California's Golden Set of Rules

Article Published February 13, 2012 written in the New York Times. Check it out here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/opinion/californias-clean-car-rules.html?_r=1&ref=airpollution

Picture 1: I don't know about you,

but this image makes me want to get on
the next plane over to the Golden State of
California! Surf, sun, celebs...and even
better air qulaity!

Picture 2: But seriously, check this out!

A catalytic converter!!! When California

started to use these in their cars, everything

quickly changed for the better! What a cute

catalytic converter...that's a tongue twister,

isn't it?!

Summary: California's Air Resources Board created state rules to help improve their air pollution. These new set of laws will decrease greenhouse gases, less smog-causing pollutants, and hopefully, influence automobile industries to develope more emission free vehicles. California was allowed to create thier own set of rules, along with getting a waiver from the federal government. Hopefully their rules get approved, because these new rules will only been beneficial to California! The laws include, reducing nitrogen oxides and more smog-forming emissions from cars by 2025, and creating zero-emission vehicles that are powered by hydrogen or batteries. They believe this will help reduce the states' greenhouse gas by 80 percent. Hopefully, the federal government will soon grant the waiver, allowing these rules to take place! It is almost certain that the waiver will be granted...and improvemens will take place.

Opinion/Reflection: I personally enjoyed this article so much! I've never been to California, but hope to travel there in my future! And now knowing that these new air pollution laws are possibly in the making, it makes me want to fly over there as soon as possible, you know, for the clean breathable air...and the cute boutiques, stars, the Ellen show, the Hollywood sign...I mean, yeah, the air! I hope that other states get influenced by California, and start creating new laws for themselves. Just image, every state with zero-emission vehicles, that will quickly decrease nitrogen oxides and smog-causing pollutants. How lovely. I hope that where we live, in Pennsylvania, we start to develope laws to help our air pollution. We all live on this Earth, breathe this air...we should try to make it clean, right?! Go California!

Questions:

1. Should the federal government approve of California's new rules? Why or why not?

2. What could be a negative effect of a car that is powered by hydrogen or batteries? Would you drive that type of car (when you get your license that is!)?

3. Do you think California's set of rules will make a large improvement to their air quality/pollution? Or will it not really make a large impact...just a little bit?

4. The article mentioned President Obama, how so? What did he approve of?

Now what do you say guys?! How about us "Out of the Blue'' bloggers get some plane tickets to California to breathe some wonderful air!...then go shopping.  :)



Liar liar pants on fire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/air-pollution-biggest-threat-china
By: John Watts
Summary
Many people know that China has a vast amount of factories thanks to most of the one percent of american people who basically own all the money. Well back to China the government is saying that the air pollution is getting better while the truth is that it is getting worse. Dr. Zhang has said that there has been a 10% increase in smog every year. There have also been an increase in PM2.5 and that could increase their chance of getting lung cancer by 2 or 3 times more than normal. Its so bad that they have to wear face masks and can not excersise in their own out doors. During the Olympic games in Bejing the air pollution went down about 10% but after the games were over that 10% was quickly refilled by the air pollution they make. The good Dr. Zhang says that if they dont fix their ways than the air pollution will effect their water and food to the extreme.

Opinion/Reflection
I know that to protect the people sometimes you need to hide it from them but lying about what people can tell is going on is just so stupid. Why would you lie to your people if that same thing that you are saying could potentially kill all of your people. I mean if your going to say something like that then you should be wearing a shirt and hat saying I'm stupid. You should also be hiring people who are working in that field. Not just lie about it like some psycho maniac who is going to kill his people and himself. I think that the government is not going quit its old ways with their lying and hiding. They had said a month before this article the Chinese government is going to be more open. With all that pollution and the increase of dieses what can they do about it I mean yeah they would quit using fossil fuels but all that pollution would stay there for a long time and it would probably take 20 to 50 years for all that pollution to go away.

Questions
1. What would you do diffrently than what the Chinese government? Explain why?
2. What kind of alternative resource should China use? Explain why?
3. Where would you start to make changes in China with there air pollution problems?

Air Pollution Can Reduce a Child's IQ

Written by David Gutierrez

http://www.naturalnews.com/028094_air_pollution_intelligence.html

Picture: Air pollution in NYC is at the lowest level then it's ever been at, but something still needs to be done to stop the spread of PAH. 

Summary: 

According to researchers who conducted an experiment on pregnant, non-smoking women living in New York City, air pollution can affect the child's IQ level. During the womens' pregnancies they wore air monitors so that accurate data could be given on the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that they were exposed to.  After the children were born they were to take an IQ test at the age of 5. The test showed evidence that air pollution does affect a child's IQ level. The children of mothers with high PAH levels were scoring a signifigantly lower score, about 4.31-4.61 lower than average. Research before this had already shown that PAH exposure can lead to cancer and damage the neurological and reproductive systems.

