NASA Should Be Monitoring Global Climate Change With The DSCOVR

NASA Should Be Monitoring Global Climate Change with the Deep Space Climate Observatory

Written by: Bill Donahue
Published on: April 6th, 2011


http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010811229&userGroupName=hatterslib&jsid=8c56e83fd7d20c3414260534380cfdd6

The picture above shows Triana, or recently renamed Deep Space Climate Observatory. This sophisticated piece of machinery is a satellite implemented by Al Gore to help the world keep track of climate change. 

l    Summary: Climate change has been a serious concern for the world in recent years. Various predictions of incredibly harsh climate has spurred action on all sides to fix our impending disaster. Al Gore, an important politician and climate change activist, implemented a plan to create a satellite capable of measuring the earths climate. It's new technology allowed NASA to observe the earth's albedo. Albedo is the amount of solar energy that our planet reflects into space versus the amount it absorbs. However, it's departure into our solar system has been indefinitely halted. Among political indifference's, NASA is unsure how to protect the satellite from cosmic rays grinding the fragile components of the device. Also, a large concern remains as to whether the satellite would remain in place for an extended amount of time. However, hope for the Deep Space Climate Observatory glistens. Recently, President Obama allocated 9 million dollars to the refurbishing and preparation of the satellite. Donahue ends with a pressing statement. That Triana isn't just a satellite, but a solution to a overhanging problem our world faces.

     Opinion/Reflection: I was very interested to read about this space satellite. It astounds me that NASA has the technological capability to build such a complicated piece of machinery. While we face many uncertainties in the launching of this satellite, I think it's a key solution to obtain knowledge on our situation. Providing our citizens with facts and figures about global climate change is absolutely necessary. Too often I find myself hearing conflicting stories about our global climate change. It's time we get the facts, and this satellite will bring us one step closer to the truth.

     Questions: 

            1. Do you think climate change is a valid issue? How would measuring solar energy be helpful?

            2. What are other ways we could measure climate change other than Albedo?

            3. NASA has chosen you to take part in a project whose goal is to understand climate change better. Would you use the satellite as your solution to the project, or do you have another idea? If you chose the satellite, what could be added to improve its accuracy, efficiency, protection ect.?

Extra Blog: Animal Welfare

Kroger Provides Update on Animal Welfare

No author stated Published:  PR Newswire. June 4, 2012

Article found:http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T004&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=3&contentSet=GALE%7CA291867226&&docId=GALE|A291867226&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

                                                                                Picture: This picture shows what some animals have to deal with every day just so their owners can get more money.  With these living conditions many of the chicken die prematurely and have many diseases.

Picture Link: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=8026&picture=chicken-coop

Summary:  Kroger Co. set new regulations towards the crates that contain the pregnant sows. The idea of gestation crate-free housing is found to be more humane by the company and is trying to work the whole pork industry towards using them. This is one of the many acts that The Kroger Company has done towards animal welfare. Many of the transitions that the Kroger Company tells the chains to participate take several years. Kroger is a large grocery retailer and supports causes such as hunger relief and school communities. The Kroger Company show that they care about many causes and care about what they do.

Opinion/ Reflection: The fact that the Kroger Company is not just thinking about getting the most money but thinking about the conditions that these animals are living in is unexpected. So many factory farms just shove a bunch of animals into a crowded area and do not care about them getting diseases. What the Kroger Company is participating in is great and many more large companies should be contributing to the cause as well. If the idea of humane environments for animals on a farm is more accepted, consumers will be more likely to purchase products from those companies. Then the other companies will have to either switch to humane environments or go out of business.

Questions:

1. Do you think that what the Kroger Company is doing will catch on?

2. Do you think that if companies pay more attention to humane environments they will make more money?
3. What are some examples of making a farm more suitable for animals? At least 3.
4. What are some ways that a farmer can make an envirometn for an animal inhumane? At least 2.

