Tag Archives: Environment

WHICH ONE IS BETTER: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICES OR PRINTED TEXTS?

Posted on November 19, 2018 by | Leave a comment

This is an image of the most commonly used media for educational purposes: technological devices (laptop on the top left and tablets on the top right) and printed books (bottom). (Source of compiled images (by Jolean Endique): Wikimedia Commons)

I am a student myself and I know the struggle of bringing a 1000-page textbook every day. However, no matter how heavy my textbooks are, I would still prefer using them over any technology on any day and here are the reasons why.

Most university professors specifically mention how laptop usage is prohibited in class. You might want to know why. Studies show that students who type their lecture notes instead of writing them, have shallower thought processing and have the tendency to types notes verbatim without understanding them. Students who read printed texts have better comprehension, better understanding, and better memory than those who use any handheld technological devices.

Handheld devices also offer a lot of distractions to students. You see those hyperlinks on the texts that you are reading? How about those advertisements that spark your curiosity that it makes you click on it? You hear a “ping” and you decided to check your email “quickly”. Traditional textbooks clearly do not pose this problem to students. If a student is still distracted otherwise, then that student has concentration issues that need to be dealt with.

Manufacturing tablets are bad for the environment and are harmful to our health. As stated by the New York Times, “adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book”. Apparently, manufacturing one tablet produces 66 lbs of carbon dioxide and requires 33 lbs of minerals, 79 gallons of water, and 11-kilowatt hours of fossil fuels. The extraction of those minerals is costly. Those 79 gallons of water can be supplied to families in communities that do not have clean drinking water. Fossil fuels are limited and could better be used to provide electricity in Sub-Saharan, Africa area where 600 million people lack access to electricity instead. Oh, should I also mention the continuous burning of fossil fuels to charge these tablets and laptops as a downside?

Electronic waste (e-waste) has now increased to about 63% in east and southeast Asia according to National Geographic. What do you think about this image?

This image is a representation of the increasing e-waste in the east and southeast Asia. (Image source: https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/01/17/e-waste-skyrockets-in-east-asia/)

E-waste is often burned or washed with acids to extract precious metals such as gold, silver, palladium, and copper. Washing e-waste with acid could contaminate the air and water which can alter thyroid function and lung function and can also affect growth and cognitive health.

In an economic perspective, tablet and laptop maintenance can be really expensive. This often requires constant software upgrading, anti-virus software installation, frequent battery, broken hardware or accessory replacement, and constant demand for battery recharging. Books, on the other hand, require none of these.

Technology is greatly helpful useful when used moderately. However, for health, educational, and environmental purposes mentioned above, there is no doubt that printed textbooks are definitely more preferable.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Tagged , ,

Plastics Give a Helpful Hand but are They Polluting Our Land?

Posted on November 5, 2018 by | 1 comment

One of the most influential technological advances affecting our society has been the development of the plastic water bottle in 1973. From using animal bladders to mason jars, the evolution of the water bottle has enabled us to easily and safely transport and store water. As water is essential for life, this is great news! Or is it?

Plastic Bottles. By Tony Webster. Image from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 2.0

Governments have been evaluating the cost and benefits of plastic bottles in regards to global warming. Some argue that they should be completely removed from consumer availability. Leading the way, the town of Bundanoon, Australia, outlawed bottled water in 2009.

Despite the expanding movement to ban plastic water bottles, there are many who think a ban will negatively impact our society and environment. During times of crisis, such as contaminated water supplies or natural disasters, plastic water bottles have been a vital part of emergency water supplies. Increases in plastic water bottle sales have been correlated with the occurrence of tropical storms. Thus, the removal of plastic water bottles would eliminate a reliably clean and readily available source of water, delaying the recovery of affected areas.

Bottled water offers consumers a healthy beverage contrary to sugary soft drinks. When the University of Vermont banned the sale of plastic water bottles in 2013, sales of sugary drinks increased. Counterproductively, this caused a 20% increase of plastic bottles on campus.

If a ban on plastic water bottles has so many detrimental consequences, then you may be asking yourself, why are so many towns and universities banning them?

To date, about 70% of plastic water bottles end up in the ocean or landfills in the United States. At this rate, by 2050 the accumulated weight of plastic water bottles is estimated to overtake the weight of fish in the ocean. As described in the Ted Talk, used plastic water bottles follow three main routes, of which two end in our ecosystems. Decreasing plastic water bottle availability will reduce pollution.

