National parks polluted

One would think that national parks would be mostly clear of the harmful pollutants found in urban and suburban areas, right?
Wrong. The Associated Press used data from the EPA and National Park Service to compile a list of the most polluted national parks in the country, and on the top of the list is California's Sequoia National Park, with 87 days of recorded dangerous smog levels. Ozone levels here are comparable to urban settings such as LA.

Think what happens in the cities doesn't affect America's most beautiful landscapes? Think again.

Rankings:
Sequoia National Park, CA
Number of violations in 2011: 87
Joshua Tree National Park, CA
Number of violations in 2011: 56
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NC
Number of violations in 2011: 12
Yosemite National Park, CA
Number of violations in 2011: 8
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO
Number of violations in 2011: 8
Big Bend National Park, Texas
Number of violations in 2011: 7
Mojave National Preserve, CA
Number of violations in 2011: 6

http://www.energydigital.com/green_technology/us-national-parks-ranked-by-air-pollution

I was shocked to see that so many of our national parks have air quality that is just as bad - or worse - as urban areas. Something needs to be done to fix this; if not, the wildlife will suffer greatly.
Questions:
1) how did the parks get this polluted?
2) what can be done to fix this?
3) if it can be fixed, will people be willing to or will money get in the way (again)?

Title:Smelter to face tougher emissions rules
Author: ABC News
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 
 http://www.eco-business.com/news/smelter-to-face-tougher-emissions-rules/
 Summary: South Australia's Environmental Minister, Paul Caica, says that Nyrsatr, a smelting company in Port Pirie, has to face more stringent conditions under rules set by the EPA.This means that the emission levels of zinc and lead have to be lower. Steven Marshall opposes to these new restrictions, believing that it will just be another burden like carbon pricing.He also argues that it will hurt the "viability of  the smelting business. All of this is due to the EPA investigating two emission spikes that had occurred in 2009.Right now zinc smelting at Nyrsatr is under rigged conditions.

Reaction: When I read this article I thoroughly agreed with the EPA. It is responsible of them to put restrictions on this particular smelter. Although thermal inversions are not very common in this part of the world, any kind of emission can have a drastic effect on the people living in the area. I do not see any reason why not to enforce more stringent rules on smelting as long as it is for the betterment of the people in that area. Smelting is good for our economy, but not if it is making people sick.


Question:
1.What are laws like in the U.S. about smelting, are they stringent or laid back? Why?
2.How drastically would another incident like Denora do to the world in terms of Environmental laws?Why?
3.What is more dangerous, Zinc in the air or Lead in the air? Why?

Caption: Tragic event in Denora, Pa that had lasted 4 days and sickened thousands of people. It was cause by zinc smelting during a thermal inversion.

Swiss Gun Rights

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Image: This is a picture of a handgun. Swiss government requires almost all adult males to own one.

Summary: In Switzerland, the gun crime rate is very low, so the Swiss Government thinks it is okay to allow all adult, male, Swiss citizens to own one. Since Switzerland's independence, in 1291 the government has, not only allowed the right to bear arms, but required it. Along with their gun, they get mandatory a training course with their weapon. The handguns are for protection and could potentially be use in local militias. There are problems with the gun rights, though. For example, the suicide rate is much higher than America's because of the easy access to a gun. Overall, Switzerland is a relatively safe and crime free country.

Reflection: This an interesting view on the whole controversy around the right to bear arms. It surprises me that the crime rate is so low. American government should, maybe, take this technique into consideration. Since people are given guns and are trained to use them properly, they do not act so animalistic with their weapon because they have a respectful mentality. There are some good and bad things about these very allowing rights, but I think they would be for the best.