Opinion/Reflection

I was really surprised. If I were a mother I would never want such thing to happen to my kid because of air pollution. I would do anything to stay away from that so that my kid did not have to live with neurological disabilities. In another way, I think this is all based on where people live. If someone is living in a much more urban area, then these chances are definitely a lot more likely, but for people living in rural areas it's probably less likely to have as much of an effect on their children. Again, I am just basing that off the fact that this experiment was done on 2 women who live in NYC. Living in a city, I can see why their children have suffered this, because there are much more fumes from cars, industries, etc. After all, the leading cause of the pollutant PAH is exhaust from automobiles.

Questions:

1.) Are there any other possible side effects on the children who are exposed to PAH?

2.) How could mothers stop this from being so likely when living in a city?

3.) How often does it occur that kids have lower IQ levels when exposed to PAH?

4.) Is there a way to stop this from happening to even more families in the future?

The Best Part About Global Warming
Charles Finch
March 2, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/the-best-part-about-global-warming.html#

When hearing about global warming, concern and fear comes to mind, but do you know what the best part about global warming is? It actually is that there has been hardly any cases of influenza during this mild winter. This past winter is the fourth warmest ever recorded in the United States, which proves the progression of the global warming considering the winter before brought blizzards and snowstorms frequently. Even though this is a scary occurrence, there are short term perks! Only 3 children have died do influenza, which is 119 less than last winter, and 345 less than in the overwhelming outbreak of it in 2009-2010. Hospitals and doctors feel such relief this season, because before there was such an extreme number of influenza cases that they were considering rationing out ventilators. Since it has been scientifically proven that the flu virus prospers and thrives in cold weather and low humidity. This explains why the virus is common in winter months more than any other time of the year, which means that if global warming continues, the flu viruses would not occur. On the other hand, some scientists are worried that after a few mild winters our bodies will become vulnerable to the flu even more than before because it is not as common. While much more research needs to be done, children, the elderly, the sick, and pregnant women will not be complaining. Thank global warming for the warm winter and less flu cases!

This shows an image of what we can expect more of, a warm winter!

Reflection: I found this article to be very interesting, considering most articles about global warming are warnings and show concern. This was a refreshingly positive outlook on something inevitable! I do love the snow and cold weather that comes along with the winter season, so this article has its pros and cons for me. However, of course everyone's health has to come before enjoyment, and I liked seeing that something that beneficial came out of this, especially when it comes to kids dying from the flu. It also does present some worrisome initiatives, such as that our bodies could be come more vulnerable to influenza. I think that this article celebrates some of the affects of global warming now, but shows some negative future outcomes, which worried me even more than I already was to begin with.

1. Did this article make you more worried or more relieved about global warming?
2. Do you think that the flu will eventually "die out" like other illnesses that were common in the past?
3. Will you miss the winter weather or do you find the warmer weather better?
4. How long does it take for the body to become more vulnerable to a virus it was once immune to?

Who Knew? Upcycling the Dog Poo 

 by Joanna M. Foster

April 4, 2012

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/who-knew-upcycling-the-dog-poo/


This is an example of a composting plant, where all of the fertilizer is processed.


Summary: I know this article sounds a little crazy, but if you think about it, it makes so much sense. In Ithaca, NY, a project was started in 2009. Their mission was to use their local dog part as a way to help the environment, as suggested by many citizens. The dog park obviously was a place for dogs to "go", which could be used for compost. They originally thought of selling the collected compost if it was free of pathogens. Normally, dog waste would be put into plastic bags, and often left on the streets, which end up as litter or in landfills. It is also a public health and environmental risk if it was left on the streets. So, the park provided corn-based compostable bags for the locals to use, and the waste was picked up weekly by a local composting company to be processed and composted. In just 18 months, 12 tons of of compost was produced! Although a lot, they didn't feel it was enough to sell, but it was found that the new compost was completely pathogen free! The park used the compost for fertilizer to plant trees on Earth day this year. Donations keep this park poo project up and running, needing $5,000 annually for the poo bags and the cost of the compost labor. This revolution is becoming public and widely known worldwide!

Reflection: I thought this was such an interesting, relatable article. I take my dog to the dog park fairly often, and I think that our local park should start a project like this. I think our locals would definitely be up for fundraising and donating to something like this. There is a dog park in Horsham, and maybe the compost made from the park could go hand and hand with the Jarrett Nature Center. It would be great to use this healthy fertilizer on the trees and pants there. I also was extremely surprised that the lb tests showed that the compost was pathogen-free, considering where it was coming from. This just goes to show how something that is so common and seemingly useless can start and green revolution. I also never though about how just leaving dog poo on the streets could be so harmful. This idea is innovative, inexpensive, and safe!

Questions:
1) Would you originally think that the waste would be unsafe for use? Were you surprised to hear that it was safe?
2) Do you think that investing this type of idea would be worth it to our community?
3) How long does the processing and composting of this waste take?
4) What kind or environmental impacts can dog poo have other than taking up space in land fills?

Note: For the link above with the article, a video is also included at the bottom of the article! Feel free to watch :)

Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?

