Organic Farming May Not Be as Good as You Think

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
By: Christie Wilcox
July 18, 2011

Picture:
This picture displays apples being sold at a grocery store labeled 100% organic. It is labeled this because it didn't use pesticides. However, it turns out that it may not actually be pesticide free. It's just a healthier kind.

Summary:
Everyone thinks that organic farming is better than conventional agriculture. However, they are incorrect. First, organic farms still use pesticides and fungicides. What's funny is the Soil Association asked the organic consumers why the buy organic foods and 95% of the consumers said their top reason for buying this type of food was to try to avoid pesticides. There are 20 chemical used in the process of growing organic foods that are approved by the U.S. Organic Standards. Also the government does not keep track of the volume of pesticides being used for organic foods. The main difference between the two types of farming is the origin of the pesticides. In organic farms their pesticides are made from natural resources and conventional farms are synthetic. Researchers have shown that the pesticides in organic foods cause serious health risks as well. In Europe the organic farmers did not pass the European Union's test. Canadian scientist also found that conventional pesticides are more effective than the organic pesticides. Also just because you don't use pesticides doesn't mean there aren't any harmful things still. From 1900-2001, 10,000 people became sick due to foods that had pathogens and organic foods may be the reason. A study shown found that a pathogen called E. coli was found in 10% of organic foods but only 2% in conventional foods. Also some conventional farms don't even use pesticides. It's sad to say but factory farming is factory farming.

Opinion/Reflection:
I can't believe that there are harmful pesticides used in organic foods. To me this makes the food not worth being over priced. I feel like we've been lied to. This just makes it obvious that there isn't just one perfect food because there will be downsides to each one. Organic and conventional farming is a topic that we just learned in school and I still didn't know some of these facts. I never had a major preference before reading this article and now its made my decision even harder knowing about organic farming's use of pesticides. Also I think it is horrible that 10, 000 people became sick and organic foods is to blame. I hope one day we will be able to have all fully healthy foods.

Questions:

1. Do you have a preference of which type of farming you would prefer? Why?

2. Do you feel that people who own organic farms are intentionally keeping this information away from us? Why or Why not?

3. Do you think there will ever be a completely heathy style for farming? Explain.

Corey Milewski- Recycling not always good

Recycling not always an energy and resource saver, study findsFriday, May 20, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/032465_recycling_energy.html

 

 

Picture: This is a picture of what happens in the process of recycling. Reusing plastics and other materials can reduce the amounts of such materials on earth.

 

 

Summary: Studies have shown that remanufacturing or recycling certain products uses more energy than using new products. Products like tires and used motors doesn't always save energy in the future. Also the remanufatured products were compared to the new products. In many cases, the new product outpreformed the remanufactured product. This means that over a course of a products life new ones actually save more energy than reused products from an older generation. In the tire study it showed that new tires had  more rolling resistance than the retreated tires. So over a preiod of time the energy to just produce new tires uses less energy. "People often think recycling is so simple, but things are far more complicated than people expect" says  Timothy Gutowski. Regardless the energy usage, remanufacturing helps to save resources. Also remanufacturing lowers the waste in landfills and helps the environment in most cases. So remanufactured devices are not always the most energy-efficient way, but it does help the environment. 

 

Opinion: I found this article very interesting because we are always tought that recycling is so good. I never knew that remanufacturing products uses more energy. Now that I think about it, it makes a lot of sense. In some cases recycling is the right thing to do but in other cases it is better to make new products. Recently recycling cans were distributed to hatboro and horsham. I know in my house we began to recycling a lot more.  I think recycling is the right thing to do but, this article made me think of something different.

 

Questions:

 

1. What could you do in your life to help recycling? explain.

2. If you had a choice to buy a reused device or a new device what would you choose? why?

3. Does your family recycle? Explain how recycling is enfourced in your house?

T-Shirts made from bottles

Garbage Fashion: T-Shirts Made From Recycled Bottles
By: Venessa Wong
March 20, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-20/garbage-fashion-t-shirts-made-from-recycled-bottles

Picture: This is a picture of a T-Shirt made from recycled bottles. These could very well become popular.

Summary: A new T-Shirt has been invented from recycled bottles. Many people look and it and think that it is a regular shirt, but it fact, it was made from bottles. Making trash wearable helps the environment because it does not go to a landfill. Instead, it is in your closet. To make these you need to get a clear plastic bottle and crush it into flakes. These flakes are converted to pellets which is spun into polyester yarn. From there, the shirt is made. The problem with these shirts is that they are not recyclable. The only way it could be was if it was 100% polyester. If it is not, it can't be recycled and it could be problematic for the equipment. Another problem with this is that the polyester comes from a chemical that harms the environment and causes global warming. Also, it is non-biodegradeable so it is hard to dispose of and it will not break down easily. The main goal of making these shirts was to keep bottles out of oceans and landfills.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that this is a really cool and great idea! The only thing they need to do now is start producing a lot of these. If more and more people learn about how bad the environment is getting, they will start to buy them. I have heard about this on the news before and it made me realize that this will help the environment greatly. If stores around us sold them, I think I would buy one because of how it is helping. Some people need to realize what is going on in the world around us. The environment is being destroyed and global warming is having an affect on us. If these shirts kick off and become popular, it will help our world and make it a better place.

