Truc Nguyen
Wood is considered a great source for architecture, buildings and can act as material for various items in modern day. Furthermore, it plays an important role in the era of bio-economy where renewable resources are involved. However, everything has its pros and cons, as wood production is considered to be contributing to forest loss, and is blamed for Green House effect at some point. As a more cost-effective and furthermore, a renewable resource, wood as a material is an ideal choice to reduce carbon footprint as well as environmental impact and at the same time, balancing the cost objective and functionally efficiency. To assess from environmental perspective of a product, Life Cycle Assessment procedure or LCA is usually implemented. Through which, the environmental impact of wood production from the very first state of harvesting to the end of life of the product, can be studied and compared to other materials. Unsurprisingly, the assessment procedures have shown that wood as material contributes less pollution in term of environment compared to concrete or steel. Studies have stated that wood products have less embodied energy and are more environmental friendly as they are involved in less carbon footprint as well as air and water pollution. Furthermore, residues of wood industries are utilized in either by-product manufacture or fuel and clean bio-energy. As forests act as carbon sink and give a hand in preventing climate change and green-house gas, by using wood products that store carbon and having reasonable forest management plans, we can deal with carbon print problem for a long term. (rethinkwood.com.) Despite being an ideal alternative material because of its more environmental friendly characteristics, wood production is not fully approved by environment groups (Wood I-Joist Manufacturers Association). The disastrous effect caused by wood harvesting and logging, especially unplanned operation, includes loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, desert encroachment and many more problems. Harvesting operation would influence the population and habitat of many species which are residing in the forest. If the removal of trees goes on without management, it can cause extinction to many plant and animal species. On the other hand, taking away from soil the protection of trees cover would lead to soil erosion. (Fuwape 2003.) Furthermore, the effect on land use of forestry operation and the use of bioenergy also require attention since they directly affect the emission of green-house gas. As trees sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, it is released back to the atmosphere when the plants biomass is converted to fuel and used. Additionally, as land use affects the relationship between GHGs cycle and the environment, there is possibility that it will trigger the emission. (Agricultural Ecosystem Research group.) According to the Finnish Forest Forestry, Wood production in Finland is growing very rapidly through years. However, at some point, this is considered to be a contributing factor in increasing emission. In fact, Finnish forest resources are still developing and act as essential carbon sink to the environment. To sum up, from Finish perspective, increasing wood use is a chance to enhance sustainable development by reducing emission, increasing renewable wood use, and at the same time, straightening national economy. (Fagerblom 2017.) REFERENCES: Ecological and Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy. Agricultural Ecosystem Research group. Article. Read 19.11.2017. http://www.wgbn.wisc.edu/conservation/ecological-and- environmental-impacts-bioenergy Effects of Wood Production on the Environment. Wood I-Joist Manufacturers Association. Article. Read 19.11.2017. http://i-joist.org/benefits/effects-of-wood-production-on-the- environment Fagerblom, A. 2017. Member State Reach Agreement Regarding Forest Carbon Sinks – Finland Need To Continue To Find A Reasonable Solution. Article. Published by: Finnish Forest Forestry. Read 26.11.2017. Fuwape,J. The Impact Of Forest Industries And Wood Utilization On The Environment. XII World Forestry Congress. 2003. Québec City. Canada. Reduced Impact. reThink Wood. Article. Read 19.11.2017. https://www.rethinkwood.com/wood-renewable/reduced-impact Thao Nguyen In your opinion, where would you rather be, indoors or outdoors? You may think choosing the indoor environment is always the best option, since outdoor air is not always fresh and can carry multiple health risks. However, I can be certain that after reading this post, you might have to think again. We spend most of our time indoors, since the majority of our activities happen indoors: sleeping, eating, studying, working (except the case you work outdoor). If there is any risk found in indoor air, it’s most likely that we have already been exposed to it for a long period. We are, most of the time unconscious of the health risks that the indoor environment presents, which makes the situation worse. According to WHO, 4,3 million people annually die of poor indoor air quality (WHO. N.d). Therefore, it is extremely important to monitor the indoor air quality properly to ensure out safety. (source: How stuffs work. How indoor air pollution works.) The hazards of indoor environment are divided into 3 categories: Microbial, Chemical, and Physical.
