for economic reasons as well. As the changes to the ESA are being pushed for economic reasons, I will argue for the latter, even though I believe the aesthetic value provided by the ESA match the economic needs the ESA prevents.
I can understand why some would ask for a weakening of the policies set by the ESA. Many landowners do suffer as a result of a local species being declared endangered, and often lose their ability to do what they wish with their own land. Many of these landowners, however, are being compensated or receiving compromises in the form of HCPs (Habitat Conservation Plans), which even allow them to destroy part of an endangered species habitat along with a limited number of the species itself (Environmental Science, Cunningham, pg. 233). I also believe many landowners protest the ESA out of ignorance of how much the species protected benefit them. For example, many species of birds will be threatened with extinction should the changes be made to the ESA, 2,123 of which are currently on the list. Many of the bird species' primary food sources are insects that are known to feed off the crops of farmers. Should these bird populations decimate from the loss of their habitats, these insect populations will thrive and, in turn, ravage the crops of farmers. Bee populations will also suffer without habitat protection, also causing harm to America's agriculture; for, without bees, pollination of many farmer's plants will become more difficult. In some cases, increasing the land area may only decrease the plant yield as a result of habitat-loss for bees.
The ecological significance of many insect and fish species are also not well-understood, affecting us in many small to perhaps profound ways. The loss of fish species on the higher part of the food-chain will allow fish species on the lower part to thrive. If these types of fish experience a population boom, plankton and aquatic plant species will suffer--organisms that are among the most productive in photosynthesis. If these organisms decrease in numbers, their oxygen products will decrease as well as their ability to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So when we discuss the issue of biodiversity, we are not only discussing the future success of our economy dependent on nature recreation/tourism and agriculture, but the future of our planet and the human species itself. Well, that is all I will you bother with and I thank you for reading.
Posted by Joe Norcross at 08:41 PM | 3. Principles in Environmental Science
Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
September 28, 2005
Is Cocaine Killing More Than Just Humans?
It's a fact, cocaine kills about 10 people a day around the world, but humans are not the only ones. A recent flyby of Columbian anti-drug air planes found that due to government spraying of coca plant fields in Columbia, the drug lords have taken their operations to the national parks in Columbia. This brings up a major problem for the Columbian government. Columbia is home to thousands of exotic plant and animal species, ranging from the Ande's mountains to the Sierra Macarena national park. To spray these rain forests would be devastating to plants and animals alike. However, to allow drug lords to continue the burning and cutting of these parks and forests is nonetheless destructive. I believe that instead of spraying these parks, the Columbian government needs to find a way to get the drug dealers out of them peacefully. There are dozens of species in these rain forests that are not found anywhere else in the world. With the current situation, the forests are being destroyed no matter what the plan of action is. I cant see any other resolution except to let the drug dealers run their operations on their own private land, and quit spraying their fields of coca plant. That does not end the war on drugs, but pointless destruction of these priceless rainforests does not end the war either. No matter what the outcome, thousands of acres of rain forest and who knows how many species will be destroyed. Spraying the rain forest with toxic chemicals does not stop drug dealers from finding ways to get what they want.
Posted by Tanner Kraft at 09:06 PM | 3. Principles in Environmental Science
Category "3. Principles in Environmental Science"
September 25, 2005
Feral Cats Reek Havok on Enviroment
My neighbor who happens to be a cat lover was recently telling me about her trip to Maui. Last spring she and her husband visited the village of Kapalua. Kapalua was teeming with hungry feral cats. She observed them in the morning and at night. They would be in small gangs of cats and sometimes large colonies. They were on the Ritz Carlton property where my neighbor was staying. They were on the golf course and at the restaurants. She said there were always several cats slinking in the bushes and near the dumpsters.
Off handedly it sounded like cats might go the way of rats or cockroaches. They don’t appear to have a natural animal predator so humans start to think of unnatural ways to keep their population in check. However cockroaches are insects with bristly legs and antennae. They’re filthy pests. Rats are mammals but they’re rodents and connote someone underhanded and sneaky. Let’s think about cats. They have a long and involved relationship with people.
According to an article by Stanley A. Temple and Scott R. Craven both professors at UW Madison, cats were first domesticated in Egypt around 2000BC. They didn’t appear to get to Greece until nearly 500BC probably due to the fact that cats were worshipped in Egypt and exportation of them was not allowed. By 300AD Britain had domestic cats. European colonists introduced cats to the world.
Based on U.S. Census data, the estimated numbers of pet cats in urban and rural regions of the United States have grown from 30 million in 1970 to 60 million in 1990. In rural areas where free-ranging cats are usually not regarded as pets, approximately 60% of households have cats. In households where people claim to “own” cats 30% of households nationwide have cats. The combined total of pets and free-ranging cats in the U.S. is probably more than 100 million. In the state of Wisconsin alone with approximately 550,000 rural households rural free-ranging cats (not house pets) may be as high as 2 million (see http://wildlife.wisc/extension/catfly3.htm).
Citing the article “Cats and Wildlife a Conservation Dilemma” nationwide, rural cats probably kill over a billion small mammals and hundreds of millions of birds each year. Urban and suburban cats add to this toll. Many are native songbirds and mammals whose populations are already stressed by other factors. Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause except habitat destruction. Cats can out number and compete with native predators and they eat many of the same animals that native predators do. When in large numbers they can reduce availability of prey for native predators like hawks and weasels.
This is an obvious problem to me and has been a problem for some time. However there is much controversy over whether there is a problem and/or how we should deal with any “perceived” problem with cats. Anna Sadler of the National Animal Interest Alliance (N.A.I.A.) states that reliable data about feral cats is sparse and difficult to obtain. She states that a few cities now regard feral cats as urban wildlife, like the squirrels and possums that share neighborhoods with humans. For some reason I don’t think that would sit with the scientific community. I also take umbrage when she said that studies of stomach contents of cats showed that the majority of their prey was rodents and lizards rather than birds. I fail to see how stomach contents can tell us how many birds a cat has killed especially when many cats are given supplemental feedings and yet continue to hunt. Many people including the N.A.I.A. support the TNR or Trap-neuter-return plan.
This is where the cats are trapped, fed, clipped at the ear after they are vaccinated for rabies and then they are neutered and returned to their managed wildlife colony. The manager sees to it that the cats are fed. After reading the suggestions from the brochure from the Office of Public Affairs U.S. Fish and Wildlife it made sense “not” to feed stray cats because that in itself would maintain high densities of cats that kill and compete with native wildlife populations. Cat colonies will form around sources of food and grow to the limits of the food supply. For these reasons keep only as many pets as you can feed and care for. Neuter your cat of course. Keep it in doors especially while birds are feeding.
Posted by Ramona Beard at 09:01 PM | Comments (1) | 3. Principles in Environmental Science