Questions: 

1. Would you buy one of these shirts? Why or why not?

2. Do you think it is a safe way to help the environment? Why or why not?

3. What are some other ways to help the environment?

Eagles go Green- Jen Cader

For Philadelphia Eagles, Green Isn’t Just a Team Color

By: Matthew Petrillo

April 29, 2012
http://www.voanews.com/content/green-isnt-just-football-teams-uniform-color--149488525/370148.html

Picture: This picture is the logo the Eagles are turning to in order to let people know that their stadium is becoming environmentally friendly.

Summary: Twelve of 32 NFL teams are turning to environmentally-friendly practices. The Eagles were the first to start this trend, when they began in 2003. As of right now, the Eagles are trying to get a third of their stadium to run on solar and wind power. This year, the Eagles began to give 65% of the waste from the stadium to an energy-from-waste plant that turns left over waste into energy. This is instead of diverting their trash to landfills. The eagle's goal is to eventually recycle every single waste found in the stadium. Don Smolenski, the team’s chief operation officer, who is in charge of turning the Eagle's stadium into an environmentally-friendly place, says, "Each year, we kept adding and evaluating new opportunities." They are focusing on light sensors in people's offices, having on/off motion sensing vending machines, and even composting grass clippings from the field. Not only are they turning their stadium into an environmentally-friendly place, but they are asking Aramark, the company in charge f its food services, to use "green" compostable utensils and cleaning supplies. One of the biggest steps the Eagles are taking during this process is  30% of its energy from renewable resources. They will do this by installing 1,100 solar panels and 14 wind turbines around the upper deck of the stadium. According to Don Smolenski, this is the largest sustainability effort in the NFL.

Opinion/Reflection: WOW! That is very cool that the Eagles are doing this. It is awesome to think that a team that I have grown up watching, is the first to make an effort like this. The fact that they are trying to use 30% of its energy from solar panels and wind turbines is incredible. They have obviously started a trend in the NFL, because other teams are beginning to become envrionmentally-friendly. I hope this trend continues, and every team starts to become environmentally-friendly, because the amount of energy used to light up an entire stadium is rediculous. If stadiums continue to use energies that are harmful to the earth, there will be a problem sooner rather than later. In science class, we learned that although solar panels and wind turbines are expensive in the beginning, they save as lot of money in the long run. These alternative energies not only save money, but they don't cause pollution and are beneficial to the environment. I am extremely happy that the Eagles are starting this trend beause pollution from harmful problems is obviously a problem. Hopefully they continue to make improvements in making the stadium more environmentally-friendly!

Questions:

1. How do you feel about the efforts the Eagles are making?
2. Where else have you seen alternative energy being used?
3. If you were in charge of making the changes in the Eagles stadium, what else would you do?

U.S. Caps Emissions in Drilling for Fuel

By: John M. Broder

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/science/earth/epa-caps-emissions-at-gas-and-oil-wells.html?_r=1

Picture:  This picture shows the procedure of fracking.  They shoot chemicals and water into the ground causing mini earthquakes and the earthquakes bring up natural gas.

Summary:  Fracking has been a controversial topic for awhile due to the environmental concerns it raises.  The process of fracking releases toxic and cancer-causing chemicals like benzene and hexane, as well as methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.  But the EPA is doing something to help prevent this air pollution.  They issued new air quality standards which the oil and gas companies will have to capture toxic and climate-altering gases from wells, storage sites and pipelines.  The reason they took action is because they received complaints from citizens and environmental groups that gases escaping from the 13,000 wells drilled each year by fracking were causing health problems and widespread air pollution.  The new rule will reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds by 190,000 to 290,000 tons per year and toxic air pollutants by 12,000 to 20,000 tons a year.  But this new rule is also beneficial for the fracking companies because they will be able to save $11 million to $19 million a year because drillers would be able to capture and sell the methane that is now burned off, or flared.  Methane is a very bad gas which has 20 times more powerful effects on the atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide does.  The EPA estimates that by capturing the methane they will reduce green house gas emissions by 28 million to 44 million tons a year, making the rule one of the federal government’s largest measures to mitigate climate change. 

Opinion/Reflection:  I am very happy that they are doing this and this is a step toward helping our planet.  It is so crazy that this one rule can have such a big affect and that it can do so much good.  By being able to reduce emissions by 190,000 to 290,000 tons per year is so amazing and is truly a big achievement.  Also that it is also saving the fracking companies lots of money makes it a win, win situation, it helps the environment while still letting the companies prosper.  I can connect this to my science class.  We learned about all the harmful effects of fracking and how it can damage the earth.  It really affects peoples’ water supplies where the fracking takes place.  It contaminates their water and makes it undrinkable which is extremely bad.  I am so glad that they took care of the air pollution now I just hope they will solve the problem of it contaminating water supplies.