Clean your living space is the first thing to do if you want to improve indoor air quality. In this photo, we have a gamer’s natural habitat. (source: Things life. 2016) Before starting to panic and stop breathing, think about the ways to protect yourself! To eliminate the risks, you can either remove the source of the hazards, or avoid contact with them. I won’t get into the details, because each type of hazard requires different monitoring, which will take plenty of time to discuss. But generally, what you can do in your household is to keep it clean by regular sweeping and moping, monitor the humidity, reduce the use of synthetic fragrances… You can read more here (WebMD. 2009). Legislation is a firm tool to monitor the air in work places or schools, since the building structure must pass certain requirements to be accepted. For example, to minimize the exposure to radon gas (a chemical hazard of indoor air) in workplaces, employers must review the potential radon hazard risk in their premise (HSE. N.d. Radon in the workplace.) Next week, I will be discussing the microbial hazards in indoor environment in more details. Don’t forget to check my blog on Sunday for more knowledge! Reference: How stuffs work. N.d. How indoor air pollution works. Read on 19.11.2017. https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/tips/indoor-air-pollution.htm HSE. N.d. Radon in the workplace. Read on 19.11.2017 http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/radon.htm#legalrequirements Things life. 2016. Neckbeard Nests And PC Gamer Battlestations. Read on 27.11.2017. http://www.thingslife.com/neckbeard-nests-and-pc-gamer-battlestations/4/ WebMD. 2009. 5 Ways to Improve Indoor Air Quality. Released on 08.01.2009. Read on 19.11.2017. https://www.webmd.com/lung/features/12-ways-to-improve-indoor-air-quality#3 WHO. N.d. Household (Indoor) Air Pollution. Read on 18.11.2017. http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/ Tri Phung Let's imagine: Philly the Plankton lived a not-so-happy life. He was exposed to the oil, chemicals, waste, toxicity present in the water. Until he was consumed by Timmy the Tuna. Timmy the Tuna lived a not-so-happy life. He grew up consuming numerous Philly the Plankton each and every day; same as Philly, he was exposed to the oil, chemicals, waste, toxicity present in the water. Until he was consumed by US Humans. Then, there was Chang the Chicken. Chang lived a not-so-happy-life. He grew up being fed with genetically modified and pesticide-filled grains; he was injected with hormone so he could grow bigger in a shorter time; he was confined in a crowded cage with other Changs. Until he was consumed by US Humans. Consuming numerous Timmy the Tuna and Chang the Chicken days through days, We the Human live a happy life, because he will not be eaten by Mammy the Mammoth or Tiny the T-rex?! At present, We seem to live a happy life. However, We are suffering from bioaccumulation and biomagnification, which is bound to bring disease in future time. Bioaccumulation is the process of the toxicity level accumulating more and more inside an individual's body. This happens either because the individual consumes contaminated foods or is exposed to polluted sources for an extended time. (Hoop 2013.) Back to your imagination, bioaccumulation is when Philly the Plankton and Timmy the Tuna accumulating toxic during their life underwater, when Chang the Chicken gathering hormone during his life in the farm. Biomagnification indicates the process of toxic being “transferred”. When a prey is consumed by its predator in the food chain, all the harmful substances bioaccumulated in the prey is delivered directly to the consumer. (Hoop 2013.) So, Timmy the Tuna eats Philly the Plankton and gets biomagnification. Illustrations for bioaccumulation and biomagnification (Source: http://mercurypolicy.scripts.mit.edu/blog/?p=499 ) Because bioaccumulation and biomagnification happen in the food chain, We Humans, stand on top of the food chain (no more Tiny the T-rex wandering around anymore), suffers all the damage. In the beginning, the toxics (pesticides, for examples) is margin in dose and does not pose immediate symptoms. Nevertheless, over time, these poisons bioaccumulate in the body, affect our health and welfare, cause diseases, malfunctions, and failures. Let's look at an unfortunate example, shall we? Japanese people are famous for their consumption of fish. But, from 1932 - 1968, a factory released industrial waste into water of Minamata Bay, marine life got bioaccumulated, then the locals ate the seafood. The consumption of methylmercury contaminated seafood had resulted in methylmercury poisoning among Minamata locals. The poisoning is known as the Minamata disease, infecting 2,265 victims, of whom 1,784 had died. (Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan 2002.) It is not advisable to display a disturbing picture of this symptom on here, so instead I will include this caricature. Heavy Metal in The Marine Environment (Source: http://www.theperiodicelements.com/elements/view/Hg/index.html) We Human, now acknowledge these problems, must take actions to protect ourselves. A blogger shared that We should thoroughly wash fruits and vegetables before eating and cooking. A better solution