In California, Demand for Groundwater Causing Huge Swaths of Land to Sink.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140325-california-drought-subsidence-groundwater/

The article talks about the very common issue in the USA and the world which is the pumping of underground water leading to sink-age of land. This issue is a very common one in Florida, in which recently a hotel sunk in the ground.

This issue is a common one in the San Joaquin, from 1930 to 1970 the ground level sank by around 9 meters (USGS report). As groundwater supplies 1/3 of water to California even more in drought seasons, underground pumps are built in order to extract water and supply all the counties with water. In the subsidence, an investment of over 800 million needs to be conducted in order for the restoration of the San Joaquin River to be restored. Recently a survey has been conducted related to the sink ages in which USGS thought that their data was wrong because the land had settled so much as Rick Woodley the bureau resource manager. Many construction sites that were near the river were delayed due to the restoration. 

However, this issue is not only present in the USA, it is occurring more and more in Russia and its neighboring countries. 


These causes are not due to water extractions, but may be the cause from various floods or chemical dissolution of carbonate rocks.

National Geographic 

Invasive Asian Carp Found Breeding in "Surprising" Location

Brian Clark Howard

March 11, 2014
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140311-asian-carp-upper-mississippi-invasive-species-fish/

Recently it was discovered that the invasive Asian carp has made it into the upper Mississippi River. This invasive species was introduced into the American ecosystem around 20 years ago, though the recent discovery came very surprising. Asian Carp eggs were found in the Upper Mississippi River along with late-stage embryos. This recent discovery is 250km further upstream than at the last known location. 
The problem with the Asian carp is that it is an invasive species potentially harmful for the delicate ecosystem. An Asian carp can grow up to 50 Kg, making it the top predator, eating large amounts of plankton and aquatic vegetation. The fear for sports fishers is that their current preferred species will die out. In order to counter this invasion the local government already invested several 100 million dollars into the effort of stopping the spread. Possible solutions are Electric barriers, water guns, and scent-based lures. Due to fishers catching Asian carp regularly the advance of this species is well documented. Currently scientists are puzzled as to how the species managed to spread so far. The Asian carp is described as a gernal term for several species; the bighead (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), silver (Hypophthalmichthys moltrix), grass (Ctenopharyngodon idella), and black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). These species are known invasive species negatively affecting the American river eco systems. Generally Asian carp are considered a better food source though than the native Carp. The danger is that is the carp reaches the great lakes it can possibly endanger the ecosystem. This high ecological risk is being taken serious causing the investment of millions in order to prevent the Carp from reaching the Great Lakes.

The danger with invasive species is the possible effects for the ecosystem. Invasive species often adapt faster allowing them to exploit their new eco system disregarding the carrying capacity. This is very dangerous as often it is almost impossible to get rid of these invasive species, as an example the raccoon is Western Europe or several species in Australia. The methods used to stop the Carp are though very questionable as they simply seems as a waste of money, introducing a control variable such as nets would allow for the government to limit the Asian carp population. If the carp does enter the Great lakes simply using nets with larger gaps allowing for the indigenous species to pass through but not the carp can be a very effective limiting factor.

Ecological Sampling Topic 2 Great Video!!!

Your Pants Might Charge Your Phone One Day

http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/15/your-pants-might-charge-your-phone-one-day-suggests-new-tiny-generator-study/

National Geographic [Energy Blog]
Christina Nunez
October 15, 2014

A recent study conducted by Columbia University Engineering and Georgia Institute Departments, have discovered the smallest energy generator yet. Through a small material, no thicker than a layer of atoms, kinetic energy can be transformed into power. This two dimensional layer which could possibly serve as an energy generator, is a compound of molybdenum disulphide (MoS2), which is also used as ski wax and as a dry lubricant for brakes and engines. After noticing the piezoelectric effect, scientists have inferred that this material could possibly be woven into clothing, allowing our clothing to be portable chargers for our phones, or power for body sensors and medical devices.

