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