    

Brandon Timm Atmosphere Blog Post

Minimizing air pollution exposure may help protect against cognitive decline
No author stated, From Focus on Healthy Aging, May 2012
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=5&contentSet=GALE%7CA288538931&&docId=GALE|A288538931&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

Picture Link: http://www.chestnet.org/accp/article/chest-physician/air-pollution-linked-strokes-reduced-cognition                                                        



Picture: This picture comes shows the X-rays of healthy lungs, which could be affected by heightened levels of air pollution. Summary: According to this article, lowering the levels of air pollution could keep cognitive decline (aging) at a normal pace. If the levels are higher, this process could be accelerated. Particles of air pollutants are classified as fine or coarse based on the size of the particles. Both classifications of particles can cause issues. They can cause heart, lung, and possibly brain issues. Heart attack risks can increase significantly after exposure to high levels of pollutants. To avoid issues with air pollutants, try to exercise indoors, or install an air filter inside your home.

Opinion/Reflection: This was really shocking to find out that exposure to air pollution can cause the aging process to accelerate in adults. Even though I'm not necessarily at the age at risk for these issues, it really makes me think what I could do to avoid exposure to these pollutants. Typically, I spend a very large amount of time outdoors exercising, and I had no idea what affects the pollution could have on me. Maybe I could try to do more exercise indoors as the article suggests.

Questions:

1. How could the size of a pollutant particle have a different effect on health?

2. What from the pollutants causes cognitive decline to accelerate? Explain.

3. What do you think of the suggestions that are made to avoid exposure to pollutants?

Air Pollution

A Mighty Wind

By: Trevor Butterworth

Published: Newsweek May 21, 2012

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA289601000&&docId=GALE|A289601000&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

 Picture: This image shows what is accounting for 2 percent of greenhouse gases, flatulence of animals.

http://jeremywilliams.net.au/portfolio.html

 Summary:  Three British academics researched and found that it is possible that dinosaurs could have put methane into the atmosphere with their burping and farting causing changes in our climate. When an animal needs to digest plant material it produces quite an accumulation of methane. So when a rather large animal, such as a dinosaur, is constantly eating plants its produces very large amounts of methane. It is estimated that dinosaurs produced between 500 and 600 million tons of methane per year.  John Whitlock, a paleontologist at the University of British Columbia, states that the theory is not unreasonable. However, he questions just how much of the climate change is a result of flatulence of the dinosaurs in the Jurassic era. Today, cattle are replacing the dinosaur’s methane production but are not producing nearly as much.

 Opinion/Reflection: I find it very interesting that our climate change could have something to do with flatulent dinosaurs. We are constantly being told that the change in climate is because of our use of cars polluting the atmosphere, etc. This is true, but there are things that we have little or no control over that are contributing to climate changes as well. What dinosaurs did can’t be changed but we have to change our habits to accommodate for the high amounts of methane in the atmosphere from millions of years ago.

Questions:

1.       Do you think there is validity to the theory that dinosaur flatulence warmed the earth’s climate?

2.       What can help reduce the amount of pollution in the air?

3.       Do you think we should add oregano or curry to cow feed to minimize the emissions?

Tidal Power Could Create New Wave Of Energy

Federal and State Governments Should Support Tidal Power

Written by Larry Eisenstat
Published in 2010

5/14/2012

URL: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010723212&mode=view
Picture: This picture gives a basic overview on how tidal power works. The motion of waves and tides power small turbines. Within a short amount of time these turbines can potentially produce a sizable amount of electricity.


Summary: Currently our country is facing a potential energy crisis. Our heavy reliance on oil and coal will prove to be disasterous unless we start shifting to alternate energy sources. One of the most reasonable options of alternative energy is tidal power. Hydrokinetic power uses the motion of waves to power small turbines and create electricity. The tides are consistant and predictable making hydrokinetic power very practical. Creating power stations along the coast would create despirately needed jobs as well. Hydrokinetic power is not just a hopefull idea or theory, the United Kingdom has been experimanting with since May 2008. Great Britain uses tidal power for 20% of its electricity needs. Tidal power is extremely promising, and not beyond our grasp. We should take advantage of the tides now in order to establish a secure energy future.

Opinion/Reflection: I think tidal power is a fantastic idea to solve the looming energy problem we face in the near future. Tidal energy is extremely predictable and sustainable. The waves will never cease, creating energy day and night. I personally love to visit the beach, and often find myself marveling at the sheer power the tides are capable of. We would find plenty of opportunity in tidal power to create a superior energy future. With plenty of coastal area around the country, shifting into smarter and healthier energy options couldn't be easier.