Minimality
The best benefit for the users of this possible future innovation, is the size of the energy generator, and the simplicity that comes along with it. We wouldn't have to purchase chargers, or worry about our batteries running out, as the material has a piezoelectric effect, which means that it generates energy as it goes, without the necessity to recharge. Piezo electricity requires the expansion or squeezing of a substance to produce energy, which would be very simple in clothing as it is constantly in movement.
Piezoelectricity
Generating power through expanding or squeezing a substance may be a very useful innovation and simple way to attaining energy, as it has been shown previously in creating energy through foot traffic. This means, that the tiles which people would step on, converted kinetic energy into power, which could then be used. This saves a lot of money on production and usage of energy, which is commonly produced using fossil fuels. Having this to be a very sustainable source, we can expand on this innovation and make it possible for future generations to not only charge there phones in their pocket - or become the charger in this case - but also to decrease the usage of energy on an initially minimal scale.
Energy cost & production
The production of piezoelectric material being woven into clothing would definitely be a new and expensive innovation at first, but in a few generations from now, it may be a generally used concept, as piezoelectricity is becoming a thing now, lighting up roads for cars which are driving on them or the sidewalks for the people stepping on them. This would definitely decrease the usage of energy and materials used to produce chargers or batteries, however it will take lots of time to adjust to this new concept, if it is so effective, which we do not yet know.

Piezoelectricity in roads

I believe, that this is a very useful and modern innovation, as it is important to continue research on different technologies which may improve our life and then environment for future generations, however also puts emphasis on how important it is, for us to pay attention to small things which matter so much - such as would the production of this material and clothing be a sustainable process. We cannot depend on technology saving our lives, as it cannot breakthrough our exponentially growing destruction of the planet. However, if this was to come out, we would also have to consider the health effects of constantly being intact with energy and possibly waves of radiation? It all depends on whether or not the scientists develop this properly, will we then be able to use this technology in the future.

Scottish shops start charging for bags

Libby Brooks

 October 20, 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/shoppers-pay-carrier-bags-scotland

Scotland is one of the countries that are starting to invest in sustainable behavior among shoppers. They will try to do so by charging for carrier bags the price will be small and symbolic but the environment officials hope to cut the usage of single use bags considerably. The Scottish environment secretary Richard Lochhead says that the main problem is the attitude of the consumers. “Our carrier bag addiction is symptomatic of our throwaway culture and has serious implications for the environment.”

“Huge numbers of these bags end up as litter, blighting our communities and clogging up our seas and natural habitats, affecting many sorts of wildlife and marine species in particular.” When shops charge for bags it is part of their profit but an organization called Zero Waste Scotland is encouraging shops to give the money to environmental causes in Scotland. Many well known shops have already agreed to do so. Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Green party says that the main problem are the companies producing disposable packaging. His opinion is that consumers are not only ones to blame. Consumers need to change, companies need to change but the politicians and the media also need to take this problem more seriously.

In my opinion, this is a good initiative, because I think that most people are not aware of the small things they do everyday. Maybe if they start paying for something they considered free and unimportant, they will start thinking about other things, too. But the responsibility is on the other end as well. For example I think that people in Serbia are not environmentally conscious and they don’t think about what they are doing to nature, but the truth is that things such as recycling almost don’t exist and there is no encouragement or penalties for certain kinds of behaviors that could affect the environment

Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption'

October 14, 2014

Matt McGrath for BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644

Is there a lot less CO2 in our atmosphere? This is what the article suggests that I read. Newest researches have shown that plants and other living things have absorbed an amount of up to 16% more than previously thought. This would mean that there is a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere than thought before. There has been a large overestimate of the CO2 in our Atmosphere. On the other hand, the article also states that this new research won’t change the Global Warming predictions.

More good news are that about half of the worldwide produced CO2 ends up absorbed by plants and other living things, really showing to us that this Is quite good. So actually a lot of CO2 is absorbed and not all is going into our atmosphere. To find out these new facts, the absorbing of CO2 in trees and plants was looked at. They saw that the CO2 is really spreading slowly inside the trees and plants, this process is called Mesophyll Diffusion, where the CO2 is spreaded evenly all throughout the leaf, so that in the most effective way, Oxygen can be produced.