Questions:

1.     Do you think people should receive a gun when they become an adult?

2.     Do you think America would be ready for laws like these?

3.     Why did the Swiss government come up with this law?

US Troops

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/05/22/pentagon-caught-in-another-lie-about-soldiers-health/

 (Picture of a pit in use.)
Summary: Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing serve health impacts from activities concerning the removal of pollutants in camps. There were rather high levels of Particulate Matter found in the camp. The primary contributor to the pollution was burn pits. Troops that worked in some bases have chronic illness and various forms of cancer. Past servicemen are now using oxygen tanks to breathe, while only a few weeks earlier they were as fit as a horse. Only recently have proper incinerators been placed, but major damage has already been done to our servicemen.

Reaction: I think it is horrid what happened to these people. It is even more sad that they cannot sue under current laws. Even though there is evidence supporting the claim that the army knew to some degree that using open air burn pits were a danger to peoples' health, I am uncertain that it was the case. I would hope that people come up with better solutions to problems rather than tossing rubbish into a pit of fire. I also am wondering if that the new way they are burned are any better. Won't the toxins still degrade the air quality still? With such  after effects from poor quality, it make me think of citys. I am aware we also burn our trash and that we send very bad toxins in the air. It makes me think of the Story of Stuff and how dioxin is made. So are people in Philadephia, New York, and DC also being exposed to toxic chemicals?

Questions:

Would you move if you found out that your area is being exposed to toxins?
Are there clean ways to remove trash and pollutants?
Do you think people are responsible for the waste they produce?

British Air Pollution

Summary: In Britain, air pollution annually kills 13,000 people a year according to a study done at MIT. Despite the countries clear violations of EU standards, it continues. However, 40% of the air pollution they experience is as a result of activity of mainland Europe, and the polluted air is carried over the channel on the wind. Mainland Europe receives a small amount
from Britain as well. Combustion emissions account for one third of all premature deaths in the UK, and the number of premature deaths linked to them is about the same as the total number of deaths for the same reason in the rest of mainland Europe. Of course, officials are hesitant to do much because they, as always, suspect that the cost of maintaining clean and breathable air for citizens may be too high for them to feel that the benefit does fully justifies the cost. The worst emissions right now are  PM10s (soot), NO2, and NOx. One idea is to eliminate cars altogether and replace them with public transport.

Reaction:  I  utterly was flabbergasted  by the statistics in this article. I knew that an estimated 3 million people die each year as a result of air pollution, but seeing the numbers broken down as they were really personalized it more. It is truly incredible how little our kind cares about how we pollute everything, from the water we drink to the air we breathe, and disregard the idea of solving the problems because of money. Seeing that combustion emissions account for  about 33% of premature deaths in the UK was mind blowing. Does that mean, if you live there, you are more likely to die from breathing than from being hit by a car, or being murdered, among other things? That is truly terrifying, and refusing to solve the problem is nothing short of dastardly.

Questions:
1. What can be done to help fix the air in the UK?
2. What do average citizens think about the pollution?
3. How long might it take to fix the problem?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/air-pollution-killing-13000-people-year

Useless grass could become next biofuel

Useless Grass Could Become Next Biofuel

 One day in the not-too-distant future, we might be filling our cars with fuel made from grass.

A biologist has transferred a gene from corn into a fast-growing species of grass and transformed it into what could become an important source of biofuel. In a world of vanishing oil reserves, farmers have been growing more and more high-energy crops like corn and sugar cane to make ethanol as an alternative for gasoline, while scientists are seeking even higher-energy products from other crops.

A UC Berkeley plant geneticist reports that his experiments with a species of corn called corngrass1 have yielded genetically altered forms of common switchgrass plants that more than doubles their content of starch. In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists say that test plots of the altered switchgrass have shown that the gene experiments have improved the starch content in the plants by roughly 255%. Also important, they report, the gene transfer blocks the switchgrass plants from flowering. "They're forever young," and that means the plants cannot spread pollen containing the new gene beyond the area where the altered plants grow.

