Although the world has not geographically gotten any smaller, it may seem so since you can get to even the furthest corner of the globe in under 12 hours. Nowadays, travelling has become a hobby and a popular life style for many people. For example in Finland, travelling abroad increased by 17 % from the year 2011 to year 2012. This 17% is equivalent to an addition of 7,8 million trips in various forms of travelling. (Tilastokeskus, 18.04.2013) However, travelling, in general, has a lot of problems, for instance social, political and environmental. In this blog I will focus on the environmental aspects. According to traveltips.com (http://traveltips.usatoday.com/positive-negative-effects-tourism-63336.html) tourism, in general, has a significant impact on the environment. The main environmental impacts are littering, traffic emissions, increased and not properly constructed sewage production. What is Ecotourism? Ecotourism is a form of tourism that involves travelling to the world’s most pristine and fragile places, while keeping the ecological footprint to a minimum. The main idea behind ecotourism is not to entertain the tourist, but to educate them on the importance of nature conservation and respect for the environment. Special focus is placed on the social responsibility of travelling and environmental sustainability. Ecotourism is meant to offer tourists special insight into the impact of human actions on the environment, and to enable a greater appreciation of our natural habitats. Ecotourism is a great way for a traveler to help minimize his or her ecological footprint of travelling! The importance of eco-tourism is growing every year since travelling, in general, is increasing significantly every year, causing a need for a more sustainable alternative. What can you do as an eco-tourist? There are a lot of things a responsible tourist can do to minimize his or her ecological footprint when travelling to and in the destination. First of all, a tourist has a choice whether to use a plane (which is the biggest source of pollution in travelling) or, for instance, a train, albeit this is really not an option if you are travelling overseas and have only a few weeks' time. However, the eco-tourist can also decide which form of public transportation to use when travelling within the country. For example, a traveler should consider whether to use trains, busses, trams etc instead of flying. Another important thing that an eco-tourist can take into consideration is low-impact visitor behavior, meaning that kind of behavior that does not affect the local people in any cultural way. The appreciation of local cultures and biodiversity, which means adapting to the existing culture “when in Rome, do as the Romans” is extremely important. Taking care of the environment by not littering and not, for example, picking any flowers or sea shells from their natural environment are also key guidelines an eco-tourist should follow. An eco- tourist can also take care of the environment by not purchasing objects, such as corals, whose removal has a negative impact on natural ecosystems. A good eco-souvenir can, for example, be a hand-made piece of jewelry (that doesn’t include any sea shells etc) or other craftsmanship pieces. Although there are considerable downsides to travelling in remote areas, there are also positive aspects. For instance, when I was travelling in Costa Rica and visiting Rio Celeste Natural Park, 75 % of the profits went towards the conservation of that particular ecosystem. This is a great way of using the income enabled by tourism for the greater good. Although the increase in travelling raises a lot of social awareness of other cultures and supports internationality and cooperation, it also has serious consequences, especially towards the environment. This is why the concept of eco-travelling needs to be emphasized, since after all, it is the best decision out of all the bad ones! Happy eco-travels everybody! RESOURCES Ecotourism, 2014, The Nature Conservancy, available at :http://www.nature.org/greenliving/what-is-ecotourism.xml Ecotourism, 2014, Wikipedia.org, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism Suomalaisten matkailu ulkomaille, Tilastokeskus, 18.04.2013, http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/smat/2012/smat_2012_2013-04-18_tie_001_fi.html Effects of tourism, USA today, available at:http://traveltips.usatoday.com/positive-negative-effects-tourism-63336.html PHOTOS by me! =) Ines Koski We have to eat – there’s no way around it. And unless you’re growing potatoes in your backyard and keeping cows in your toolshed, cultivating your food is likely a huge burden on the environment. Conscientious consumers wish to know how to minimize their own impact, and it is said that a rather effective way of doing this is cutting back eating meat. How exactly does meat production compare to vegetable cultivation, and would the planet be better off if we all became celery-munchers and carrot-chewers? The answer is more complicated than one might suspect. This is partly because there are numerous ways of assessing the impact that a certain type of food has on the environment, including the water it consumes, the land it requires or the waste it produces. But there is no dearth of research exploring this very issue, from all possible angles. Environmental Working Group (EWG) did a lifecycle assessment of 20 different types of meat and vegetable proteins on the basis of how much CO2 the production of each emits. According to their findings, beef, lamb, pork and salmon are the worst offenders, but cheese is also right up there, meaning that dairy-consuming vegetarians are not entirely absolved. But the greenhouse gases emitted depend heavily on the fertilizers used, the differences in soil conditions, and the extent to which practices such as cover cropping and manure managements are implemented. One lettuce farm may be much less environmentally friendly than a neighboring one, depending on the farming methods. Full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various food products (based on data from EWG)