Before the new research, the CO2 absorbing was at 915 Billion tonnes of CO2. Yet now through the research, the number increases by 16% to 1,057 Billion tonnes of CO2. That is over 1 Trillion tonnes of CO2! This is really a lot of CO2 that has been absorbed by the plants, yet we have to consider that another 1 Trillion tonnes of CO2 have entered our atmosphere, which is really a number that can’t be imagined. Yet this number could even change to be more, due to that the modelers, who model the absorbance of CO2 will still have to model the new researches, meaning that there is a time lag between a new and reliable model of the CO2 absorbing. Even before this research, it was thought that there was 17% more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is pretty good for us, as less CO2 is much better for us than more. Another sad side is although, that since 1950, the CO2 emissions have boosted up in comparison to the years before.

Next, this new research also brought more research to the structure of plants, as now other scientists also know how the plants are really built up, as now it is known, that they can absorb a lot more CO2. On the other hand, it is expected that the plants can’t absorb all of the new CO2 emitted, as there is always more and more CO2 emitted each year. Yet the plants at least can hold off some of the global warming, so that the Global warming can stay under 2°C.

I think that this research is very good news for our environment. This is due to that we now know, that there is actually less CO2 in our atmosphere than we thought before, and those masses really could harm our environment. Especially that there is a lot more CO2 absorbed as shown in this quote: “Between 1901 and 2100 the researchers believe that their new work increases the amount of carbon taken up through fertilisation from 915 billion tonnes to 1,057 billion, a 16% increase.” This really shows to us that there is a lot more CO2 absorbed by the plants. This will then mean that we could keep Earth a bit longer as a habitable planet than we thought before, as we thought there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. This really shows to us, that there are many scientists, who research about if there is also something that benefits our environment, as shown here now, that the Earth hasn’t been harmed that much as we have thought before.

Pictures:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78197000/jpg/_78197179_c0211536-climate_change_research-spl.jpg

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7821ba9970b-pi

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78197000/jpg/_78197136_c0215477-new_growth_on_an_ash_tree-spl.jpg

Aral Sea's Eastern Basin Is Dry for First Time in 600 Years

Article by Brian Clark Howard

for National Geographic

Published on October 1,2014

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141001-aral-sea-shrinking-drought-water-environment/

Due to global warming, pollution and human interference the environment is changing rapidly, species are becoming endangered, the seas are becoming polluted and sometimes whole lakes are drying up. This was the case with the Aral sea, which has reached an all time low when it comes to water levels. Philip Micklin (Aral Sea expert and geographer at Western Michigan university) said "It is likely the first time it has completely dried in 600 years, since medieval desiccation associated with diversion of Amu Darya [river] to the Caspian Sea". From this quote alone we can already realize that there is something thoroughly wrong with the fact that such a large body of water dried up. Recently NASA released satellite images shows the “sea” without its eastern basin, which is a significant difference when comparing these images to ones taken in 2000.

The Aral sea is really a large freshwater lake, and covered 67,300 square kilometers. However these days are behind it, as it has been a location for several successful cities, housed a large fishing industry. The problems began in 1960 when soviet engineers decided to build a vast irrigation network, 20,000 miles of pipes, 45 dams and an estimated 80 reservoirs. This vast network was made so that wheat and cotton fields in Kazakhstan and Neighboring countries could be irrigated. Already it was evident that this would lead to eventual problems, since 40 dams are a significant amount, and were bound to overuse the lake. To add to the design flaws, the system was extremely inefficient and had huge leaks. This lead to the lake draining and being reduced to several smaller lakes that had a combined volume that was 1/10th of the original.

The image above shows the Aral sea in 2000 and in 2014, the black lines show how large it was in 1960.

This lead to massive fish deaths, several millions, reduced coastlines, which meant that some towns were no longer on the coastline. Many abandoned the settlements, this left behind many toxic materials that were not disposed properly. After several decades the lake was separated into the North (smaller) Aral and the South (larger). However the larger of the two split further into eastern and western basins. The main cause of the drying up is the overuse of the river for irrigation, along with less rain and snow in the mountains.