Now, larger field tests of the transformed switchgrass are planned, and he said he is starting a new series of genetics experiments to see how other genes from the corngrass1 plant can be triggered in response to light and darkness, and to raise the starch content of switchgrass even higher. The goal is a major new source of biofuel from a wild plant that grows throughout the world.

Opinion: I think it’s really good that we are making progress with biofuel and I hope this becomes our main fuel source replacing oil. This is going to have a major impact on the world if it succeeds. The issue of biofuel needs to be covered more in the media.

Questions:
When do you think that biofuel will become the main fuel source?
Do you think that biofuel will ever be a practical solution to the dwindling supply of oil?
What are some reasons why biofuel might become impractical?

Article Title: Portable alternative energy power source
Author: Construction and maintenance
Date: 2012
 http://home.nestor.minsk.by/build/news/2012/05/0904.html


 
 Caption: People are always thinking up of amazing alternative solutions. This car is just one of many ways in which alternative solutions are being drawn up.


Summary: The company by the name of Apperistity has come up with a pretty cool and innovative alternative energy source. This new type of alternative energy runs on both wind and solar power. Solar panels on this device have an output of 450 watts per hour. Apperisity and another company,New Wind, have collaborated to make this energy source.New Wind's wind turbines contribute to the wind power aspect of the machine. The machine is also made up of a recycled chassis. Best of all, this machine is portable. It can be in stalled onto any mobile light tower as long as that tower gets a two-fold micro grid with a battery backup installed into it. The cool thing is that this machine can work on sunny days with its solar power panels, while working on stormy days with its wind turbines.There is no fuel or diesel involved in powering the machine.Although this portable "power plant" is still just a prototype, it is neat how they can incorporate both wind and solar power into one portable station.


Opinion/Reflection:
People are always coming up with new and innovative alternative energy solutions. This is just another great example of an alternative energy solution. I love how they went with the recycled chassis, it just shows how environmentally conscious these people are. The coolest part of this machine has to be that it involves both solar and wind power. This eliminates some of the what ifs associated with solar power(Will it work when it is not sunny). I would definitely use this machine in my life if I had the chance to own one. It is just an amazing way in which one can power his or her house without the use of coal or gas.I can compare this to the types of alternative energies that we had discussed in class, in that it is an innovative solution

Question:
1. Will companies actually invest in a machine like this, or will they stick to their old heating and electrical systems?Why or why not?
2.When will this machine be completed, and put up for sale?
3. Is is practical  to have an alternative energy source that combines solar, wind and tidal power. If so why, or why not?

Piezoelectricity

http://www.good.is/post/electricty-generating-dance-floors-and-other-miracles-of-piezoelectricity/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+good%2Flbvp+%28GOOD+Main+RSS+Feed%29

h

Piezoelectricity are solid  materials that release a charge when pressure is applied to them. Right now people are coming up with brilliant ways to gather renewable energy.  Piezoelectricy could also possibly pick up the slack that solar and wind leave behind allowing for a truly sustainable world. People as of now are just starting to use this technology.  In 2008 a dance club called Club Watt became fully self sufficient. They used piezoelectric materials in the dance floor tiles, so when someone was dancing force would be applied and generate power. In Tokyo there is a train station that added a piezoelectric floor to generate 1,400 kW on a daily basis. In Toulouse, France, they added a piezoelectric sidewalk to generate power for street lights. In London people are planning to do the same, but light up crossings and stop signs. At a supermarket in the UK these used the energy from people crossing speed bumps to power their check-out lines. In Israel, they are starting to mix asphalt and the piezoelectric minerals together, so when people drive around they will generate electricity, there should energy generated this way to provide for over 2,000 homes. In the future there should even be  more ways of generate power, one hope would be clothes with piezoelectric materials.

Reflection: I am really happy that we are exploring options for a cleaner future. I was thinking though what would happen if we added these types of sidewalks in every street instead of the normal cement ones, and added the smart roads to generate power on the roads. If you could also add solar panels to houses and businesses, then I am pretty darn sure that place would be self sufficient. It just seems a little crazy that if we have technology to make clean energy on a large scale, why don't we. There are also so many other ways to get energy like scavenger energy that steals power from radio/television waves, it is sort like recycling. I just hope there is a push in America soon to make more clean energy.