Check out the article, "Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?" written by Mark Bittman on February 15th, 2011 here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood.

This image is almost a play on words of GMO's, they show a picture of corn, along with the GMO's that are placed inside the food. The article pushes for foods like this to be labeled, allowing consumers to be aware of the GMO's that are within the food source.

Summary: GMO's, or Genetically Modified Organisms, are genitically engineered food that is sold on store shelves, and are currently lacking a label. A reason why the F.D.A will not include a label on food with GMO's is because they don't want their product to seem "different," even those they do contain potenial harm to consumer's health. The article implies that food containing more than .9% GMO's must be labeled. Genitically Engineered foods are argued to grow faster, decrease stress on land and be more profitable for farmers, but, they are real dangers to humans and can provoke allergic reactions. Its not shocking that the biotech industry spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade! The majority of Americans think that GMO's are unsafe, and 87% of them want them to be labeled. GMO's are a health hazard, and must be labeled, on behalf of our health.

Opinion/Reflection: First of all, I've only breifly ever heard about GMO's. I knew that they were bad for our health, and not good in general. I had no idea where they came from or what G.E, gentically engineered foods, were either. After reading this article, I also agree that products containing GMO's should be labeled, so that we are aware of what we are eating. The majority of our food, and including the food I've already eaten, contain GMO's. It is really crazy how these genetically engineered foods may be easier for farmers, and allow them to make more money, but in the end it just comes back around and is not healthy for the consumers. All in all, I fully agree that GMO's should be labeled, for my health and for everyone all over the world!

Questions:
1. Do you feel as if products with GMO's in them should be labeled? Why or why not?
2. The article mentioned "cross-breeding," how do you feel about this topic?
3. What is one method to persuade the F.D.A to add labels to products containing GMO's?
4. Do organic foods contain GMO's? If yes, what is the law limit of the amount of GMO's they must contain?

Slowing Deforestation Rates May Net Billions

Slowing Deforestation Rates May Net Billions
July 13, 2008
Author: Jo Hartley

http://www.naturalnews.com/023623_deforestation_carbon_emissions.html

This is a picture of what deforestation is doing to the Amazon.

Deforestation is taking a major effect on our economy. If the process of deforestation were slowed, then so much money could be generated to help fight against climate changes that are hurting us. When farmers cut down the trees to clear land for their farming, this alone is creating up to 20% of our world's greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, there was a UN climate conference held. During this conference they discussed ways to motivate and reward countries for decreasing their deforestation. One way would possibly be by making factories pay to emit carbon dioxide. They have rewarded places for such hard effort in decreasing the deforestation rates in their countries, the ones with the highest rates have decreased excessively. If this issue becomes more publically known, then there is a chance for other countries to lower their rates too. It's not only helping the environment and bringing back animal's habitats, but it's saving more money. So what's the better choice?

Opinion/Reflection
I loved this idea of motivating and rewarding countries for decreasing their deforestation rates! I think that would actually get people thinking because who doesn't want to be rewarded? It's also crazy that so much greenhouse gas has accumulated from deforestation. I never thought it was a big deal, and just didn't understand why this was a problem. Making factories pay to emit carbon dioxide was a great idea. I know I would definitely not want to pay all that money for that. I hope people, especially farmers, come to the realization of what deforestation is doing to the environment. Places like the Amazon are suffering and that is a perfect example.

Questions
1.) What is another idea to motivate countries to decrease deforestation?
2.) How is deforestation affecting animal's habitats?
3.) How could places be rewarded for the decrease in deforestation?

13 year old genius little boy

Summary    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16548
What does a 13 year old boy have to do with our lithosphere. Well it just so happens to be that this 13 year old has found a better way of using solar energy. It all starts out with one December afternoon when this boy was looking up at the trees. He was wondering what was making the trees be able to absorb so much sunlight. Then the boy had found out that some certain places use solar energy to power buildings. That is when the boy starting ideas with the trees and the solar panels and did an experiment. He found out if you use the  Fibonnacci sequence then you could use so much energy. With this experiment he found out that by using this "tree" you could get 20% more energy than the flat plane solar panels used so far. It could also get 2 1/2 more hours of energy than the regular solar panels. It was also found out that the "tree" could collect 50% more in the winter time than the flat panels.

Reflection/ Opinion
I thought that this article was very interesting for a 13 year found a better way than a bunch of scientist who had alot more time than he did. I also found it interesting that no one has ever thought of this until now. If I knew I could just stick some solar panels to a tree. Then I would have just ditched school and make some profit on that. I think that scientist should go with this idea and companies should switch to this greener, and more energy collective energy source. I also find it funny that trees were all around us and that we knew that trees collect energy but we never thought of it that way.

Questions
1. Do you think that more people should be like this boy and help find ways to improve our current alternative energy sources? Why or Why not?
2. Do you think that it will be bad for our environment if we have all those "trees" around us? Why or Why not?
3. Do you think if this was how we get solar energy then will more people use these "trees"? Explain?