The fact that over the course of 40 years, such a large body of water was shattered and reduced to several smaller basins is astounding. It only shows how destructive humans can be, and how ignorant governments are or were towards the potential threats related to overuse of resources. The Aral sea wasn't only a valuable resource that is now depleted, but it was the habitat to many species, that were greatly affected by the system put into place. Firstly dams already do damage to the lake as an ecosystem, because they change the water levels and can cause the deaths of many animals living within the water or around it. Adding to this issue is the fact that the overuse caused a split in the lake, which left many animals without their habitats. It is strange that this event is getting so little attention, and that no major organizations made any effort to preserve the Aral sea, which shows how certain aspects of our environment are being completely ignored and disregarded.

Air pollution

Viktor zivojinovic
16/10/2014
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

We all know that the biggest threat to our environment is Air pollution, each day we pollute our beautiful home, by driving cars, smoking, driving planes, and lots of other things. Everybody should do something about it, because if we don't soon we won’t have a beautiful place to live on, because we will use up all of our resources and when we do we won’t have anything.

Today I will be talking about how air pollution increases a river flow. We all know what air pollution had A impact on our daily life, but guess what it also has a big impact on the amounts of water flowing through many river in the northern hemisphere. People knew what to happened to Serbia because of the fiver flow. The studies also tested for the effects of deforestation and carbon dioxide increase on river-flow, and trust me the results that they got were that we can’t live without nature and if the carbon dioxide increases everything will be destroyed. When weather changes and temperature rises people allays complain that they are not feeling good, that their head is hurting or that they are tired. This happens when the climate changes really quick and the pressure drops.

Pollution known as the aerosols will have a very big impact on the environments. Air pollution will increase a big verity of different chemical, and gasses form our truck cars, and planes, are a very big source of air pollution.

Air pollution causes different factors and effects of temperature in the water, Also in the rise and fall of the water.  In conclusion, everybody can do something about the air pollution, and people need to start taking action now because soon our planet and home will be destroyed.

'MISSING HEAT' FROM NON-EXISTENT 'GLOBAL WARMING' ISN'T HIDING IN THE OCEAN AFTER ALL

BAD NEWS FOR THE ALARMISTS: 'MISSING HEAT' FROM NON-EXISTENT 'GLOBAL WARMING' ISN'T HIDING IN THE OCEAN AFTER ALL

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/07/Bad-news-for-the-alarmists-missing-heat-from-non-existent-global-warming-isn-t-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean-after-all?utm_source=scoopinion

Recently, there have been several unexpected findings in the area of climate change and global warming. The series of events begins with the discovery that there has not in fact been an increase in world temperature in the last 18 years, which is a big shock to all, since carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions have been rising recently. Soon after this discovery has been made, a response by global warming has been announcing, explaining this plateauing temperature through a theory regarding the oceans and other large bodies of water holding the heat and rising in temperature. Now, in the latest turn of events, NASA’s research, it has been discovered that even this theory is invalid, since the ocean temperatures are also stagnant. This new discovery is quite shocking as it has been publicly accepted that there is a rise in global warming continuously.

Personally, this article has two great strengths to it, the first being it presents new information with sufficient context to the previous situation. It is easy to understand and entertaining at certain points, but its main strength is that it presents an environmental issue in a view that isn’t completely eco centric.  Usually, articles regarding global warming and climate change present a very one sided point of view, while this one is on the other side of the spectrum, saying that there is insufficient evidence provided by the people that are most active regarding global warming, and that perhaps there is no big reason to worry at the moment regarding global warming. Once again, this article shows that we actually are much less knowledgeable and informed than we like to believe, since we take so much of this information as a sure thing without once questioning whether it is valid and what evidence there is to back it up.

Don't drink the warm water...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140922110139.htm

October 8th, 2014

Don't drink the warm water? What about in tea? Or soup?