Questions

If you were the Mayor of Philadelphia would you switch to road and sidewalks to generate electricity?

Do you think that this way of getting power is better or worse than other methods?

 Would you want one of these sidewalks around your house?

By: Ryan Marinelli

Deforestation

Modern-Day Plague: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview

 http://tinyurl.com/6tzgmhq

Picture: This is deforestation. It is obvious that this forest has been severely reduced fromits original size. The reason for this was most likely for agricultural reasons.

Summary: Deforestation is an ongoing devastation. At the rate we are at now, within 100 years, there will be no more forests. There are many reasons why deforestation occur. The main reason is agriculture. People that own farms often cut large portions of forests to harvest crops. Another reason is for economics. The government may have to cut down forests to build cities, roads or developments. Another large industry that cuts down trees at high rates is the logging industry. Loggers cut down a countless number of trees for paper, industrial wood, and fire wood. Buts deforestation can also be natural. For instance, forest fires can naturally spawn from lightning. In any case, deforestation is horrible for organisms that live in wild forests. Trees also give water to the water cycle through transpiration. To help the problem of deforestation, we can simply plant more trees and stop cutting down so may. For we have less of a use for paper because we have electronics, and fire wood is unnecessary because houses are heated with oil instead.

Reflection: It’s amazing how bad humans are to the environment. People should start to notice what i happening to the Earth and start to fix it. Horsham use to be all forest, but now, it is all buildings and roads.

Questions:

1.      How can you help deforestation in your community specifically?

2.      What are some alternative energy sources that don't require wood?

3.      Is there a way to build cities with cutting down forests?

4.      What is happening right now, if anything, that is help stop deforestation?

Sonic Energy

SONIC ENERGY




In 2004, Dr. James K. Thurber, a mathematician whom has previously done work on quantum field theory, founded Sonic Dynamic LLC, a project designed to turn sonic energy into a usable, environmentally friendly energy.  In the studies conducted, low-frequency oscillators were used to create usable energy. These oscillators are used to generate sound fields, in "specialized applications". The idea is not yet very practical, because of these restricted parameters. Sonic energy should not be excluded from the (long) list of environmentally-friendly sources of energy. Sonic energy has, thus far, been able to levitate objects and produce 2 kilowatts of electricity, the former being via low-frequency sounds, the latter being via extremely high frequency (high enough to be dangerous) sounds.

Reaction: This is great! I am very glad that this exists. It turns out I was right in class today: Sound can be made into usable energy! It makes one wonder what lobbyists opposed to alternative energy are thinking. There are so many ways of producing energy, I would guess that with the scope of the universe and human imagination, there are infinite ways to create energy. It would make sense why high-frequency sounds would be used, but I was surprised that low-frequency sounds are used as well.  I suppose it just goes to show: Anything that exists is intimately connected with energy (especially if one subscribes to M-theory), so everything is, in a way, a source of energy. Again, why some people think only of fossil fuels when they think of energy is unfathomable.

1. What are some other interesting ways to produce energy?
2. Why can sounds be dangerous?
3. How powerful or loud do the sounds need to be?

http://sonic-dynamics.com/alternative-energy.htm

Prescription Medicines in Drinking Water

Some of the latest health summits have looked at which environmental medicines are a risk to consumers. These groups recognize that the concentration of medicines found in food and water supplies is very small. Still, there is worry over even trace amounts of medicine in the American diet. At the moment, we do not know if these medicines can harm the body over several years of exposure.