Questions:
        1. What are your thoughts on tidal power? Does it seem useful to you? Why or why not?
        2. Do you believe we could potentially look towards tidal power as a major source of energy for our country? Explain your reasoning.
        3. What are the problems with tidal power, if any? How could these problems be fixed?

 

Ball State University dedicates geothermal system
From: American School and University  Published on Student Resources in Context on March 21, 2012
Link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R5&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=14&contentSet=GALE%7CA283778591&&docId=GALE|A283778591&docType=GALE&role=SUIC

Picture Link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/

 Picture: This picture shows the process of geothermal energy being created. Geothermal energy is a possible replacement for fossil fuels in the future.

Summary: Ball State University is starting to use geothermal energy to cool and heat all of the buildings on their campus. This new form of energy could save them about $2 million dollars annualy after it is fully installed. It will become the largest geothermal system in the U.S. after it's completion. Currently, $20 million is still needed to complete this project for the 660-acre campus. It will require a total of 3,600 boreholes to be drilled in order to get to the heat beneath the Earth used for geothermal heating/cooling. To heat the buildings, heat will be removed from fluids in the Earth's crust. For cooling, heat will be pumpd out of the buildings and back into the Earth.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that this is a great idea for the university. Saving money will help them fund important things at the school. Also, they are becoming eco-friendly by switching to this cleaner form of energy. The huge investment that they are making with this geothermal energy system will be well worth it in the future. Personally, I always look for ways to save money and energy like they are doing at Ball State, so I can really connect to what they are doing, even though their savings are on a much larger scale.

Questions:
1. What do you think of Ball State's plan to switch to geothermal energy?
2. Do you think the size of their project is practical? Why or why not?
3. What would be a better alternative to geothermal energy for Ball State? Explain.

Deforestation

By: Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner
Published in Detroit in 2009 from Opposing Viewpoints In Context.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T001&searchId=R6&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX3233900064&&docId=GALE|CX3233900064&docType=GALE&role=OVIC

Picture: This graphic shows the deforestation that takes place so often to build stores and houses. This is causing many issues such as climate change and loss of habitats for animals.

Summary: Deforestation has been occurring for over 8,000 years and is now mainly happening in tropical areas. For deforestation to be monitored it requires remote sensing done with satellites but this does not give accurate results. The majority of deforestation takes place when clearing for agricultural purposes. When burning all of the trees and shrubbery it leaves all of the nutrients from the plants and makes the soil rich for the farmer. Tropical regions are recently being demolished so crops can be exported to richer countries. When deforestation takes place it reduces the amount of biodiversity in an ecosystem. Flooding and droughts are more of a problem because by removing trees the soil erodes too.

Opinion/Reflection: I was surprised to see all of the negative effects of deforestation. I was aware of the obvious effect of losing the habitats of many animals but never really thought much about the other severe impacts it has. The benefits of cutting trees are more widely known such as paper production and firewood. I think that deforestation should be minimized but that is highly unlikely so another solution would be replacing the deforestation site with new wood growth as soon as possible. I think that there needs to be stricter regulations on the amount of wood allowed to be cut down and the amount that is replaced in that area.

Questions:

1. Do you think that deforestation is a problem? Why or why not?

2. What suggestions do you have to reduce the amount of deforestation around the world?

3. Do you think that deforestation is contributing to global warming?

Thermal Pollution

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCV2644151370&mode=view

   http://withfriendship.com/images/i/43742/thermal-pollution-stock.jpg

Summary: Thermal pollution refers to the disturbance of air and water, and terrestrial and aquatic life, caused by heat. An example of thermal pollution is the development of an urban heat island. An urban heat island consists of a dome of warm air caused by the release of heat by buildings as well as the retention subsequent release of heat by concrete. Thermal pollution refers to the heating of lakes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water. This is usually by electric power-generating plants or factories. The increases in the temperature can have a harmful effect on an aquatic environment. A sudden change in the temperature can cause the death of many individuals. It can cause potentially useful applications, such as aquatic farms where commercially desirable fish and shellfish can be raised. An option suggested a lot is to do a better job at cooling the water before it reenters a river, lake, or the ocean.

Opinion/ Reflection: I believe that the people at the plant and factories should cool the water before the put them back into the bodies of water. They should also find away to protect the aquatic environment. The people could create the farms to protect some of them, like they said in the article.