Well that is not what the study is about -- as the examples above of boiled water is different than what is meant by "warm" water, here. Scientists from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science state that drinking water that has been sitting around in a plastic bottle (not refrigerated) can be dangerous due to chemicals called antimony and bisphenol A, that may be released from the plastic of the bottle into the water -- after warming up.

Plastic bottles are made of a material called polyethylene terephthalate, which, when heated, released the chemicals mentioned above  (antimony and bisphenol A, which is also knows as BPA). BPA is said not to be a major problem by the US's FDA, as long as it is kept on a low level (such as what may be found in beverage containers).  The biggest concern with BPA is that it may negatively affect children's health -- therefore showing that BPA, although a risk, is seen more as a hypothetical and potential harm. Antimony is what should scare us more, having the ability to cause cancer in living tissue. --Imagine that, you have a risk of getting cancer from a warm bottle of water... actually, not exactly...

Science professor Lena Ma led the research team on the study, and declared that although "more research must be done", after testing 16 different brands of bottled water which were all kept at a 70 degrees Celsius balance for four weeks, the two chemicals BPA and antimony are released from the plastic bottles and hence into the water. Ma explains that this is a "worst-case scenario" type of experiment for the consumption of water by humans, and that although it cannot validate that these effects made by the chemicals that were released into the water can harm us to such an extent as getting cancer or some other dangerous sickness (because the chances that you will have a water bottle sitting around in 70 degrees Celsius for four weeks are pretty low nowadays), we should always pay attention to what we drink -- and to prevent drinking from water bottles that have been sitting around in the heat for a period of time.

“If you store the water long enough, there may be a concern” (Ma)

As I see it, this is presented only as a potentially harmful, or "only a hypothetical" situation, when in reality, the risk of something happening to a person's organism are way too high to even consider not being cautious enough. This is an issue concerning peoples' scientific literacy -- being able to read an article like this and comprehending the main message, objectives, and facts are the most important thing a person can do in a situation like this, and therefore if someone's scientific literacy is not at a very good level they could think that any sort of warm water is harmful to people, while individuals with a higher understanding of scientific literacy will analyze and understand the real intent of the article -- which is just to generally warn people about potentially noxious situations.

Current Event #2

Jovana Curcic

Mrs. Medenica

ESS 11

9/29/2014

U.N. Women Chief: Climate Change impacts fall hardest on women

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/24/u-n-women-chief-climate-change-impacts-fall-hardest-on-women/

This article describes the role of women in climate change facts consideration. It also states that the climate change has a more negative impact on female than on male individuals. Did you ever think about that? It’s an interesting and a new point of view for me, definitely.  Climate change threatens to destroy the freedoms that humans have and tends to limit choice, and gender difference results in climate risks. Global warming, as we all know, is the mainspring of many environmental disasters; starting with climate change, glaciers melting, and the effect on weather patterns (floods, droughts, etc.). This is primarily vulnerable to women and children who cannot cope with these changes, mostly because they cannot access to the resources they need, and therefore are more negatively impacted by climate change, as mentioned above. The article says that women represent 43% of the global workforce and 65% of those involved in livestock. When women have less rights and less power in their society, more of them are affected by climate change. Women have less voice and influence than men in making policies. Women in developing countries have limited access to resources; restricted rights, lower social status in most countries, and not having a voice in shaping decisions which makes them highly vulnerable to climate change. Vulnerability varies widely, but climate change will enhance the gender inequality, especially in developing countries where women play an important role in supporting households and communities. In the developing world, women's leadership in natural resource management is often poor and limited. Although, for a long time, women have learned a lot about water, land and food management, their knowledge and experience is often neglected. Through those experiences that they’ve had, women have gained knowledge that might allow them to devote positively to the adaptation techniques… But this is only if they are given the opportunity. In general, the survival of many women  (especially in the developed world) depend only on the natural environment, so the inclusion of them should be much stronger. 