Safety issues that may be linked to medicines in national water sources:

• Possible increased rates of cancer
• Possible organ damage from long periods of exposure to medicine
• Possible organ damage from the intake of unusual mixtures of medicines
• The development of antibiotic resistant bacteria

 Americans spend billions of dollars on prescription drugs every year. After being taken these medicines are eventually removed by the body and flushed into the water supply. Many people also flush unused medicines down their toilets as a means of disposal. Fortunately, medicines in the environment are found very small amounts. medicines in drinking water are usually found in parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion quantities. such small levels supposedly do not affect human health. However, others claim that any amount of medicine can be harmful. They argue that traces of medicine can have long-term effects at even low concentrations.

The jury is still out on the health impact of medicines in the environment. Most of the data says that the current dose of medication in your food and water is too small to cause any immediate health risks. However, some experts question if this claim is true for all populations. Those with allergies to medications, for example, may be more susceptible to small doses. Environmental groups have also expressed concern for vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. Remember that the concern is long-term effects caused by exposure over many years. The effects of this long-term exposure are yet to be determined.

Reflection: wow, it was really hard to find an article that wasn’t about cleaning out the prescription meds in drinking water. Seriously though, prescription medicines in drinking water can be really dangerous. Anyone who has seen ads for different medicines will know how many side effects a lot of these medicines have, and a lot of medicines have really bad effects when mixed with other medicines, sometimes even fatal. Even though the dose would be really small, smaller effects could happen.

Questions:

Why do people flush medicines down the toilet if they have extras that they are not going to use instead of throwing them away?

How can we prevent more medicine from getting into the water supply?

Do you think that the trace amounts will have negative long term effects?  


http://www.consumer-health.com/services/PrescriptionDrugsinYourFoodandDrinkingWater.php 

Water Bottles

http://www.canada.com/Water+bottle+show+sustainability/6384213/story.html

 

This article is about a ban stopping the selling of plastic water bottles in a town in Canada.  The ban would have many benefits. It would save money and would cut down on oil production, the cost of recycling, and lower the amount of garbage that would go into landfills. When there is less trash the amount will be easier to handle, and it will cost less to compile. Nanaimo city is being very civil and not forcing private companies to stop selling. If the bill passes it will show that some people really care about sustaining the Earth.  Students are even getting involved and getting petition in support of the ban.  The picture is also a  poster for the movie Tapped which is a movie about how water bottle companies are abusing water rights.

I am very happy to hear that there are people trying to help the environment.  I try and not use plastic water bottles. I even bought a reusable water bottle with a Brita filter. I really hope it gets passed and other towns make laws against plastic water bottles. It is also good that students are getting involved. This leads me to believe that younger people are also opposed to using plastic water bottles. It also makes me wonder  why we even  buy bottled  water ‽  It is a little ridiculous in the 1^st place that we let ourselves be tricked by these evil companies into buying their product that is a fundamental element in our existence. I hope that this movement spreads over the border into the US and makes some change as well. It is a little disgraceful that the water bottle companies have been allowed to trick people. It costs about 1000 times more for water from a water bottle compared to your tap, and companies are even abusing laws to drain as much water as possible.

Do you think that most people are willing to give up convenience for the environment?

Do you think that people should be going after other plastic items instead of water bottles?

Do you think the media and advertisements are responsible for this problem?

By Ryan Marinelli

Algal Blooms

Algal Blooms

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/algal_bloom.htm

Picture: This is a picture of the cost of Shandong. Its waters are filled with algae due to an algal bloom.

Summary: Algal blooms are periods of time in which algae grow excessively in a specific body of water. They are often caused by an excess in nutrients which algae eat. Sometimes, algae can be as dense as millions of per milliliter of water. Animals and other plants cannot survive with massive amounts of water because of lack of sunlight. The more animals that die, the more algae grow because they feed on their decomposed matter. The only way the bloom can stop is either with human’s help or through natural processes.

Opinion/Reflection: This is not a good thing for bodies of water to be undergoing. If algae start to bloom in a lot in water, people should help clean it out immediately. Otherwise, it could take years for the algae to naturally die out.

