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?