An article in The Star suggests that instead of comparing meat with plants in terms of the greenhouse gases each generates, or the feed or fertilizer that goes into its production, the comparison should be done in terms of the calories that each item provides. For example, a kilogram of beef contains 2280 calories, whereas a kilogram of broccoli contains only 340 cal, meaning you would have to eat 6.7 kg of broccoli to get the same amount of calories. This requires a whole lot of nutrients, water and space to grow. What the calorie-based approach fails to take into consideration, however, is the calories that went into producing that one kilogram of beef in the first place. Livestock are fed mainly corn and soy, and resources and land that has gone into the growing of these crops could have been used to grow food for human consumption, instead. To avoid this issue, some livestock is fed only grass and hay, which is generally considered a more sustainable choice. Another thing that The Star article points out is that where your meat comes from counts. Should you eat a wild animal whose overpopulation does damage to its habitat, you will be doing a favor to the environment. Of course, this is not an actual solution, because no wild populations of animals could possibly sustain the numbers required by the demand for meat. A tragic example of a species once estimated to number in the billions, but hunted into extinction in the late 19th century largely for its meat, was the passenger pigeon. These North American birds once flew in flocks so large it took hours for them to pass, but once the massive commercial exploitation of the species started, their numbers plummeted, and the last known passenger pigeon died in 1914. But the type of meat and its origin certainly play a part in how environmentally friendly it is, and these issues are often more complicated than seems at a first glance. The grass-feed diet, mentioned above, is better because it leaves the food crops for human consumption, plus grazing can sometimes be done in areas where no crops can be grown, thus providing more efficient use of our dwindling land resources. But in the stomachs of ruminant animals, grass and hay also produce more methane, which has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide; furthermore, the Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations estimates that 20% of the world’s pastures have already been degraded by grazing livestock. In the end, there are so many factors affecting one’s choice of diet that it is almost impossible to give any bite-sized advice. That doesn’t stop environmental groups from trying. The report by EWG boils down to a few basic things: get more of your protein from lentils, beans and tofu, consume only organic dairy products, waste less and buy only what you eat, choose chicken rather than beef, and try to at least have one meat-free day per week. Many big changes start from little ones. Martta Paavola What are hormones? Hormones are chemical messages that are released from the body’s gland tissues located in the endocrine system. The chemical information is sent as a signal through the blood stream to the targeted cells that contain receptors. The function of hormones on the targeted cells is to deliver the chemical message that activates the cell to perform a specific task, for example, estrogen from the endocrine system is responsible for egg (ovum) release during ovulation. An illustration of hormone release from the secreting cells and its flow to a targeted cell is shown below (image from: www.sinauer.com) in fig 1. Fig 1. Flow of the hormone to targeted organ When hormones are released into the blood stream they bind to a cell containing matching receptors; their shape is like a key that fits exactly into a lock. Just as the wrong key cannot open the door, hormones do not fit in cells that have no receptors. Hormones reach all parts of the body and only attach to a cell containing receptors in order to produce a particular effect. If there is no attachment to the cell’s receptors, no effect will be produced. When a hormone binds to the cell it either changes the cell’s existing protein or activates genes responsible for new protein synthesis. According to researchers 50 hormones have been identified in humans and other vertebrates. WHY HORMONES IN OUR BODY? Hormones in the human body are secreted by the endocrine system and released into the bloodstream to all parts of the body; they regulate the biological activities such as reproduction and growth. For example, hormones regulate the reproductive system starting from conception (the process where female egg and male sperm fuse together) and continue to regulate the growth and function of the reproductive organs into adulthood. Hormones also regulate the development of the brain and nervous system. For more… (http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edspoverview/whatare.htm) The focus of this blog is reproductive hormones that are secreted by ovaries and testes. What