is to opt for organic or local grown products to minimize the amount of industrial hormone, pesticides, and chemicals. Such products may be more expensive, but the price is worth it, especially it will be much cheaper than hospital and medicine pills later on. Planting our own gardens and producing our own foods is another great option. In the long-term. Ultimately, We can GoGreen (feel free to contact me for sponsorship, GoGreen!). An eating plan consists of foods lower in the food chain means a lower the concentrated toxic dose compared with a lifestyle with hefty consumption of meat (The Vegan Naturopath 2012). The more We the Human concern about the environments, the more actions We take to improve it, the less bioaccumulation and biomagnification occur in the food chain, and We will be the ultimately beneficiaries. Help the environments, and the environments will help us back. References How Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Pollutants is Affecting Our Food Supply. Updated 3.10.2016. Read on 19.11.2017. https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Bioaccumulation-and-Biomagnification Hoop, J. 2013. Bioamplification, Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration. Read on 16.1.2017. http://mercurypolicy.scripts.mit.edu/blog/?p=499 Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. 2002. Minamata Disease the History and Measures – Chapter 2. Read on 19.11.2017 http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/hs/minamata2002/ch2.html. The Periodic Elements. Mercury. Read on 19.11.2017. http://www.theperiodicelements.com/elements/view/Hg/index.html The Vegan Naturopath. 2012. Is Organic Produce Essential? Read on 19.11.2017. https://vegannaturopath.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/is-organic-produce-essential/ Have you ever heard of deep learning or artificial intelligence? As you may know, deep learning is machine learning about billions of images like monitoring a traffic, of facing expression, and of detecting obstacles in front of or back of a car. In this article, machine learning studies soil grain particle sizes, which causes a problem for heavy machines in forest in Finland. What is soil particle grain size? There are many types of soil such as clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Each type of soil has different particle size. The smallest one is clay, which is about . The biggest one is a type of gravel, which is about . Billions of different soil particles are in ground. Many scientists study what those soils particles are about every day. There is a science team, which studies forest soil. In Finland, heavy machines, which are logging machines, forwarder, harvester-processor, feller-buncher, shovel logger, and skidder, go into forest to cut trees, and a truck carries the trees to a factory and a port. Those machines weigh is several tons minimum. When those heavy machines travel in forest, those create deep ditch, which damages forest. In order to estimate the strength of the ground, a team focuses on soil grain particle size. Studying soil grain particle size prevents heavy machines from accidents. The finer the grain particle size is, the deeper ditch is created in forest when working with a heavy machine because fine grain size holds more water, which affects the strength of the ground. The strength of ground is weaker when the grain size is finer. You may imagine the difference between wet mud in your hand and wet sand in your hand. Which one holds more moisture? It is mud, which is finer than sand. At present, many soil samples are collected in forest, and then a laboratory analyzes those samples and issues grain size particles report. It takes some time and costs a lot of money. What if we can omit the process in a laboratory? What if it can be analyzed instantly? Machine learning is one way to improve our work life and our environment. If grain particle size in an image are accurately estimated by machine learning, not only forest workers but also construction workers and farmers can easily, cheaply and quickly analyze the condition of soil. The more data is stored in brain, the smarter it gets. The machine might take over some laboratory work, but it will surely help us improving our work life and our environment. Image of soil (Saito, 2017) References Butcher, S. 30.5.3017. J.P.Morgan’s massive guide to machine learning and big data jobs in finance. EfinancialCareers Ltd. Read (27.11.2017) https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/285249/machine-learning-and-big-data-j-p-morgan Lewis-Kraus, G. 14.12.2016. The Great A.I. Awakening. The New York Times Magazine. Read (13.11.2017) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1195: Nomenclature. U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey. Read (19.11.2017) https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1195/htmldocs/nomenclature.htm Anh Nguyen When it comes to rabbit, people might just imagine an adorable and furry “ball”, chewing berries and hopping around. Yet, not many, probably most outsiders of Australasia, ever consider that this diminutive species is harming the environment indeed, especially in Australia. PICTURE 1. Bunnies in 3D Crush Café (taken by author)