Questions:

1.       How long does it take for the algae to die naturally?

2.       How can you help this problem?

3.       When and where do algal blooms usually occur?

Hydraulic Fracturing and Contaminants

"Fracking" can cause dangerous contaminations in drinking water. This picture shows the shocking flammability of the water people are expected to drink.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process used by some oil companies to attain oil from areas not usually used for oil seeking. In this process, harsh chemicals and water are pumped into the earth, used to break the rock layers and free the oil. However, fracking, as it is called colloquially, causes major contamination of water sources. The chemicals and contaminated water used in the process are pumped elsewhere for storage, while the drinking water of local people is severely contaminated, due to the permeable nature of the rocks. In Dimock, a town in Pennsylvania, contaminant levels were extremely high, yet the EPA did not consider it a violation. This is because some of the chemicals in the water were not even considered on the list of limited contaminants, such as methane. The tap water of many of these people contains so much methane that wells and pipes explode, water can burst into flames, and the air in their homes shows a higher concentration of methane. Though it is not poisonous to be consumed, it can accumulate in homes and suffocate the residents. When tested, the water also showed, in some cases, twice the legal amount of arsenic. Some cancer causing chemicals along with lead were also found. Water is being tested again by the EPA to see if there is a definite connection between fracking and high levels of contamination. Of course, it probably is the case, as many areas with fracking in place experience similar problems.

Fracking is a serious problem, and needs to be addressed. Of course, economic issues prevent much from being done. Fracking is a positive thing for local economies, and creates jobs.  For this reason, officials may be hesitant to address the issue. Of course, they should realize that the health and safety of the citizens and environment is much more important than economic worries. Flammable water, suffocation, lead, and carcinogens are extremely problematic, and to not address these worries is to show a blatant disregard for human life.

1. What chemicals are used in fracking? How can they be harmful?

2. What are some postives of fracking?

3. Why would the EPA standards for contamination not including these contaminants prevent them from challenging oil companies?


http://www.propublica.org/article/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink



NBC and the Global Quest for Water Availability

http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1632007849.html 

Picture: This is what it is like when Africans are able to get clean water. It is as if they are opening their presents on Christmas day

Summary: While the whole world still believes that we can never run out of water, most of Africa thinks very differently. Many people in Africa lack the same access to safe water we have in the U.S. . Those same people are also dieing of water related diseases. In addition to this poor people living in the slums of Africa have to pay almost 5-10 times more than we have to, per liter of water.Luckily some organizations, such as the Nigeria Bottling Company, are taking initiatives to bring this problem to the attention of westerners and the whole world. NBC has also started supporting this great cause.Just recently they have joined the United Nations for this motive. One of the biggest goals being set right now is to provide clean and safe water to five million Africans by 2015. Although this is a huge goal, it can be achieved with much cooperation and persistence from everybody around the world. 

Opinion:When drinking water, I never think that this same water could be saving hundreds of people in Africa and other third world countries. I feel very thankful that I am able to receive this water, but at the same time I feel as very guilty. We, as a country and a species, need to help our fellow human beings and help get them clean water.Africa is in the spotlight for their lack of clean water, but we also need to think about all of the other third world countries that are suffering from the lack of clean water. The least we could do is maybe donate some of our clean water to help these poor people.

Questions:

1. Exactly how much clean water would it take to supply all of the countries lacking it?

2.What else is the U.S. doing to help with this lack of clean water besides of that stated in the article?

3. If we give some of our clean water to Africa will we eventually run out, or do we have a plentiful supply of this water?

4. Why isn't this topic as heavily covered in the news as murder cases?

Population and Women's Rights



This image is one of a crowded street in India, the country currently experiencing the greatest growth in population.