YouTube Preview Image

Youtube: TedTalk about the life of a plastic bottle

Public water fountains are a prevalent and cost-effective alternative to plastic water bottles. Penn State University mathematicians have estimated that investing in a $20 reusable water bottle will save an American on average $1,236 per year. Not only can water fountains save money, they provide code-regulated water that is fluorinated without contaminants from PET plastic.

Enacting a plastic water bottle ban will save people thousands, provide a cleaner source of water, and decrease the amount of plastic introduced into our environment. Keeping plastic water bottles would decrease consumer soft drink intake and provide a reliable source of water in crisis. So should we ban plastic water bottles?

I believe that a conscious effort should be made by the public to utilize reusable water bottles and water fountains. What is the use of having plastic water bottles, when we will have no clean water to fill them with? Elimination of plastic water bottle waste may help to tip the scales in the fight against plastic pollution in our environment. 

-Teresa Howard

1 Comment

Tagged , , , ,

This is the Last Straw (literally)

Posted on November 5, 2018 by | 1 comment

Plastic straws (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

I’m sure you’re all aware of the most recent environmental movement: elimination of single-use plastic straws. From Starbucks to McDonald’s, major companies around the world are pledging to ditch plastic straws. Although they are small, their effects are mighty. Close to 500 million plastic straws are thrown away every day in the United States. Some end up in landfills, but a large number become plastic trash in our oceans. The solution was to introduce “sippy cup” plastic lids and alternative-material straws. This is a huge win for anti-straw advocates, but what are the true environmental effects?

On one side, plastic straws should stay as their ban results in an insignificant decrease of plastic waste in our oceans. According to a recent report by environmental group Better Alternatives Now (BAN), plastic straws comprised only 7% of plastic items found along the California coastline, compared to plastic bags at 9% or plastic bottle caps at 17%. When taken by weight, a report by Jambeck Research Group places plastic straws at only 0.03% of aggregate plastic in the oceans themselves. Majority of plastic waste found in oceans actually comes from fishing nets.

Plastic waste gathered at a shoreline (Image courtesy of Pixabay)

Furthermore, the BAN report also noted that products labeled as biodegradable or compostable plastics are not, in fact, actually biodegradable in an earth or ocean environment. Companies moving towards biodegradable plastic straws are not having any actual impact on ocean plastics.

Chemical structure of the plastic polymer, polypropylene (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In support of the plastic straw ban, companies have revealed the benefits to their alternative solutions. Starbucks made it known that their new “sippy cup” lid is made from polypropylene, a commonly-accepted recyclable plastic that can be captured in recycling infrastructure. This was an almost impossible task to accomplish with straws, which are too small and lightweight to be captured.

The lives of marine animals, such as sea turtles, will also be protected by the straw ban. Small plastic straws can easily get lodged in their airways, causing them pain and discomfort, and in extreme cases, death.

Both sides of the plastic straw ban have valid arguments. Although only a small one, I believe it is a step in the right direction. This movement will hopefully be the gateway to banning more plastics which will hopefully lead us to a future of plastic-free oceans and landfills. So, are you pro-straw?

1 Comment

Posted in News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Is a bowl of soup really worth a shark’s life?

Posted on October 29, 2018 by | 2 comments

Figure 1: shark fin soup (Source: Wikimedia Commons [accessed October 29, 2018])

Have you ever tried shark fin soup? A lot of people say it is very tasty but you know what, killing sharks for some delicacy? That does not really sound appetizing to me. Shark fin trade is the most common cause of shark population decline throughout the years.  It is no surprise that sharks are now considered endangered and we need to do something as soon as possible.

Sharks are at top of the food chain and are considered “Kings of the Ocean”. They help control growing populations of invasive and potentially harmful species. Dr. Stuart Sandin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and his colleagues concluded that the decline in shark population may result in an ecological cascade that disrupts the marine food chain.

Sharks are natural predators but what makes them so important? They maintain the species below them in the food chain. Their predatory behavior attribute to the movements of different preys allowing variation of diet in the ocean. The decrease in shark population also resulted in the decline in seagrass and coral reefs, affecting many local fisheries.

Sharks mostly feed on rays. According to a North Carolina study, the decline in shark population increased the ray population. This resulted in a higher demand for scallops. The consumption of all available bay scallops forced the rays to find other bivalves for food. Local fisheries were forced to close as supply fails to meet  demand.

Dr. Julia Baum and her colleagues were collecting data on swordfish and tuna from the United States open-ocean longline fleet. While conducting their study, they often caught sharks and recorded the data into their paper: ‘Collapse and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic’. This paper is cited more than 500 times and it summarizes the percentage decline of different shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean since the 1950s. This is shown on the table below:

Figure 2: Graph showing relative percent decline of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (Figure by Jolean Endique; Data source: Collapse and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by Dr. Julia Baum and her colleagues [accessed October 29, 2018])

According to the data presented, hammerhead sharks turn out to be the most vulnerable and is declining most rapidly than the other types.

