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.