Summary:

The human population's recent increase in growth is nothing short of astounding. Yet women's rights and rights to make decisions concerning their reproductive health are being attacked politically from many angles. Contraception being widely accessible to women could ease the population problem greatly. Even in countries with shrinking populations, the women's rights issue is relevant. If women did not have to choose between their families and their careers, populations would probably be more stable. In the end, the article suggests that the population problem can be solved by women having more rights, options, and education, worldwide.

Reflection: This seems only logical to me, that if a woman has the freedom to make her own decisions concerning how many children to have, and the oppurtunity to have both a flourishing family and career, that she would probably choose a logical number of children, for whom she can care whilst still working, if that is indeed her choice. I have no clue why anyone would attack the rights of women to reproductive education and health care, especially if it can solve the problems with population.

Questions:

1.What can be done to provide more education and rights to women concerning reproduction?

2. Why would the education of women solve the population problem/

3. Can governments do anything to provide these rights, if so, what?

4.What other groups of people do you think determine the population's growth, and why?

Lizards Building Defense Against Poison

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/02/28/toxicomania-poisonous-invasive-plant-protects-australian-lizards-cane-toads/



A flower known as the mother of millions is reproducing very quickly.  The flowers contain a type of poison and kill cattle that devour them. The poison found in the mother of millions plant was a lot like the poison found in some frogs. When the lizards ate the flower they gained a defense against the toads poison and allowed them to eat them with out feeling the effects of the poison to the fullest extend. Through natural selection  also helped snakes develop a tolerance to the poison, it only took 20 to 40 generations to take effect.  The Australian government is going to focus on destroying the frogs were the mother of millions is not present, and would have a bigger impact on species 

I think it is crazy how fast natural selection can work. I was told for most animals it would take a human life for changes to be noticed but it seems like it happens a lot faster than that. It also seems a little like a game in some ways.  One animal makes a move to get a jump another, if the other animal does not a move then it will lose and die. I also think it is interesting to see that some exotic species are not always bad ,as in this case. It is still bad though since many animals still die from the flowers poison.

1. How fast does it take for natural selection to take place?
2. How much will the population of toads drop?
3. Could the toads go through natural selection and get an even stronger poison?

Feral Australian Camels--Invasive Species

Picture: This is a male camel's mating call. Male camels in Australia have been reported to injure and even kill humans. This is what the male camel may look like shortly before an attack. Summary: Between 1840 and 1907, 20,000 camels were inported to Australia from India. They were used to explore the then-mysterious inner regions of the continent, and for a while as beasts of burden. The foreign species became feral when camels broke away from their captors in 1860. By 1960, the feral camel population was estimated at 20,000, but some think it may have numbered more closely to 90,000. Camels have caused some damage to vegetation. Most of their preferred food is not shared by other animals. Though they pose little competition, camels do pose a serious health risk for native species, as carriers of many diseases including rabies, camel pox, and anthrax. Camel pox mutates quickly and transfers easily between species. Camel populations have also befouled watering holes with waste. When in the mating season, male camels become extremely aggressive and have been reported to injure or kill livestock and humans. Feral populations have no natural predators, so populations grow unchecked, especially since camels may live 50 years, 47 of which they are reproducing. Their appetites effect the populations of many plant species, as they browse without any specificity. They have caused the local extinction of plumbush, native apricot, and Lawrencia, to name a few. Camels, in addition to all this, emit methane at a rate of about .97 tonnes a year. Opinion/Reflection: I was surprised to find that there were feral camels in Australia, let alone that they could be aggressive! I have been viewing camels as mostly benevolent for a long time, and had no clue that they...kill people. These problems are serious indeed, but I am not an advocate of the culling of any animal. Perhaps could they control birth rates in some way? I have heard about a sort of birth control for deer in the United States, and I wonder how successful that was, and if it would work for camels. 1. What should be done about the camel population? 2. Do you think there is a way that the dispersion of camels could have been prevented, short of never introducing them? 3. How do you think these feral camels fit into the natural order of their environments? Posted by Kim Hughes to Blog Mastersesesesekfhgfladsfysldfliaufds at February 27, 2012 5:30 PM

Invasive Species

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/InvasiveSpecies.cfm
Picture: The "air potato" is an example of an invasive species introduced to America by Africa in 1905. It has the ability disrupt natural processes such as fire and water flow.