Questions:

1.       If you had a chance to do something about thermal pollution, what would you do? Why?

2.       Do you think the plants and factories could do any more to cut down on the thermal pollution? Why or why not?

3.      Do you think in the future there will be a lower aquatic environment if the factories keep having high amounts of pollution? Why or why not?

Fracking Contaminating Wells throughout Pennsylvania and New York

Article: “Study Finds Methane Contamination Rises Near Shale Gas Wells” by Mike Soraghan

 http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/09/09greenwire-study-finds-methane-contamination-rises-near-s-87464.html?pagewanted=all

Picture: This picture shows protestors of the potential risks of drilling in the Marcellus Shale near wells. Studies suggest that drilling puts higher levels of methane into nearby drinking water, making it unsafe. Industry groups are critical of the studies and are suggesting more testing. http://lamodeverte.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/there-is-documented-evidence-that-fracking-has-contaminated-drinking-water-supplies/

Summary: Researchers at Duke University claim that they have discovered the potential for contamination of drinking water from drilling in Pennsylvania and New York. Overall, the researchers were able to conclude that eighty-five percent of wells in Pennsylvania and upstate New York were contaminated by methane. The study found that higher levels of methane were found in well water near drilling areas. This study is quite controversial since the team did not look at the levels of methane before the drilling took place to get a baseline level. Drilling industry groups have stated that the difference in methane levels could simply be from the areas being geographically different having nothing to do with drilling. It is uncertain if methane in drinking water can lead to health problems but methane buildups have been responsible for house explosions. The researchers believe that more studies are necessary to determine new methane levels, health effects of methane in drinking water and whether or not the chemicals in the fracturing liquid are contaminating groundwater.  The Duke researchers have suggested that there should be more industry and government regulation under the Safe Water Drinking Act.

Opinion/Reflection:  After reading both the researchers’ and the drilling industry representatives’ positions on the study findings, I agree that more studies need to be done to determine the true effects of drilling on well water in Pennsylvania and New York. I believe the study has some serious flaws and does not give enough evidence of contamination from drilling. I am also not aware of any health threats of methane in water. I do know that if methane escapes from water and is contained in poorly ventilated areas, it can cause asphyxiation or explosions. However, there are steps that can be taken to prevent that, such as installing vents in wells. Overall, without new evidence, I think the economic benefits that we gain from drilling currently outweigh the concerns of the contamination of well water. However, if future studies show that the water is being made unsafe by the fracturing fluid used in drilling or more health conditions are proven to be related to methane levels in water, drilling should be banned immediately.

 Questions:

1.      Do you think that the study is valid without the original levels of methane before the drilling began? Why or why not?

2.      Do you think that the water in wells is being contaminated due to drilling near wells? Why or why not?

3.      If the methane levels in drinking water are rising because of drilling (fracking), do you think that we should ban fracking?

Bottled Water: Convenient or Contaminated?

Bottled Water: Convenient or Contaminated?

Original Article: Bottled Water May Be Harmful by Jane Houlihan

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010670227&mode=view 

Picture Credits: http://enrooutd.info/deer-park-spring-water-6-pack.php

Picture Description: This picture shows traditional bottled water. The product is made to look as natural and healthy as possible. Notice the "clear sky" blue packaging, the picturesque woodland, and even the brand name Deer Park. The company is clearly trying to push a feeling of purity onto the consumer.

     Summary: Houlihan's article revolves around the controversial topic of bottled water purity. She takes a strong stance that consumers are buying a product that is not only misleading and costly, but even dangerous. The article reveals that bottled water companies are not held to the same standards as tap water companies. Bottle water companies are not required to reveal tests on the purity of their water, as well as their purification methods.  Houlihan argues that this leaves the consumers with a serious knowledge gap on the cleanliness of their bottled water.She reinforces the idea that tap water may in fact be cleaner than bottled water. Tests done to bottled water revealed numerous chemicals used to purify the product, or as Houlihan calls it a "a cocktail of chlorine disinfection byproducts". She also claims that these agents are known to promote cancer and poor health.

    Opinion/ Reflection: Reading this article really reconfigured my feelings about bottled water. I had no idea how questionable the purity of bottled water really was. I believe that consumers have been mislead and fooled into thinking that this product is safer than tap water. This article really sheds a light on the underhanded methods big business has been using to convince us of the "purity" of bottled water. In recent news, I've heard about the horrendous "pink slime" being added to our ground beef. Clearly the corporate world has no shame in using foul methods to make our products appear more valuable. Who's to say their not doing the same thing to our bottled water? I think that the purity of bottled water is a serious issue that must be resolved. Bottled water companies such as Deer Park must be held to stricter regulations regarding water safety. 