are reproductive Hormones? Reproductive hormones are secreted from ovaries and testes and are sent to all parts of the body via the blood stream. Ovaries are female reproductive organs and produce two main hormones known as estrogen and progesterone. Testes are the male reproductive organs, and they function to release a hormone called testosterone. The function of both female and male hormones is to regulate and enhance the development of reproductive organs, and for example, breast growth in females and chest enlargement in males as well as ovum (egg) and sperm synthesis. Hormone inhibitors and their mimicking effects Hormone inhibitors, colloquially known as gender benders, are any chemicals capable of inhibiting or preventing the effect of hormones, as well as mimicking a hormone’s action. The mimicking effect happens as the result of environmental chemicals having a similar chemical structure to natural hormone; this allows them to weakly attach to the cell’s receptors, thereby preventing the attachment of natural hormones to the same cell. These chemicals include Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) such as DDT, Dioxin, PCB and Endrin, Aldrin and Dieldrin. POP chemicals are present in the environment because some of them are used in industrial applications; these include PCB, Dieldrin and Dioxins. Others, such as DDT, have been widely used as pesticides. (DDT is now banned in many countries, but its effects persist.) Others get into the environment as waste products of human activities such as nuclear power generation, burning of coal, mining, waste incineration (burning of waste), and manufacturing of some plastics that are made of PCB chemical compounds. Several studies conducted by scientists indicate that human exposure to POPs is through air pollution and water contamination, because most of these chemicals are released into lakes or rivers, and air. A study carried out by Elizabeth Lee Vliet MD, in 2003 indicated that there is a link between these environmental chemicals and reproductive hormones. Natural hormones such as estrogen and testosterone are blocked from attaching to their receptors because the environmental chemicals such as DDT, Dioxin and PCB, when they enter the bloodstream, attach to cell receptors intended for natural hormones. Thus estrogen and testosterone hormone are prevented from attaching to the same cell, resulting in health risks. See more at (www.herplace.com/hormone-infor/gender-benders.htm) (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexHormones.html) Effects of Hormone inhibitors Hormone inhibitors in the human body may cause the body to react abnormally. For example, the reaction could be abnormal sperm synthesis in males and disruption of the menstruation cycle, miscarriages, premature delivery, low birth weight and dysfunction in fetus and infants in women. Other areas include neurological disorders such as learning disorders and distorted memory as well as, diseases like breast and pancreatic cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma (tissue hardening) THE BOTTOM LINE Thus, there is a need to focus on how hormone inhibitors can be removed from the environment, and vigorously promote the production of safe alternative chemicals that are environmentally friendly Kashobwe Lackson I went numb as the lecture about the origins and effects of dioxins was delivered in one of my ecotoxicology classes. My mind flashed back to the ignorant behavior in my past adventures while growing up in Lagos, Nigeria. I reminisced about how I and my siblings were always excited when given permission by our parent to burn some old household materials in our backyard. We really got so excited that we went as far as collecting our neighbor’s trash so we could have more stuff to incinerate. We would all gather around the burndrum and watch it burn with so much excitement. That was then; now I know that improper incineration produces very toxic and hazardous chemical compounds called dioxins and furans. What do I now know about dioxins and furans? Dioxins and furans are chemically related groups of chlorinated compounds that have similar chemical and biological properties. Dioxins and furans can be classified into three main groups, which are Polychlorinated dibenzo-P-dioxins (PCDFs), Polychlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDFs) and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These compounds are mostly used as chemical raw material in producing many household items, such as clothes, plastic bottles and furniture. The presence of these toxic chemical compounds in the environment is caused mainly by human activities, especially during different combustion processes, such as commercial and municipal waste incineration, drum burning of household materials, smoking of cigarettes, and burning of fuel, including wood, oil and coal, to mention a few. Why should we be concerned about dioxins and furans? Dioxins and furans possess chemical structures very similar to those of human hormones such as estrogen and testosterone, which are hormones responsible for sexual and reproductive development in humans. Because of this similarity in chemical structure, dioxins and furans are able to bind to particular cells in the same way estrogens and testosterones do, but as they are not hormones, when they bind to these cells, a dangerous chain of events starts to happen. These events can eventually lead to reproductive and developmental problems in humans. Dioxins and furans can also damage the human´s immune system and has been proven to be a major cause of cancer. Fig 1: Chemical structure of a female hormone (Oestradiol) Fig 2: chemical structure of a dioxin (Octachlorodibenzodioxin) How can this be controlled? The continuous production of these toxic compounds in the environment can be controlled by proper incineration of chlorinated material, including Polyvinyl-chloride (PVC), which is found in most household items. So if you have old clothes and household rubbish you would like to dispose of, send it to a proper facility where it can be incinerated at a temperature above 850 o C. Please don´t use your burndrum. Source: http://www.lookchem.com/cas-326/3268-87-9.html Bello Adedayo Currently there is about 250.000 – 300.000 tons of high level nuclear waste on our planet and this amount is only going to increase. 