Summary: Invasive species are species of a certain environment that are, either intentionally or unintentionally, taken to other ecosystems by humans. Once species invades an ecosystem, it either dies out, or disrupts the natural process of the native ecosystem and species that live in it. This causes native species and invasive species to compete for survival. Ultimately, one species, usually the fitter of the two, will survive. One simple species may drastically change the native population for multiple reasons. One of which is the fact that it disrupts the natural food chain. Invasive species potentially have the power to even harm humans, through unnatural succession.

Opinion/reflection: It is amazing how much humans harm nature, in general. Countries should take species invasion more seriously. Also, humans should realize what they are doing to nature and native species by introducing invasive species.

Questions:

• If you think about it, have you ever introduced an invasive species to a native area?
• Are invasive species always bad?
•  Specifically, how can humans stop this problem?

 

Structural and Behavioral Adaptations

Structural and Behavioral Adaptations http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htmsome examples of adaptation include: giraffes' long necks, birds' wings, and bears hibernating

Summary: all organisms have adaptations to help them survive. some are structural, some behavioral. Adaptations are the result of evolution. It usually occurs when a gene mutates and the resulting change allows the organism to survive better. The gene is passed along through the species as generations pass, which can takes thousands -- sometimes millions -- of years
Opinion/Reflection: I was somewhat startled at how long it takes for an adaptation to spread through an entire species. I think that we should keep a close eye on certain species that might be forced to adapt soon  due to pressure caused by humans.
Questions:
Even though the adaptations are  mutations, what controls whether the gene for the mutation is dominant or recessive???
Name some of the major causes of adaptation
Describe survival of the fittest
are humans evolving backwards?

Endangered Snapping Turtles

Article By: Mary Ormsby
Date of publication: 2/18/2012
Article: Ontario snapping turtle endangered yet hunted
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1133454--ontario-snapping-turtle-endangered-yet-hunted

Summary: While people have been focusing on the endangered polar bears in the arctic, we have to remember there are other endangered species. In Ontario,Canada the Ontario snapping turtle has been endangered for a while. The problem arises when these turtles are being hunted and sold on the black market.In Ontario there are some restrictions as to how, when and where to hunt turtles.But,when people go in to hunt these turtles, there is no one to watch them,and sometimes they take more turtles than they are supposed.Poachers look for the older turtles, and these are the turtles that the other turtles look to for off-springs. Some turtles are even giving birth after one hundred years.Hunting these older turtles can affect the future of hatch lings very severely. There is some environmental value for the snapping turtle, they borrow holes that other animals such as small frogs,small reptiles,and fish use. In addition to that snapping turtles are also environment "cleaners", as they eat dead fishes and weeds. Snapping turtles are important to the environment,and should not be hunted anymore.

 Picture: Snapping Turtles like this one are sold in China and Canada.Sometimes even bigger ones too.

Opinion/Reflection: I did not think that snapping turtles were an endangered species in Ontario. It is obvious from this article these species should no longer be hunted. They are certainly a big part of their ecosystem as they help give small animals shelter,and are environmental "cleaners".It was interesting how they had conducted the experiment on the old turtle, and that it is still reproducing,even after a hundred years.Lately there have been many different cases of endangered animals all over the world, so we should do our best to try to stop it right away. Some species that are endangered are the polar bears in the North pole, Panda bears in Asia, and even gorillas in Africa, are all endangered. 

Questions: 

1.How can I, as an average citizen,stop the endangerment of snapping turtles?

2.What is happening with the snapping turtles in the U.S.?

3.Why haven't the officials in Ontario keep tabs on the amount of snapping turtles being hunted?