[Note: The following image may be of sensitive content]

This image shows dead bodies of finless sharks laying across the ocean floor. Figure 3: Image showing dead finless shark bodies laying across the ocean floor (Source: The Oceana Youtube Channel)

Who would leave these “Kings” lifeless at the bottom of the ocean? All this for a 100-dollar bowl of soup? Where did justice for these animals go? Shark fin soups must not be disguised as “fish wing soup” to raise awareness on shark fin trade. We need to start considering the impacts of harming these wonderful creatures. Those who are responsible for such cruel acts must realize that $100 is not worth a shark’s life. Shark fin trade must be officially banned for the sake of our marine ecosystem. Stricter fishing policies must be urgently implemented. Knowledge on shark fin trade must be disseminated especially to those who are uninformed.

 

 

 

2 Comments

Tagged , , ,

Climate change, the one to blame for the reduced oceanic oxygen levels due to rising global temperature

Posted on October 10, 2018 by | Leave a comment

Climate change, the one to blame for the reduced oceanic oxygen levels due to rising  global temperature

You may be thinking, “Here we are again, talking about climate change”. Yes, I will be one of those people who will be talking about this issue again, and again, and again, until we all see some actual progress regarding this issue. I am not here to convince you that climate change is real. Climate change is indeed a real problem and it is causing a decrease in oceanic oxygen levels. We need to start talking about this.

Dr. Ralph Keeling and his colleagues at the University of California found that with rising temperature levels, a reduced solubility of oxygen molecules is observed in the ocean. Dr. Keeling and his team’s ocean models predicted that there will be about 1-7% decrease in oceanic oxygen levels in the next century.

How does this affect us and the aquatic life? Most marine organisms use cellular respiration, a process that converts organic molecule and oxygen to a sustainable form of energy and carbon dioxide as a by-product. The equation for cellular respiration is shown below:

This image shows cellular respiration: a process that converts an organic molecule to energy (ATP) (Image by Jolean Endique).

Algae and planktons are the most abundant photosynthetic organisms in the ocean. They need both light energy and nutrients to produce oxygen and capture CO2  in the atmosphere. With decreasing oxygen levels, cellular respirators may be unable to provide a sufficient amount of nutrients for photosynthetic organisms. As you may have thought, yes, our chance of increasing our oxygen levels and decreasing our atmospheric CO2  may be very slim. In addition, a decrease in marine productivity may also take a toll on fisheries and coastal economies that solely depend on aquatic fauna. As phrased by Dr. Breitberg, a marine ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, about coral reef bleaching as a result of low oceanic oxygen levels, “As seas are losing oxygen, those areas are no longer habitable by many organisms”.

Coral reef bleaching is another consequence of reduced oceanic oxygen levels. The sensation it gives to coral reefs is like “ripping your guts out” as described by Mark Eakin, coordinator of the Coral Reef Watch program for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This occurs as the very crucial microscopic algae living inside the coral reefs are being affected by bleaching the most. Coral bleaching is caused both by ocean acidification and reduced oxygen levels. However, when the temperature rises 2 degrees above the normal highest temperatures of a certain area, coral bleaching then becomes completely caused by warmer waters. This is also the reason why most coral reefs nowadays are not as colorful as they were.

This image is a snapshot from a video showing a comparison of how the same corals used to be a year ago at Iriomote, Southern Japan and how they look now due to coral bleaching (Source: The Hydrous Youtube Channel).

We now know some of the drastic effects of reduced oceanic oxygen levels due to climate change. But, how long will it take for us to take action against climate change? How long do we have until we call Earth inhabitable? We need to stop the factors that contribute to climate change as soon as possible. We need to be better at segregating our wastes, biodegradable from non-biodegradable from plastics. We need to find better alternatives to fossil fuels, some better source of renewable energy, to reduce our carbon emissions. We need to stop hurting our forests and taking the life out of them. All of these will slow down global warming and prevent climate change from ruining our beautiful world. Let’s save our planet from dying. Not only the ocean is affected, each and every one of us is.

Leave a comment

Tagged , ,

Personal choices in diet that have a significant impact on global warming and climate change.

Posted on September 30, 2018 by | Leave a comment

Vegetarian diets are not only healthy for people, but for the planet also! M. Sanjayan, CEO of Conservation International, among various scientist’s state that a reduction of meat consumption in our diets have a significant impact on global warming, since about 25% of climate change is attributed to food and the choices we make, according to the UN IPCC fifth assessment report, 2014.