     Questions:

1.    Before reading this article, did you prefer to drink bottled water or tap water? Why?
2.    After reading this article do you feel that bottled water is unsafe to drink? What makes you feel this way?
3.    What are your thoughts on the safety standards of drinking water in America based on this article and your prior knowledge? Should they be revised, if yes how so?

Hydrosphere Post 1 Brandon Timm

Scour Power: big storms shift coastal erosion into overdrive By: Sid Perkins
Published in: Science News on August 28, 2010

Link: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=hatterslib&tabID=T003&searchId=R14&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA236332648&&docId=GALE|A236332648&docType=GALE&role=SUIC                      

Picture Link: http://www.pensacolabeachblogger.com/2008/09/pensacola-beach-erosion/
 
Picture: This picture shows the erosion left in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. This is a common sight after large storms come on shore.

Summary: Beach erosion is a very common and natural process. After Hurrican Ike hit Texas in 2008, questions were sparked on how this occurs. Scientists are beginning to use very high-tech equipment in order to find a pattern in the erosions. They are taking scans of the ocean floor and mapping it so that they can notice changes after storms and other events occur. Their research has shown that large storms can move very large areas of sediments. This is because the churning of the ocean currents caused by the storm causes a movement of sediments that can be placed anywhere along the ocean floor in the path of the storm. With the data that they are collecting, they can eventually predict the location of the shoreline in future years based on the pattern of erosion. In the future, shoreline houses can be better placed based on the information being gathered by these scientists.

Opinion/Reflection: I am surprised by the technology that is being used by these scientists. The ability to map the ocean floor is crazy. Hopefully, the scientists are able to save many beach houses from being swept away by the ocean. The problem is, the pattern of storms is unpredictable so that could cause issues. I still think that it is a great idea for them to be trying to predict erosion in order to save the houses on the shore.

Questions:

1. Do you think scientists can accurately predict erosion? Why?
2. What could be some potential interferences with their methods?
3. Are they using a truly effective method? Why or why not?

        

Mass Species Extinction Is Exaggerated

Mass Species Extinction Is Exaggerated

Article Written By: Peter Foster

Financial Post, September 13, 2007. Copyright © 2007 The National Post Company

Summary:  It is often assumed that human actions are at the forefront of the phenomenon known as "Mass Species Extinction." We have been told that among the millions of both unknown and known species across the planet, human activity has caused the extinction of thousands of species. However, is that entirely the case? This article takes the issue head on as Foster dives headfirst into the heated debate over mass extinction. His findings conclude that the extinction rate among species is highly exaggerated and exploited. While he agrees that extinction is very serious business, he believes that it is just another part of nature's cycle. Perhaps extinction facts may be skewed, and the reasoning behind the belief of mass extinction may be a bit flawed. Mass extinction takes into account the millions of other species that we have yet to even prove exist. Foster drives the idea home that mass extinction may not be as catastrophic as we think it is.

The Javan elephants were thought to be extinct after they were hunted by settlers in the 1800s. However, in 2006 the elephants were rediscovered 800 miles away on the island of Borneo.

Opinion: Initially, I was taken aback by the very strong point the author makes in the title. Mass extinction cannot be taken as lightly as the author makes it out to be. He hints that mass extinction is simply inflated for attention and funding. There may be a small dose of truth in his article about funding and attention, but the big picture is still the same. Mass species extinction is a very serious threat, and it’s taking place in our era. The disappearance of any species is a disaster, let alone hundreds or even thousands of them. In stead of taking drastic measure to preserve dying species, we should be adjusting our actions so we cause no harm in the future. On a personal level, I recycle paper, plastic, and metal. I also make a conscious effort not to abuse privileges like electricity, hot water, and fuel. If everyone took these miniscule measures, we’d have a much more pleasant environmental future ahead of us.

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on mass extinction? (Is is natural, should be stop it, are we to blame for it, is it exaggerated ect.)

2. When scientists study mass extinction, they take into account species that haven't been discovered yet. Is it fair to include these unknown species? Is it scientific?