300.000 tons of highly radioactive waste is an alarmingly high amount, and the only conclusion to draw from this figure, is that it is time to do something, as worldwide there is no final disposal facility yet. Because it is us who benefit from nuclear power, it should also be us, not later generations, who deal with the waste. It is up to our generation to find a stable environment for the nuclear waste to decay until it reaches safe levels. There is only one problem: high level nuclear waste may take up to 100.000 years to reach safe levels. The world’s first try at a permanent repository for high level nuclear waste is located in the Finnish municipality of Eurajoki. The construction and research is executed by Posiva Oy, which is jointly owned by the Finnish nuclear power plant operators. The repository is located 450m underneath the ground inside the bedrock, where disposal canisters made from cast iron and copper will hold spent nuclear fuel. The nuclear waste is kept safe from the outside by multiple barriers. First is the cast iron canister, which protects the fuel from stress inside the bedrock. This canister is then placed into a copper canister to protect it from corrosion. Surrounding the canisters is a layer of bentonite clay, which will protect the canisters from jolts and prevent groundwater flow, due to its ability to act like a sponge when it comes in contact with water. Once the canisters are all in place the tunnels will be backfilled, so that no one can enter. But there’s a long time to go until then. The repository will be filled step by step until the year 2100, when it will be sealed for eternity. If Onkalo turns out to be successful it will be the longest lasting, functioning facility of our society. It will be what our generations are remembered for. These are the canisters where used fuel rods are going to be stored for the next 100.000 years. “If you were a person evaluating this concept from the outside - what would you be afraid of? Nothing.” Question answered by Timo Äikäs, Executive Vice President Posiva Oy Unlike Timo Äikäs, I am in the lucky position of being able to evaluate Onkalo from the outside. And unlike Timo Äikäs, I am terrified. Building a facility like this is highly ambitious as it is impossible to predict 100.000 years into the future. Naturally I have a few concerns. I am concerned for example about the fact that the company in charge of Onkalo is owned by the nuclear power plant operators, which are unfortunately not only concerned about safety but also about money. Another problem is that Onkalo´s possible failure will not affect any human being currently alive. This could lead to sloppiness and carelessness in the engineering and construction phase. One example is the final disposal containers, which are praised by Posiva as being non-corrosive, even though corrosion will absolutely inevitably take place and a study by the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden predicts that the canisters will only hold for several thousand years. But even if my concerns are unfounded and Onkalo turns out to work just fine, Onkalo is only one amongst many depositories which will have to be built worldwide . Nationalization of a global problem is not the answer. Finland wants to take responsibility for its nuclear waste, which is a good thing, except this sense of responsibility doesn´t have a very wide radius, due to the fact that the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act prohibits the import of nuclear waste. On the other hand, Finland imports electricity from neighboring countries, some of which is generated by nuclear power and thus creates nuclear waste abroad. National borders should not stand in the way of solving a problem, because very much like CO2 emissions, radioactive radiation doesn´t respect borders. A great example of this is the infamous Chernobyl incident in 1986, that resulted in significantly elevated radiation levels all over the western Soviet Union (as was) and most of Europe. Furthermore, other nations might not be blessed with stable Finnish bedrock, sufficient financial funding for research and construction, or strict regulations and state supervision. Unless we want nations and corporations to take the easy way out and dump nuclear wastes into the ocean, a global strategy is needed. Daniel Bodenmiller Since the dawn of mankind, when our ancestors started walking on Earth, there was need for energy that would replace our own physical labour. As we managed to domesticate wild beasts like horses and wolves, learned to produce fire at will and designed our first stone tools, we replaced some of our own energy. The need for energy never ceases to exist. On the contrary, our voracious need for energy has kept on increasing. We learned how