How rabbits appeared in Australia Australian rabbits have their origin in Europe (Oryctolagus cuniculus), which were first introduced into the region in early 19th century. The first feral colony were brought by the First Fleet to Tasmania as provisions by 1827. Following that, in 1859, Thomas Austin – a landowner in Winchelsea, Victoria, released 24 wild rabbits imported from England with a view to proceeding his hunting hobby as well as helping other settlers feel comfortable. This incident was the root of all detrimental impacts rabbits would cause on the fragile ecology in the future. They accelerated in population, spreading to the Queensland – New South Wales border by 1886 and reached to Western Australia as well as the Northern Territory by 1900. Rabbits had covered 4 million square kilometers of Australia in just a few decades. Today, rabbits are distributed relatively equally throughout the country, except for the northernmost areas. Why rabbit population escalates Insufficient quantity of predators coupled with ideal conditions smoothed the path for the rodents to do their best job – breeding. The tropical climate of Australia is one of the main factors contributing to rabbit increase. With mild winters, they can breed all year round. In addition, humans’ sprawling agriculture resulted in vast areas with low vegetation, which are ideal habitat for feral rabbits. What is more, before rabbits arrived in the country, red foxes and feral cats were regarded as invasive mammalian predators to native wildlife and farming. Hence, the government responded to these hindrances by culling them. This, in fact, caused a boomerang effect. Let’s take Macquarie Island as an example. When the rabbits and cats were introduced into Australia, they formed a perfect predator-prey relationship. However, that relationship was interrupted by a rabbit-killing virus. The cats turned to eating a great deal of native birds when rabbit numbers decreased. The locals then decided to wipe out the cats. Thus, between 1985 and 2001, felines no longer existed on the island. Birds were not in danger anymore, and so were the rabbits, which fortunately survived from the virus. Their population boomed again! Rabbits’ effects and the Australians’ solutions Excessive grazing of rabbits leaves the soil empty with no vegetative covers, allowing the wind to erode the top fertile soil away. Soil erosion leads to water absorption and the vegetation reproduction. In addition, agricultural run-off and salinity of soil are also likely to occur when top soil is diminished. Rabbit warrens contribute to soil degradation as their burrowing disturbs the soil and damages the flora. As consequences, some plant species go extinct, which also leads to decrease in native birds, mammals or insects that feed on them and use them as shelter. The Australian livestock is in danger as well, since they have to compete with rabbits for available pasture. Feral rabbits have hindered both the economic growth and nature development of Australia. The latter issue is much more severe; the outcomes cannot be compensated. Around much of 19th century, human tried to control the rabbits by trapping and shooting. Hunting them for sports or food just makes a drop in the ocean compared to their exponential growth. To early 20th century, the government decided to establish rabbit-proof fences to protect the farming regions in Western Australia. However, the plan was unsuccessful as multitude of rabbits invaded the land during the construction. Some could even have dug through the fences. The government went on with the biological control measurement. In 1950, they experimented a virus to kill the feral rabbits. The virus was myxomatosis, carried by the fleas and mosquitoes into the wild. This time, it first brought some considerable achievements, as about 90% of rabbits was wiped out, but not continued any longer. The fleas and mosquitoes were not able to exist in arid areas, so some rabbits survived, and they went on reproducing. The survivals and their successors developed natural genetic immunity to the virus. The same happened to RHD, which was released in 1995. In 2011, a new rabbit eradication program comprised of three stages was implemented. Another virus, rabbit calicivirus, was released. Then 307 tons of brodifacoum baits was dropped for rabbits that survived from virus. Poisons were used later to kill ones that survived from both virus and baits. Even so, the rabbits went on existing because of coevolution between the virus and the host. Biological controls are never enough, plus they literally affect the whole nature. Many species die because of eating poisoned baits or poisoned bodies of dead rabbits. A considerable amount of vegetation dieback was possibly resulted from hazardous chemicals released into the environment. Future eradications of rabbits are still in the process of completing, yet it also needs cooperating with other protection programs such as preservation of on-ground threatened flora and fauna, controlling other invasive animals work as rabbit predators, to name but a few. The control should not only focus on one species but the whole ecosystem. Humans should learn from the mistakes in the past that, the nature is an integrated system, so when one part is affected the whole “machine” is drastically under the impacts as well. After all, it was not the rabbits’ responsibility for ruining the environment from the beginning; it was because of the human’s egocentric satisfaction. References Office of Environment & Heritage. 