This article has surprised me because I never thought that climate change might have stronger influence on different gender. I always thought that climate change affects everyone equally and there is nobody who is less vulnerable to it than the other. But this article convinced me to think otherwise.  Did you know that men and women have different carbon footprints? Did you know that 62% of women are willing to pay extra for climate-friendly products compared to 54% of men? This tells me that women are more eco-friendly and should have more rights that what they have now. As we know, the results of climate changes are by the things we do in our everyday lives. And since the women are generally more involved in everyday resource management, it gives me the inclination that if women have the same rights as men or maybe more in environment policies and decisions,  maybe the environment would be much healthier than it is.

How ISIS Uses Oil To Fund Terror

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/27/isis-oil_n_5877008.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

September 27, 2014

It is now well known that ISIS (the Islamic State) is one of the richest terrorist groups in the world. People wonder how it is possible for them to have that amount of money and where that money comes from. Recent estimates say that their revenue (about $3 million a day) comes from illegal oil trade. Luay al-Khatteeb, director of the Iraq Energy Institute, explains some of the details concerning this issue. Most people wonder how did ISIS get so far as to make such an amount of money on a daily basis. Al-Khatteeb explains that oil assets in certain territories change owners many times. When a terrorist group takes over, it uses the experience it gained in previously owned assets and builds on that.  It is important to say that ISIS greatly rely on the help of professional organizations that are willing to co-operate with them and that have the technical knowledge to operate oil fields. It is easy for them to establish and that is why the price of oil is much lower than in other countries. There are around 8 million people living in the territories controlled by ISIS, and they need oil as the main energy resource so the people are the main buyers. However, it is the refined oil products that everyone needs, and for that ISIS relies on black market trade, mostly through Turkey. The Turkish government is trying to stop this but it is very difficult because these areas have a long history of illegal trade.

I have chosen this article because I have never been completely sure about what the cause of conflict in Middle East is and what really goes on there. Although now I understand a certain part of how terrorist organizations work, I can’t help but wonder what the ultimate goal of their actions is. To say that they want “to rule the world”  sounds too simple and since I hear the word oil mentioned  so many times, it seems to me that those who say that it is the main reason for all that is happening might be right. The viewpoint of the

ISIS is technocentric, they are greedy and they don't think about the environment at all. They are not thinking about the future and that if they use all the resources now there will be no left. I researched how this oil was used by the ISIS and it has a negative impact on the environment, their use of the oil is not beneficial either.

No sign of health or nutrition problems from GMO livestock feed, study finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140926101023.htm 
University of California - Davis 
(Alison L. Van Eenennaam & Amy. E. Young)
September 26, 2014

At the University of California - Davis, a study has been conducted an animal scientist, Alison Van Eenennaam, along with the study's co-author, Amy E. Young, proving their hypothesis that Genetically Modified Organism do not impact the health of food-producing animals, such as pigs, cows, chickens or goats. 

In the study, they examined a trend in more than 100 billion livestock-feeding for approximately 30 years. This provides us with a couple of generations of livestock, in which no change was found throughout the study, whether fed GMO or not. Compared to groups of non-GMO fed animals as their constant variable, the other have been fed genetically modified foods. This means that the astounding 95% of the 9 billion food-producing animals are fed by genetically modified diets (in the United States).

The meat, milk and even eggs of animals which were fed with Genetically Engineered products have shown to be "indistinguishable" to those which have been fed a non-genetically modified diet. This means that majority of the foods in stores now cannot be distinguished, whether or not they include traces of GMO or not. If the meat is the same, and the milk and eggs, the genetically modified food has no health effects whatsoever on the health of the animals. 

They also concluded that in order to enforce labelling on products which contain livestock products, which have been fed genetically engineered diets, "would require supply-chain segregation and traceability, as the products themselves would not differ in any way that could be detected," claims Van Eenennaam. This is considered to be a breakthrough within the livestock market, as companies can now easily produce in great mass products of the same quality as the organic ones. This may, however, bring controversy within those, who do not believe that GMO is a good movement, therefore demanding labelling, which as mentioned above, is a trouble to many. Also, if it was to be brought on an international trading level, initially the counties which are importing would have to regulate & approve this within their Agricultural Departments. 