Climate change raises concerns internationally, it is the crisis of the 21st century that could lead to disastrous consequences in the future. Therefore, international community constantly collaborates to mitigate green house gas emissions (GHG emissions), These are gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) that their presence essentially causes global warming.

Which gases are green house gasses and what does their chemical structure look like. Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech

A brief explanation of how green house gasses affect global warming. Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech

The last important agreement was the Paris accords in November of 2016, where government officials stated to reduce 55% of GHG emissions. Climate change is an overwhelming issue and people might think that to solve this problem, the choice remains within government officials and multinational companies. But there is something we can do to tackle climate change.

Scientists like Ben Houlton from UC Davis says that people’s dietary choices, have an impact on climate change, specifically when consuming meat. Reducing meat consumption or switching from red meats, like beef and pork, to poultry and fish are great ways to reduce GHG emissions and help save the planet.

Say for example, that juicy serving of beef that you crave at a good summer barbecue, that steak alone takes on average 330g of CO2 to produce. That is the same emission a car would give off by driving for 3 miles. Deciding to switch that serving of beef for chicken reduces carbon emissions 6-fold, because chicken meat produces 52g of CO2 average. Switching for a fish or vegetable serving instead, reduces the carbon impact substantially.

According to the UN FAO, 2013 and UN IPCC, 2014, livestock and transportation contribute equally to climate change by producing equal GHG emissions. This is because livestock such as cows, pigs, lamb and chickens etc. produce significant amounts of methane (CH4).

Animals give off methane through their excrement and flatulence, animals in general are gassy! Why do animals produce methane? Because it results from chemical reactions when breaking down food, even humans produce methane. The issue with methane is, that it is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide according to M. Sanjayan.

relative emissions of CO2 in livestock. Cattle are the main contributor to the sector’s emissions with about 5.0 gigatonnes CO2-eq, which represents about 62 percent of sector’s emissions. -Courtesy of FAO

There are several other indirect factors harming the planet, that are caused by meat consumption. For example, livestock agriculture promotes deforestation, because it takes space to raise livestock, leading to land clearance. This means double trouble, on one hand we increase GHG emissions by raising more animals, and on the other we cut down trees that help fight global warming by converting CO2 to oxygen by photosynthesis.

The Consequences of going entirely vegetarian. (Blog 3C)

However, meat reduction doesn’t seem to benefit Canada and could be a threat to the life style of many full-time hard-working Canadians. In Context, Canada is one of the strongest exporters of red meat in the world.  In 2017 the beef cattle industry contributed $17.2 billion to Canadian GDP, providing an amazing economic contribution.

Also, the dairy sector sustains 215,000 full-time equivalent jobs in rural communities and contributes to $18.9B to Canada’s GDP. It is the top 2 agricultural commodities in 7 out of the 10 provinces. Therefore livestock is an important industry for the country!

          Livestock in Canada is an ideal resource to exploit, because much of Canada’s land is not suitable for crops due to the terrain, soil nutrients and weather. Only 7.3% of the country’s total land is agricultural. Therefore, livestock is the best way to make use of the land that can’t afford any vegetable products. It raises the question, what happens to the farmers since they cannot transition to growing vegetables with the same land? Do they lose their jobs without a solution?

          Since losing an important economic contributor would decrease government economic resources, other government funded programs like health care, retirement, research and many more would suffer. Lowering the quality of life then becomes a nation-wide problem.

          Personally, I believe we could all benefit from reducing our meat consumption. Our current food systems could benefit by diversifying from monoculture and heavy livestock tendencies. However, it is undeniable that our lives in Canada are significantly dependent on the livestock industry in several ways. Canada is a resource-based country and much of our wealth unfortunately comes from exploiting resources. Balance always seems to be key, not everyone should become vegan at once, but also, don’t have a cow! Be mindful with what you eat.

For a detailed summary and more information check out this video made with M. Sanjayan!

link to blog post 1

https://blogs.ubc.ca/communicatingchemistry2018w110/2018/10/29/farming-and-climate-organic-or-bust/#comment-46

link to blog post 2

https://blogs.ubc.ca/communicatingchemistry2018w110/2018/10/29/you-spend-more-time-on-social-media-when-you-feel-more-stressed/#comment-47

 

BLOG 3C COMMENTS

https://blogs.ubc.ca/communicatingchemistry2018w110/2018/10/31/to-vape-or-not-to-vape/#comment-85

https://blogs.ubc.ca/communicatingchemistry2018w110/2018/11/05/one-pill-to-cure-them-all/#comment-86

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Energy

Tagged , , , , ,

Scientists Have Found Plastic-Eating Worm! Can They Save Our Environment?