2015. Rabbits – Fact sheet. NSW Government. Read 18.11.2017. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/RabbitFactsheet.htm Ypte. Rabbit: Oryctolagus cuniculus. Young People's Trust For the Environment. Read 18.11.2017. http://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/rabbit/overview#section Wendy Zukerman, ABC Science. 08.04.2009. Australia's battle with the bunny. ABC. Read 18.11.2017. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/08/2538860.htm The Conversation. 12.06.2015. Killing cats, rats and foxes is no silver bullet for saving wildlife. The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited. Read 18.11.2017. https://theconversation.com/killing-cats-rats-and-foxes-is-no-silver-bullet-for-saving-wildlife-42754 Elisa Pekkola For decades, the GMO technology has helped scientists to meet the modern human’s needs and to find answers to some of the most critical issues in the world. So, what does GMO stand for? GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. In practice, a wanted gene, for example drought-resistance, is manually inserted into the DNA of an existing organism to create a new species. In fact, GM-technology can be considered as an advanced form of breeding. PICTURE 1. GMO corn in Yellow Springs, Ohio. (Photo: Lindsay Eyink, 2013. Wikimedia Commons) One of the first products created by genetical engineering was Insulin, a pharmaceutical used to regulate blood sugar levels of people with diabetes. This happened in 1982 and after this many life-changing GMO’s have been invented. A good example of this would be the vitamin A-enriched golden rice, which was created to prevent blindness in children in the developing countries. This technology that has helped many people, and even saved lives, is the same that is being harshly judged. Nowadays GM-foods and -crops are widely used, especially in the U.S. There over 90% of all the soybeans planted are herbicide-tolerant. In 2017, the percentages of planted acres of genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton has reached over 75%, which means that the vast majority of these crops are GMOs. PICTURE 2. Anti-GMO activism. (Photo: Pixabay free images)
The phenomenon is globally spread, although it has not gained popularity everywhere. GMOs are grown in 28 countries, but some nations are cautious about new GMOs. In the EU countries have had the right to ban or restrict GMO cultivation from 2015. This is not a terrible thing, since it is important to be careful when it comes to health and environmental risks. However, prejudice that is based on rumours and assumptions can be harmful. Many believe that GMOs are not safe to eat but do not search for scientific proof for this. They believe allegations of other people that their illnesses are caused by GM-foods when actually, the safety of many GMOs has been scientifically proved. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published a report on genetically engineered crops in 2016 and it was one of the largest studies done on this field. It concluded that there is no clear evidence that non-GMO-crops would be safer than GMO-crops. A major question in the future will be how to feed the growing population sustainably. This means that patches need to yield more crops without land overuse. Also, climate change brings additional challenge to agriculture with changing weather conditions. So, it is needless to say that all methods have to be taken into account in finding the answers. As an EU study stated: “Undeniably GM technology is an important tool in the fight against global poverty and food insecurity.”. This is a statement that should encourage every anti-GMO-activists to read the research and start opening their eyes for the possibilities of genetical engineering. Resources: Alliance for Science. 2016. Cornell University. GMO safety debate is over. Released on 23.5.2016. Read on 19.11.2017. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over Science Literary Project. 2016. Where are GMOs grown and banned? Released on 2016. Read on 19.11.2017. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned/ Science in the News. 2017. Harvard Graduate School of the Arts and Sciences. From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology. Released on 9.8.2015. Read on 19.11.2017. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/ European Commission. 2010. European Commissions monthly magazine Research*eu. A decade of EU-funded GMO research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Food Evolution. 