Therefore, if animals fed with products which include GMO, are not any different from the ones which are raised organically, we have a healthy and positive move towards a more sustainable planet. The only thing which I honestly disagree with, is the labelling process. "Therefore, proposed labeling of animal products from livestock and poultry that have eaten GE feed would require supply-chain segregation and traceability, as the products themselves would not differ in any way that could be detected.” This is pretty huge, as there are menu eco-movements and groups right now which are trying to prevent the use of GMOs, and demand labelling, as no products in America currently require labelling. But this would cause many, many troubles, as suppliers simply give away to the producers which mix everything together, therefore a whole process of separation should be occurring. We know it has no effect on animals, or at least not a detectable one, but we don't know any long-term effects on human health, as GMOs have only been introduced 18 years ago, and not that long ago - incorporated into feeding animals as well as humans. 

I noticed a connection here, towards our unit currently - on scientific literacy - as corporations are only now starting to put knowledge into effect on our health, rather than form the very beginning, therefore it is on us be knowledgable and decide whether studies are necessary and whether or not it is healthy to eat GMO fed animal products. Also, it is on the government to start labelling the foods, and go to their possible best on satisfying the public with a healthy living. 

How Dust Might Make Drought Worse (or a Bit Better) in California

September 26, 2014

Michelle Nijhus for National Geographic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140925-california-drought-dust-snowpack-snowmelt-climate-science-environment/

In the moment, there is a big problem in California. There are large droughts in the moment there, which blows dust up into the air, as this is not held into the ground anymore. In California, the Water resource relies onto to snow in Sierra Nevada. When the snow then melts, the reservoirs in California fill, and so there is water for all the people. But scientists in the moment have concerns about the snow. Due to the Dust blown into the air, the Snow will also be affected by the dust as it will mix. Then due to the Snow being darker, it can warm up a lot faster than normal. This means that there are already full reservoirs from the winter snow, but then the spring melt comes too, and so the reservoirs lose a lot of Water as their capacity is already reached before the melt. This could then mean that the Summer is even drier than before. Also it states that the Global Warming already speeds up the Snow melt a lot.

The Article states that there is such a problem already in the Rocky Mountains.  The dust from California has caused the snow to melt 50 Days earlier than normal which means that the River in the end gets less Water than it has to have. Already the warming of 4°C could boost the melting process by 18 days. This could mean that the river will have up to 5% less water than it normally has when these caused are not present. Yet on the other hand the Scientists think that the Dust will not have these catastrophic effects on Sierra Nevada as to the Rocky Mountains.

On the other hand it could be possible that there could be even more snow than normal, as the dust from the Middle East is carried to the USA, and so more clouds will form there which then means that there will be more precipitation. Yet, this is not said to solve the problem, due to that the snow could contain salt and bacteria causing the drought not to go away as easily. So in the end there will only be more and more dust in the air causing Global Warming, and also even harsher droughts.

I think that this is a really important topic, as many million lives depend on something like snow. I think this is really a bad decision to set onto snow due to that it slowly goes away now due to Global Warming. Also I think the problem is really Man-made due to that the people should never settle in a desert and hope for Rain to come. Also the Erosion there for cities will be a problem, due to that the Dust problem was probably caused by farmland Erosion there, which failed as there wasn’t enough Water there for anything to Grow. Yet the scientists hope for more rain by; “We refer to it as Mother Nature's perfect cloud-seeding system”. This means that there was 40% more rain over California, but the rivers barely get anything back from this water as the Water enters the ground and never comes up again as a lot more water will be needed there. It is really a bad idea to depend onto Nature now, although there is all this global warming really affecting the Nature now and so it could mean that there will be a lot less rain there. Also I think it is just not right for the people in California to think it is fine, due to that the people near the Sahara desert and in the middle east really need the water that the people in California now get. I think that this was really a bad decision done hundreds of years ago, to settle there and then cause problems by blocking off Rivers which lead to a drought and now these problems.