to control the power of streams by creating watermills; we invented sails and windmills and put the wind to work on our behalf. We did everything to make our lives easier and for a few hundreds of years things seemed to be going our way. Nature always had its way to make things right, to restore the damage that we did. But that was too good to last forever. Nowadays we are confronting a challenge that no other generation has ever had. We are marching towards the destruction of our natural habitat. We are depleting our resources; we are polluting our environment; we are putting a mortgage on the future of our children, our children’s children, of every generation that will follow and every living thing on the planet. Energy. Energy is needed in our everyday life. Even if we would stayed at home, just lying on the bed doing nothing, that would not stop us from using energy. The bed that we lie on needed a substantial amount of energy in order to be constructed, shipped and assembled. When we eat or drink something, even tap water, we consume energy. Everything we are is energy and we demand more day by day. Lately there has been a great debate about energy production. Seeing the results of our traditional “fossil fuel” energy production methods, more people are considering a world being run by greener energy sources. But the question is: “how green is green energy?” First we have to define what green energy is not. When we consume resources that cannot be replenished, like oil, gas, coal, peat or even nuclear fuel, we are consuming natural resources that are very difficult or impossible to replace. Also, when in the process you produce a great amount of material that eventually will end up in landfills. This doesn’t look to be very green either. So what is green energy? Are hydroelectric power, wind power, solar power, bio- fuel, geothermal energy green? The easiest answer would be yes. But is this the truth? How much none-renewable energy and resources do we have to use in order to construct a windmill? What kind of life cycle does this windmill have? How will this windmill affect the surrounding environment? What are the long term effects on that environment? Those are just some of the questions that need to be answered before you can definitely say if a kind of energy is green or not. I think the right way to express this question would be: “which kind of energy production is greener?” At the end of the day there is no way to create something out of nothing. We have to use resources; we have to use the energy that we already have available. We just have to find the most efficient and more sustainable way to produce the energy we need. Though it’s becoming a trend that more and more people care about where the energy that we use comes from, we are not sufficiently informed to have a well-founded opinion. People seem to be in favour of solar, wind and hydroelectric power, but it’s highly questionable how reliable our sources of information are. What I want is to find ways to be more efficient, and reduce our power consumption until we can find the best way to harvest the free power that nature provides. Sunlight is constant, winds are constant, waves and water movement is constant but how much does it really cost to harvest those energy forms? Even when we think about one of the “cleanest” forms of energy, geothermal, we face at least three different kinds of problems with its application. Firstly, geothermal energy is an extremely local phenomenon. It cannot be found everywhere and not everywhere is it accessible and usable. Secondly, even geothermal energy is not everlasting. We are not implying that earth’s nuclear fusion activity is coming to an end, but using hot water from a geothermal “hot pocket” will deplete it unless the water is systematically replenished. Thirdly, even for geothermal energy infrastructure must be constructed. This means both the power plant and the carrying and distribution system for the energy and hot water have to be constructed and maintained. This will also have a cost on resources. Sources www.ipsos.com www.cnbc.com www.dailychorde.blogspot.com www.energy4me.org www.fchea.org www.imperialoil.ca www.nap.edu www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/geothermal-energy Christos Parakevopoulus For the past few years in many countries, bees, specifically honey bees have been disappearing. Honey bees are native to Europe and other parts of the world, and were brought in to the US originally in the 17th century to produce honey. Since then they have been bred especially for agricultural purposes; in Europe alone, honey bees contribute over € 22 billion annually to agriculture by pollinating plants such as broccoli, apples, nuts, blueberries, cucumbers and many other crops important to our diet. Losing honey bees could therefore have catastrophic effects on the human race. Already in 2006, beekeepers and researchers in the US started to notice that worker bees were disappearing from their hives, leaving the queen and the young ones behind. Without the worker bees, the hives cannot sustain themselves and will die out. This event is called Colony Collapse Disorder. Researchers are currently studying what could make the worker bees disappear from the hives. One possibility is that different parasites, pests or diseases are drastically decreasing the bee numbers. Also pesticide poisoning, and habitat and nutrition loss are believed to be partly at fault in this case. Last year, the EU discussed banning a group of insecticides that have been linked to bee disappearance. These