2016. Documentary (USA) Burning fossil fuels produces a lot of waste including CO2 – the most well-known greenhouse gas. Global warming is real and humankind is most likely going to face the consequences. To solve this problem we need to change the way we produce energy. There are several alternative energy sources such as hydroelectric power stations, wind power generators, solar cells, geothermal energy power stations and others. Now, I will focus on solar panels only. The first solar cells were constructed in 19th century. Since that time, a lot has changed. A good thing about solar cells is that they produce clean energy without any waste and the only thing they need is cloudless weather. Nowadays there are plenty of solar powerplants all around the world. Some individuals install them on their own properties and sometimes even make their own small powerplants to produce enough energy to cover all their needs. We are getting used to this technology on the Earth, but what if some existed on other space objects? Like on the Moon? Actually, there are several projects of constructing a power station on the Moon. If we could build a “ring” of solar cells there, we would’ve half way solved the problem of an upcoming energy crisis. While there are such problems as nights and cloudy days (that slow down energy production) on our planet, on the Moon the flow of energy production would be constant. Also, the light that reaches those solar cells would be even brighter because there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The energy can be transported back to Earth either by microwave emitting or lasers (or even both) and collected with the help of special stations that are to be build. It sure may sound like another science fiction tale, and the project like this would cost humongous amounts of money, but at the end of day, we have to take actions and face the music. References: Thair Shaikh, The Independent, 28.11.2013, Japanese engineers plan to turn the moon into a giant solar panel station [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/japanese-engineers-plan-to-turn-the-moon-into-a-giant-solar-panel-station-8969866.html], Accessed 2.11.2016 Wikipedia, 16.11.2016, Solar cell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell], Accessed 20.11.2016 Sarah Fecht, Popular Science, 17.03.2016, Solar panels grown on the moon could power the earth [http://www.popsci.com/for-nearly-infinite-power-build-self-replicating-solar-panels-on-moon], Accessed 2.11.2016 by Linh Nguyen Have you ever thought that a small, cute and cuddly animal as cat might be a dangerous factor for the environment? A recent study found that cats are one of the top predators to US birds and mammals. A cat in a cat coffee shop in Tampere, Finland (Linh Nguyen, 2015) Americans spend $7 billion annually to feed cats and other few billion dollars in cat veterinary, cat toys, cat houses or cat clothes. Cats are more and more famous today because their videos have millions of views on social media. But they are found to be “cuddly killers” since 1.4 - 3.7 billion birds and 6.9 - 20.7 billion mammals are killed by cats every year. In the book Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer by Peter P. Marra and Chris Santella, free-ranging domestic cats are mentioned as an environmental threat. In 2013, Marra and other researchers found that 4 billion birds, 822 million reptiles, 22 billion small mammals and 299 million amphibians in the U.S. were killed by cats in a single year. According to a 2011 review of 120 islands, cats led to the decrease in species diversity of songbirds (approximately 123 species), seabirds, parrots, iguanas (around 25 species), penguins, lizards, snakes, turtles, snakes and 27 species of small mammals such as lemurs and bats. After that, in another study, a team of researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that the amount of deaths caused by cats was more than 4 times higher than the figure in the previous study. Not only the stray, feral cats but also the pet cats caused a huge amount of deaths of birds (especially American Robin), mice, shrews, voles, squirrels and rabbits. Cat owners should not allow their cats to loaf around the neighborhood, not only for protecting other species, but also help their kitties to live longer. The biggest problem is managing more than 80 million unowned cats in the U.S. Many animal welfare organizations such as The Washington Humane Society suggest to use trap-neuter-return programs (TNR). In TNR programs, stray or feral cats are vaccinated, spayed and found home. If there is no home for them, they will be returned to the area which they came from. In the other hand, conservationists say that these programs might make it worse because they are a reason for people to abandon their cats to these programs colonies in which wild animals are often fed by volunteers. According to Dr. Fenwick of the bird conservancy, there are more than 500 TNR provinces in Austin alone and the number of free roaming cats keeps increasing. Even pet cats are extremely adjusted to the hunt, for example, they can’t help but chase when they see moving things. It may be better to put more effort into animal adoption, said Dr. Fenwick. Home can be found for almost healthy cats. "Cats don't need to wander hundred of miles to be happy", he said. Cat owners should control their pets more (for example, keeping their cats indoor) to reduce the effect . It’s also an alert for governments, organizations and scientists to the decline of various species caused by cat hunting instinct. ReferencesAngier N. 2013. That Cuddly Kitty Is Deadlier Than You Think. Published 29/09/2013. Read 27/11/2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/science/that-cuddly-kitty-of-yours-is-a-killer.html.
