This past week, Nancy Langston Skyped us from Sweden. There were a few things that I found particularly interesting with our talk with her. She went into detail regarding the effects of past and present chemicals on our environment, and our bodies. Her tone seemed consistent with her book, in that while we need to change how we do things, but we need to change things smartly. I did find some of the topics interesting, especially about how to get rid of chemicals that are in your system. Either getting liposuction or breastfeeding and passing it on to your infant don't seem like welcoming options. A lot of these types of problems are worse than we realize, we just haven't had enough lifespans to observe these types of problems.
Because of the time constraints of our conversation with her, i wasn't able to ask everything that I wanted to, specifically, what types of "green chemicals" that she talked about are they researching currently. We talk a lot in this class about trying to be more environmentally friendly, so I am especially interested in knowing about these new methods that are hoped to be less damaging to the environment. There also is the reoccurring thought that these new methods will have new unforeseen problems. It is the same idea of how medications are often later found to have negative effects on our body. For example, For some people that are low on iron in their body take medications for it, Indirectly it can also thin their blood making it hard for them to clot blood and stop bleeding when they get a cut or injury. Our environment works the same way; with so many factors and variables, it is nearly impossible to tell how things we put into it will change it in the long run.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Blog 04
I found Mel Vissser's book, Cold, Clear, and Deadly to be very interesting. But what I found even more interesting was his presentation to our class. In his book, the tone seemed a little over the top, especially with parts that said, "rally the troops" for the environment, without providing alternative options for pesticides and insecticides that increase our crop yield. While these chemicals have many negative impacts that travel to many other regions of our globe (especially the poles), I didn't notice a clear alternative to help keep our food production up for a world that is having food shortages. Yes many Americans arguably over-eat but a sustainable food supply is crucial.
But to me, his presentation provided a lot more insight to his opinions towards theses issues. He made it clear that alternative methods would be necessary to keep crop yield higher without using pesticides and insecticides and other POP's, and that it is our generations job to solve these issues. Also his in-class presentation cleared up some of my personal confusions of how much of these POP's were in the water and animals in Arctic regions. But like he mentioned in his presentation; it is so hard to point the blame at a specific group.
Something else that became a topic during his presentation was, how new solutions have historically created new problems when trying to fix old problems. Historically chemicals such as Mercury and DDT were used to solve problems; but were eventually banned because of the observed problems they created that were not foreseen before their use. So then later other "safer" chemicals were used to replace the job of previous more harmful chemicals. But each new chemical had been later found to create different problems. So as we try to develop new solutions, we often wonder, will this product create problems that we can't envision now? To me this seems likely, not because we are ignorant, but because we live in a very dynamic world with a very dynamic ecosystem. With all of the different variables in motion though, it is almost impossible to tell how it might affect it. For example, if we start producing biologically altered food that bugs do not like to eat, it may affect patterns in bug behavior (there are trillions of bugs in our world) which in turn could change the habits and behaviors of animals higher on the food chains or even plants. This could potentially have effects on our ecosystem that are almost impossible to predict now. The point is, everything has effects, some positive, some potentially negative. In a dynamic world, our perception of these effects is determined by the way we live and how we approach these issues.
But to me, his presentation provided a lot more insight to his opinions towards theses issues. He made it clear that alternative methods would be necessary to keep crop yield higher without using pesticides and insecticides and other POP's, and that it is our generations job to solve these issues. Also his in-class presentation cleared up some of my personal confusions of how much of these POP's were in the water and animals in Arctic regions. But like he mentioned in his presentation; it is so hard to point the blame at a specific group.
Something else that became a topic during his presentation was, how new solutions have historically created new problems when trying to fix old problems. Historically chemicals such as Mercury and DDT were used to solve problems; but were eventually banned because of the observed problems they created that were not foreseen before their use. So then later other "safer" chemicals were used to replace the job of previous more harmful chemicals. But each new chemical had been later found to create different problems. So as we try to develop new solutions, we often wonder, will this product create problems that we can't envision now? To me this seems likely, not because we are ignorant, but because we live in a very dynamic world with a very dynamic ecosystem. With all of the different variables in motion though, it is almost impossible to tell how it might affect it. For example, if we start producing biologically altered food that bugs do not like to eat, it may affect patterns in bug behavior (there are trillions of bugs in our world) which in turn could change the habits and behaviors of animals higher on the food chains or even plants. This could potentially have effects on our ecosystem that are almost impossible to predict now. The point is, everything has effects, some positive, some potentially negative. In a dynamic world, our perception of these effects is determined by the way we live and how we approach these issues.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Blog 03
There was a lot of interesting information regarding Native American lands in the Keweenaw and how mining has played a role. Historically, mining companies would start mining on these "unclaimed lands" and force the people living there to move out. They would pollute the land and water and deplete the surrounding wildlife. Thanks to advanced technology and a better understanding of our environment, the polluting methods of mines have been reduced and clean-up activities have been a bigger part of these mining companies. It isn't ideal, but it is much better than it used to be. Fortunately, more regulations have also been put in place to determine where mines can be put as well, although as we found out this last week, there are
still some issues as to where they are being opened up.
The issues with mining really put into perspective how fragile ecosystems can be. All of these materials and elements are ones that occur on our planet in large quantities, but once these materials are moved around ecosystems become unbalanced. Ecosystems and micro-environments typically only experience change over long time periods, so when land is completely altered, it affects the plants and animals that inhabit the region.
It is hard to enforce environmental justice to the old, abandoned mines, when many of the companies don't even exist anymore. But for many of the new mines, the clean-up for their mining operations should be there responsibility. And thankfully that has become a larger part of their operations in the 21st century. It isn't like we can just say that we shouldn't mine anymore; that isn't a viable solution, but it is nice to see that more is being done to preserve the environment.
still some issues as to where they are being opened up.
The issues with mining really put into perspective how fragile ecosystems can be. All of these materials and elements are ones that occur on our planet in large quantities, but once these materials are moved around ecosystems become unbalanced. Ecosystems and micro-environments typically only experience change over long time periods, so when land is completely altered, it affects the plants and animals that inhabit the region.
It is hard to enforce environmental justice to the old, abandoned mines, when many of the companies don't even exist anymore. But for many of the new mines, the clean-up for their mining operations should be there responsibility. And thankfully that has become a larger part of their operations in the 21st century. It isn't like we can just say that we shouldn't mine anymore; that isn't a viable solution, but it is nice to see that more is being done to preserve the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)