pesticides are called neonicotinoids. They are a relatively new type of insecticide and widely used all over the world. Unfortunately, their full effect on bees and other pollinators is still unknown. The problem with these pesticides is that they don’t just stay on the surface of the plant but travel through the tissue of the plant to the roots, leaves and even flowers. From the flower these pesticides could be transferred to the bees. What do the pesticides then do to the bees? It is possible that they could lower their immune level and allow parasites and diseases to spread more easily, but at the moment we don’t quite know the effects. Human actions might carry a bigger weight than that of neonicotinoids. The combined effects of using many pesticides and insecticides, cutting down forests, destroying natural habitats and nesting areas thus removing natural sources of natural food such as flowers for the pollinators, could all be reasons why the bee populations are disappearing. We won’t know the exact problem unless we study all the possible factors carefully. It has also been suggested that we might have bred bee populations that are more vulnerable to change and diseases. Losing honey bees could have catastrophic consequences and we could lose at least, if not more than, half of the food available now. Of course, other pollinators such as native bees in the US, bumble bees, moths and others could eventually take over. The problem is that we currently rely on honey bees to pollinate and hence other pollinators have been more or less forgotten. I do think it would be a challenge, at least in the short term, to sustain the amount of people currently living on this earth if we were to suddenly lose all of our honey bees. Elina Manninen “The application of GIS is limited only by the imagination of those who use it”.
Jack Dangermond, Esri Company So, today,my glorious readers, I am going to tell you about GIS applications in hydrology! One of the most common applications is the hydrological application, and the opportunities here are enormous! To proceed, I´ll use the simple logic of narration: first, what things can be displayed, second, how they can be analyzed, and third, what conclusions and decisions can be made. So, first, displaying. As a background for a hydrological map, an elevation model of the Earth’s surface is normally used, withg round water reservoirs displayed in a certain way if needed. Then, since the occurrence of water in nature varies in time, such crucial dynamic parameters as incoming, outgoing and groundwater flows, precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff and other features are displayed. The possibilities for analysis are huge (or maybe I’m getting too enthusiastic), and include predicting flood-vulnerable or water-scarce areas, and finding out the possible impact of global warming on the regional hydrological situation. The conclusions and decisions come directly from the previous. We can decide what hydrological projects to implement to protect water bodies, and which projects should be reconsidered or cancelled. We could think globally but act locally and try to anticipate the effects of global warming already today. With the help of watershed GIS, we can create a risk management system for floods and droughts and develop a restoration plan if the worst has already happened. There is a nice example of how one of the global warming problems was solved. One may safely say that with the fast growth of population in recent years, the need for water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses has increased, while resources are diminishing due to overuse and contamination. Thus, the establishment of good management of water resources has become one of the main challenges.This case comes from Australia 2008, where almost 10 years of drought had emphasized the need for better management of water resources. So, then, the following decision was made: a National Groundwater Data and Information Systems was designed - a special computer system for making a proper analysis of groundwater movement - and a basis for this system was an Arc GIS map. In future, it helped to make an effective water management system. GIS is multifunctional and almighty! In hydrology, GIS applications are especially helpful for watershed-scale analyses, for instance integrated surface and modeling of underground water,also regional underground water modeling, and analyses of water quality. Locally, GIS can be useful for the selection of underground water development sites and places where depleted groundwater resources can be artificially replenished. These analyses must take into consideration a broad range of data, namely: use of land, property ownership, geology, types of soil, and distance from the source. In addition, GIS has the very beneficial possibility to integrate data from various sources, namely: vegetation and land cover, boreholes and wells, satellite imagery and surface geology. And importantly, this information can be utilized immediately to design a clearer understanding of surface water movement and subsurface water movement and their interactions. So,as the saying goes, "the one who controls the GIS, controls the world (in 2D and 3D forms, of course)!" And here is one link, just for fun! Start typing the words and enjoy the magic! Vera Mazaikina |
Want to be an author?Write for us and we will publish your writing right here on our blog! It can be about anything related to environmental engineering Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|