Loss R. S., Will T., Marra P. P. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Published 29/01/2013. Read 10/11/2016. http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 Marra P. P. & Satella C. 2016. The Killer Cats Are Winning! Published 29/09/2016. Read 10/11/2016. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/09/29/killer-cats-are-winning/ Morelle R. 2013. Cats killing billions of animals in the US. Published 29/01/2013. Read 10/11/2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21236690. Nowadays, the demand for food rockets without sight of halting. It is estimated by the UN that food demand will increase up to 70% within the next 35 years. An increase in food production is the most straight-forward solution but it comes with certain hazards. One of the most important food to human is undoubtedly meat. The most common hazard of meat production is that it contributes greatly to global warming by using a great amount of water, destroying forests, causing erosion and emitting carbon dioxide – the most common greenhouse gas (production of cow meat). Nonetheless, the animal wastes from the production are put in coastal areas, thus creating the so-called dead zones. Hence it is high time to advance our cuisine to become more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Acknowledging the problem, the famous brand IKEA attempts to tackle it by means of technology. For a long time, IKEA has been well-known not only for its affordable furniture, but also for the famous Swedish meatballs and without a doubt it has been one big factor of the company that needs an urgent environmentally friendly solution. The solution they come up with lies within the 3D printing technology. The technology is being developed in IKEA’s future-living laboratory Space10 located in Copenhagen, Denmark. The research (called Tomorrow’s Meatball: A Visual Exploration of Future Food) aims to find out sustainable substitute ingredients and production technology. Futuristically speaking, we will soon be able to have a dinner menu with meatballs of artificially made meat, bugs, nuts, algae, etc. using 3D print technology. The new ingredients might sound unappetizing but they are promised to have similar tastes to our meatballs nowadays and they help reducing the use of real meat by a large margin. Thus in order to cope with the high food demanding future, we need to be ready for these changes (stated by Bas van de Poel – design resident at Space10). The project has showcased some of its finest “green” meatballs menu, including:
The project gives a new vision on a greener and sustainable cuisine where we can utilize most of the edible materials around us. Reference: Yusuf, B. Dec 2015. IKEA Will Save the Planet with 3D Printed Meatballs. https://all3dp.com/ikea-will-save-planet-3d-printed-meatballs/ Pour, K, Poel, B, Perez, S, Renlund, L, Borring, K & Caspersen, S. Dec 2015. Tomorrow’s Meatball: A Visual Exploration of Future Food. https://www.space10.io/journal/tomorrow-s-meatball-what-we-all-could-be-eating-20-years-from-now Every year, human has to face and find a solution for treating the mountain of garbage, 2.3 trillion pounds from around the world. But in that number, only 1% of them is recycled (Graph 1) while 59% is in the landfills (Thompson 2012). From the graph, it is easy for us to recognize how the trash over the world has been treated. In the higher income countries, fortunately, we still have 1% of trash was recycled. The that is still an extrememly small amount. And in both, we spend too much land for building landfill based on 59% of world's garbage was located at landfill. But the land area of the Earth is limited, so if the amount of waste keeps increasing while we do not have landfills anymore, how can we solve this matter? Graph 1. How the garbage is treated in the lower income countries (left) and the higher income countries (right). (Source: The Atlantic. 2012) The solution for this matter is RECYCLING. Recycling is the process of making a new reusable thing from the potentially useful trash to avoid using new or raw materials to make and use again some reusable things as much as we can. For example, we can use a water bottle from a grocery shop for several times instead buying a new bottle before putting in a trash bin. This is just a small act but very useful for decreasing the amount of world's trash. If everyone does this, people will not have to pay a lot of money in waste treating technology every year. So what can be recycled? Nearly EVERYTHING is recyclable, from the smallest thing, such as, a water bottle, to the largest one like a fridge. It depends on the way it is recycled. In general, a recyclable object is ussually marked by one logo (Picture 1). So when seeing that logo, you know your thing can be recycled. But not every family has the advanced technology for recycling. So in this case, the only act we have to do is separate our trash. Then, the government and the garbage treating center will help you do the left steps. After they collect enough each kind of trash, for instance, glass, plastic or biowaste, they use their advanced technology to recycle one by one type. APicture 1. Recyclable logo. (Wikipedia. 2016) And why is recycling the key to the world's development? As mentioned, the land area on our planet is limited. So we cannot use too much land and money for building landfills as we need that land and that money for other human developments like technology, medication and economy. Through all what we discovered, it is surely ossible to conclude why recycling is important for humand. Recycling is the key to the world's development has been proven. We cannot live in garbage mountains to work or study. Meanwhile we do not join hand to reduce the amount of trash and let it increases day by day. So lastly, if we do not start not, maybe not in near future but nearly sure in future, human will live, work and play in our landfills. Reference. 1. Derek Thompson. 07 June 2012. 2.6 trillion pounds of garbage: Where does the world’s trash go? The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/26-trillion-pounds-of-garbage-where-does-the-worlds-trash-go/258234/. Access: 13.11.2016