Questions: 

1.Do you think fracking is a good or bad idea? Why?

2.  Do you think this rule will make an impact on global warming? Why?

3.  If you were able to ban fracking would you ban it or not? Why?

4.  Do you think fracking will hurt us in the long run?  Why?

Seaweed- An Alternate Source of Energy

Is seaweed the future of alternative energy sources like biofuel?

http://www.naturalnews.com/035257_seaweed_alternative_energy_biofuel.html#ixzz1uVpBZgkV

Friday, March 16, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes Picture: This is a picture of seaweed. Seaweed might soon be an alternate source of energy. Summary: Many scientists are trying to figure out an alternate source of energy. They think they might have found one. Biofuels are driving up the cost of feeding the world but Israeli researchers found that seaweed may do the trick. Some benefits of using seaweed are that it grows quickly, and it doesn't destroy ecosystems. In fact, harvesting seaweed is beneficial to the environment and helps out sea life. "While biomasses grown on land have the potential to inflict damage on the environment, the researchers believe that producing biofuel from seaweed-based sources could even solve problems within the marine environment." This proves that is it helps the environment and is a very good idea.  In many costal regions the air is being polluted from human waste and fish farming. Seaweed could potentially solve these problems. Researchers are trying to increase the carbohydrate and sugar content of the seaweed beds, this will increase the bioethanol production.  Some studies found that seaweed can be a valuable source of biofuels that does not compete with food or land or require fresh water to grow. The biggest problem of using seaweed as an alternate source of energy is that standard microbes cannot readily metabolize its primary sugar constituent. This makes the use of seaweed too inefficient and too expensive. The researchers found that they could digest all the sugars found in the seaweed. There plan has worked and they are going to continue to work on this project.  Opinion: I think that this is going to be big. I really believe that these scientists found a very efficient and clean, alternate source of energy. It amazes me to learn about this because the lack of fossil fuels is a very big topic around the world. Also, it's really cool that they found something that doesn't even harm ecosystems. The fossil fuels have very negative impacts on our environment and they are polluting the Earth. The only bad thing is that it could be expensive but maybe in the future they can find a way to reduce the prices and it could be used for certain things throughout the world. I don't think that it is powerful enough to do a lot but it certainly could be used for little things. If these researchers continue to work on this i believe that it will be a new, alternate source of energy. Questions:  1. Do you think seaweed could someday be a source of alternate energy? Why? 2. What are some other sources of alternate energy sources? 3. Do you think seaweed will be successful as a source of energy or do you think it would fail? Explain.

Deforestation- Corey Milewski

Global deforestation finally being reversed in some countries  
                                      And 
Half the Amazon Rainforest to be Lost by 2030
http://www.naturalnews.com/023673_Amazon_rainforest.html
countrieshttp://www.naturalnews.com/021102_deforestation_clearcutting.html

By: Ben Kage and David Gutierrez

Picture: The picture on the left is a picture of deforestation. Trees are being cut down for the use of clay in brazil. 

Summary: Many countries are now beginning to stop deforestation. The trend began in 2006 in many countries to go from deforestation to reforestation. 22 out of 50 most forested countries were switching to reforestation. Countries can cut down trees but the area that was cut has to be reseeded. This trend is helping stop global warming and are partially alleviating the man-made carbon dioxide emissions. 20 years ago it was said that the reverse of deforestation was not possible. The amazon forest is another problem. It is possible that more that half the Amazon Forest could be gone by 2030. Global warming and deforestation are causing the Amazon Forest to be destroyed. The Amazon Forest contains more then half the planets surviving rainforest. Loosing this much of the Amazon could accelerate global warming. By breaking the process of deforestation could help save the Amazon Forest. 


Opinion/Reflection: I think it is awesome to see that deforestation is beginning to be stopped. I hope to see that many countries are switching to reforestation. Global warming is a huge issue and part of it is deforestation. Massive amounts of carbon dioxide is being released into the air and trees help suck in the carbon dioxide. I believe trees can be cut down as long as they are replaced. I have read somewhere that there are tree plantations that grow trees until a certain age then are cut down. Then once they are cut they are reseeded and the whole cycle starts over. I think this is a great idea because there is always a stable amount of trees. It is very sad that more then half of the Amazon Forest could be lost if actions are not taking. I  think it would be a great idea to start a fundraiser or a organization to take actions on deforestation. I have heard that the Amazon is a very cool place and I do not want it to be lost. 




Questions: 


1. What are your thoughts on deforestation? What do you think should be done about it? 


2. What do you know about The Amazon? Do you think it will be lost in the next century? Why? 


3.  What are some ideas to stop the Amazon from being lost?