Images:

http://www.decodedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/California-quake-23-may.png               

http://www.snow-forecast.com/system/images/11557/large/Sierra-Nevada.jpg?1319041770

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/837/cache/dust-snowfall-ngm-essick_83709_990x742.jpg

Gulf Oil Spill "Not Over": Dolphins, Turtles Dying in Record Numbers

Link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140408-gulf-oil-spill-animals-anniversary-science-deepwater-horizon-science/

By Christine Dell'Amore

Written for: National Geographic

The Image above shows the initial efforts to extinguish the fire, and contain the
spill. 

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred four years ago, and still today the consequences are present. Several wildlife species are failing to adapt and recover. The most affected species are sea turtles and the Bottlenose dolphins which are dying in great numbers. The spill occurred in april 2010, and killed 11 workers, and spilling 750 million liters of oil into the Gulf. After the event, various agencies attempted to clean up the gulf, and succeeded to a certain extent, but what was more important was the effort they made to track the impacts the spill had on wildlife, and investigate the various ways that the effects could be minimized.  

It is estimated that 14 species are still failing to recover. Since the oil spill 900 bottlenose dolphins have been found either dead or stranded in the area affected. If the dolphins were placed in a line that would equal 2.4 kilometers, of dead dolphins. Along with the deaths of dolphins, many of them are ill, suffering from anemia, liver and lung diseases and a lack of weight. “When a predator like a dolphin is falling ill it is a sign that species further down the food chain are also having trouble” (Douglas Inkley, author of the report and a member of the national wildlife federation). Along with the dolphins the sea turtles are also endangered, there are 5 species of sea turtles that are found in the gulf. All of them are either threatened or endangered by the Endangered species act. On an annual basis, 500 dead sea turtles were found since the spill occurred. These numbers are based only on the turtles and dolphins that were found, there are many more which haven’t been found by scientists. Other species such as Bluefin and Yellowfin tuna, Sperm Whales, And loons (Birds that spend their summer in the Gulf) have all suffered some type of consequences, most relating to the concentration of toxic oil found in their blood.

Though the WWF and other organizations are still trying to clean up the ocean as much as possible, it is hard to remove oil from the ocean. But its impossible to make up for the species that were put into danger, as they are being put into more danger everyday, as they are still living in the polluted water. The best way to fix these problems is to prevent them from happening in the first place, the gulf will most likely never be as clean as it was prior to the spill, and this will cause further problems for wildlife. This relates to the current topic we are studying and the environmental viewpoints. It is interesting to note that the WWF, which should be a mostly ecocentric group, in the dark green region, are now resorting to a solution that a technocentric person would use. Once the problem is created they are trying to solve it with technology, as opposed to taking the proper steps towards prevention. An ecocentric person would have campaigned against the creation of the oil rig in the first place and wouldn't have allowed the accident to occur.

Death tool climbs in flood-hit India and Pakistan

Viktor Zivojinovic
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/13/world/asia/india-pakistan-monsoon-flooding/
21/9/2014

"I woke up and suddenly i felt some thing was wrong." Najeeb told the CNN."Soon there was a thud and our main gate had been open by the water which were rising alarmingly."Within no time our first floor was flooded, we rushed upstairs to the third floor as we watched dreadfully the waters covered the second floor in no time as well. In the end Najeeb and here husband were rescued the rescuers, and taken somewhere safe.

We all know what happened to Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, there were hit by very big amounts of rain, last recorded 120 years ago, The river had burst into towns and villages, cutting of the whole communities,

We all can do something about these flood, Donate money, help the people, But now the whole world had to help, We need to stop global warring, because soon we will use up our whole plant, and we won't have a place where to live.

We all know what can floods do to our community. In this Flood that is happening now in India and Pakistan nearly 500 people lost heir lives in both counties, At least 280 people have been killed in Pakistan and more the 500 people were injured, 200 people have died form the flooding in India, that's what said the administered kashmir. Now the whole world can pray for India and Pakistan. The people form Serbia, Bosnia and other countries  know what is the feeling of being flooded. And we will pray for them,