3. How much do you think humans play a part in mass extinction? What could we do to limit our influence in mass extinction?

Non-Native Species Are Not Necessarily a Threat to Biodiversity

Article Written By: Dana Joel Gatusso

Published By: Greenhaven Press in 2006

Article Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010131241&mode=view&userGroupName=hatterslib&jsid=4731a015468185dfb2fd4f84b23ada6a

Picture Link: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/12/15/incoming-the-worlds-10-worst-invasive-species/

 Picture: This graphic shows Kudzu, a plant that is now considered an invasive species but was actually brought to this country to control soil erosion.

Summary: It is estimated that there are anywhere between 6,500 and 50,000 non-native species in the United States and only a very small number have become invasive where they have caused economic losses or extinction of native species. Most of them are actually beneficial and were purposely brought here to try to solve certain problems. A prime example of this is the Asian Carp introduced to control algae throughout lakes and ponds in the South. Many conservation activists and law makers are trying to group all non-native species together as invasive and pass laws to control or ban their introduction. There are currently more than twenty government agencies and billions of dollars involved in managing “invasive” species each year.  Many organisms in our environment were once non-native and have made their way into our culture with no problems. In fact, ninety-eight percent of our entire food system is made up of exotic or non-native crops and livestock. Many activists claim that invasive species are a “threat to the variety of species within ecosystems” but some scientists actually think that non-natives increase biodiversity and lead to a larger number of species over time.

Opinion/Reflection:  There is no scientific evidence that supports the statement that introduced species are causing global extinction of native species. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to be generally banning all exotic species if the majority of them are actually integrated nicely in their habitats and actually beneficial to their ecosystems. Even when certain species have some damaging effects, it can’t be ignored that they also have positive effects. For example, the zebra mussels that are multiplying rapidly in the Great Lakes are causing some economic troubles and affecting some species but they are also improving the water quality and increasing aquatic plants that shelter other species of fish. I do agree that some native species do need to be controlled but we should not waste resources in controlling ALL non-native species. Overall, I believe change is good and it could lead to more species and a better biodiversity ratio.

Questions:

1.      Should the government be spending billions of taxpayer money on creating laws to control non-native species?

2.      Is it worth losing the benefits of many non-native species by banning all new species to avoid the negative effects of some of the invasive ones?

3.      Does introducing invasive species threaten or promote biodiversity?

4.      Could invasive species be controlled more effectively at the state or local level where the problem is occurring?

Biosphere Blog #1 By: Brandon Timm

Invasive Species are a Major Threat to the Great Lakes
Article written by: Andy Buchsbaum, and published by the Greenhaven Press copyright 2010
Article:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010670210&mode=view
Picture:
http://michpics.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/yesterday-sand-today-zebra-mussels-quagga-mussels/

Picture:
This photograph shows the zebra mussels that have wreaked havoc upon the Great Lake's ecosystems. As you can see, the amount of these mussels is truly incredible for a species that has just recently been found here.
Summary:
The Great Lakes are in some serious trouble. The infestation of species like these mussels, as well as human pollution are putting major questions towards the survival of many native species. After
a 2005 report on the situation, the issue was truly discovered. Many invasive species that were not priorly known to live in the Great Lakes were found to have been destroying the ecosystem within the Great Lakes. One key factor that was majorly affected was the food web of this region. Because many of these invasive species feed very much on the organisms at the base of the food web, this is causing the higher level organisms to decline in population. Efforts have been made to stop further invasions of these harmful species and others of the sort. These efforts include an electric barrier placed at the mouth of an entrance to the Great Lakes.
Opinion/Reflection:
This kind of invasion comes at no surprise to me. I have seen several documentaries of these types of infestations on the Mississippi River. It does surprise me though that this type of colonization is happening so quickly. It seems to me like something of this caliber would be such a fast occurence. As I stated in the picture section, the populations of these new species are incredible. It interests me at how these species are causing issues. These mussels are said to just cover the entire lake bottom for acres at  time. This kills off the producers that grow on the bottom. I don't think that there is a way to control infestations like this, more likely, they have to stop them before they even start.
Questions:

1. Why are the native species having difficulty coping with these new species?
2. How, if possible, could the people of the region handle this infestation?
3. Do humans play a part in these infestations?
4. Why do these species multiply so quickly in their new environments?