Posted on September 24, 2018 by | 2 comments

Plastic pollution is one of the most serious environmental issues on earth. Annually, human release trillion of plastic wastes into the ocean without breaking down the plastic. I have seen a lot of documentary films talk about how marine animals and seabirds are being injured and killed by plastic pollution. Fortunately, scientist Dr. Federica Bertocchini and her colleagues from Cantabria in Spain have discovered an insect that can digest plastic bags.

Dr. Federica Bertocchini, who works at the Institute of Biomedicine and Biotechnology of Cantabria in Spain, is a beekeeper in her free time. She accidentally discovered the plastic-eating worms while she was cleaning beehives at her home. She found that the beehives were infested by caterpillar larvae of Galleria mellonella, commonly known as the wax worm.

Waxworm – photo from Wikimedia Commons

“The wax worms are a plague for beekeepers; I put the worms in a plastic bag and after a while, I realized that the bag was riddled with holes and the worms were all around in my flat,” said Bertocchini while she was in an interview with Roechling Stiftung.

The discovery made Bertocchini realize a possibility of plastic biodegradation by using a natural agent. Then Bertocchini and her research team decided to investigate whether if the wax worms actually degraded the plastic bag, or they just physically chewed it for escape. They gathered some wax worms in a plastic bag. After 12 hours, they noticed that the worms obviously reduced the mass of plastic bag. Then a further testing showed that the wax worm chemically converted the plastic into other materials, which proved that a wax worm is a possible approach for biodegradation.

Watch how waxworm breaks down the plastic bag from the following YouTube video:

YouTube Preview Image

Why is wax worm able to degrade the plastic bags? Bertocchini and her team conclude that may be due to the place where the wax worm lives: the beehives. Wax worm consumes beeswax and honey as food, and beeswax has a similar chemical structure as plastic. Thus, the wax worm can chemically digest the plastic. A more specific explanation of their research can be found in their paper in Current Biology.

The question now is whether if scientists can use wax worms to solve plastic pollution. In my opinion, it is irresponsible for scientists to directly use them in our environment. Although wax worms can break down plastic bags in a more natural way, wax worms are enemy to bees. No one can ensure that wax worms will only digest the plastic wastes, since they may turn to destroy the habitat of bees which will bring more environmental issues to us.

“The idea of actually using the caterpillars never crossed our mind,” says Bertocchini. “They are a plague for the environment, you cannot throw millions of worms in the environment, the equilibrium in nature must be respected.”

-Tina Sun

2 Comments

Posted in News

Tagged ,

Its In the Water

Posted on September 17, 2018 by | Leave a comment

When purchasing pharmaceuticals, there almost always is a concerningly long list of potential side effects tied to the drug. Unfortunately, according to recent studies, a very important side-effect has been neglected: the potential for drug accumulation in bodies of water, including our drinking water. While there seems to be no harm to humans yet, fish are feeling the brunt of the effects.

Brook Trout – Pixnio

A recent study has shown mutations in the reproductive system of fish due to estrogen-containing wastewater in Boulder, Co. And so, it may seem that us Canadians are off the hook. Less people, less pollution, right? Well, unfortunately that is not the case. A 2012 study carried out by the Assembly of First Nations, as well as a couple Canadian universities, looked at the water quality in Ontario and found a witch’s brew of pharmaceuticals within Canadian drinking and surface water. Amongst the cocktail of drugs were estrogen-containing contraceptives. And while the concentrations are still low enough to ease the concern of mutant fish, there is still concern as to how we are going to mitigate this issue.

Pills Tablets – Pixabay

How is it that so many drugs are in our water? Well, the answer is simple. With over 40% of Canadians ages 6-79 having prescription medications, and even more so using over the counter medications, the number of pharmaceuticals going to sewer or waste is huge. Even with proper dosing, there is still a large percentage of a drug which is filtered out of the body and into the urine. Waste water treatment is not equipped for full breakdown of the drugs, and so they return to our waters through treated sewage.  Furthermore, disposal of old or unwanted drugs usually involves going to landfill or down the drain, both causing a influx of pharmaceuticals in our waters.

While Canada is trying to mitigate the issue of drugs going to water by having the take back system, there are still concerns with the ability of present drugs being able to break down in the environment.

 

-Tia Malloff

 

Leave a comment

Tagged , , , ,