2. Recycling. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling. Access: 13.11.2016 Can you actually save money by saving water? Will saving water ruin your bathroom experience? Average Finnish person uses about 155 litres of water in a day. Average usage of water per person in a day that Finnish ministry of environment has set is 100 to 120 litres in a day, so Finnish people are on average over using fresh water by 35 litres or more per day. PICTURE 1. Daily distribution of fresh water usage (Pajunen 2016) Average price of water for reqular house was 5,57 € per qubicmetre of water from top 20 cheapest water supliers of Finland. That means that for regular Finnish family with two adults and two kids the water bill would be a bit over 100 € per month in best case scenario. When compared to regular bathrooms, modern bathrooms could save from 50 to 70 % water while claiming that the bathroom expearince or routines would not have to change at all, but could actually eaven make them better. There are modern shower mechanisms being developed where the shover nozzles atomize water into millions of droplets creating 10 times more surface area than a regular shower but saving 70 % water while doing so. There are modern washing machines that wash loundry faster and quieter while also using less water. There are modern toilets that let the user custom the amount of needed water for flushing and use aproximately 30 % less water. So with modern bathroom anyone can enjoy these new inventions and cut the price of water bills in half? The thing here is that all these modern bathroom units unfortunately cost significanlty more than regular bathroom units. Just for money saving purposes modern bathrooms are not worth the investment, it could take years just to break even, but for someone just trying to reduce household water consumption, these all are great inventions and definitely a leap forward. After all, it comes down to personal preferences. ReferencesMotiva. 2016. Vedenkulutus. Read 2.11.2016
http://www.motiva.fi/koti_ja_asuminen/mihin_energiaa_kuluu/vedenkulutus Yle. 2015. Hanaveden hinnoissa valtavia eroja – Top 20 -listassa kalleimmat ja halvimmat vedentoimittajat. Read 2.11.2016 http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8103533 Nebia. 2016. Experience Water. Read 2.11.2016 https://nebia.com/ Remodelista. 2014. 7 Favorites: The Best Water-Conserving Toilets. Read 2.11.2016 http://www.remodelista.com/posts/5-favorites-the-best-water-conserving-toilets/ By Linh Pham It has been 30 years since the Chernobyl Accident and 5 years since Fukushima Daiichi Accident, nuclear energy has left a bad impression in people’s minds. The disasters released high amount of radioactive, causing several deaths and affecting millions of people. The disaster raised doubts over the safety of nuclear power plant. At the time of the Fukushima accident, there were several public protests calling for nuclear power to be abandoned. Is abandoning nuclear power a good decision? The recent years have seen many improvements in both regulatory framework and technology of nuclear power. However, more importantly, besides the lessons learnt from the accidents, this article will focus on the benefits of nuclear power on the way to reach sustainable development goals. Economic dimension The fuel used in producing nuclear energy is Uranium (U), which resource availability is huge and superior when compared to oil or natural gas resource availability in terms of reverse-production ratio. Although the changes in regulations will not only increase the capital investment of nuclear power and nuclear power plants (NPPs) but also the construction time, making NPPs projects risky and not favourable in investor’s point of view, the levelized costs of electricity generation of nuclear energy are the lowest. Environmental dimension Nuclear energy is one of the power sources that emits greenhouse gases the least. Like renewable power sources, nuclear energy reduces acidification, eutrophication, antibiotic resource depletion potentials. As the wastes of producing nuclear power process are dangerous radioactive products, managing nuclear waste is a difficult challenge. A part of the spent nuclear fuel can be recycled and long-lived radioactive can be turned into material with a shorter half-life. Another approach with several advantages which is studied from the Fukushima accident is storing nuclear waste in dry casks at a small number of secured, separated completely from the reactors sites. Only a limited land surface needed for a unit of nuclear based electricity make nuclear power become beneficial regarding land use. Considerable water use for NPPs causes arguments about the environmental sustainability aspect, however, alternative cooling systems can be considered to comply with the requirements and adapt with climate change in the future. Social dimension Once radioactive is leaked, human health is put in danger. However, lessons from the tremendous disasters are unforgettable and national safety regulations everywhere are reconsidered and strengthened. In fact, the level of toxicity and radioactive waste disposal doses from nuclear power station are unsubstantial. Nuclear power is a relatively new field, especially in developing countries, hence it brings more opportunities with long term jobs, moreover, as the world is shifting toward a less carbon economy, the living standard of citizens will be improved. The two disasters might spread suspicions and fear amongst people, but it does not mean that we shut down all NPPs and abdicate nuclear power’s benefits. We have to get over the problems and consider them with different attitudes. Nuclear power, together with renewable powers, will be an irreplaceable part of the sustainable future with low-carbon electricity systems. References IAEA. 2016. Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/11084/Nuclear-Power-and-Sustainable-Development##ctl00_cphRDBooksHomeMain_FormViewBookDetails_rightsdivdiv
Moniz, E. 2011. Why we still need nuclear power. Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec 2011. Published 17.10.2011. Read 13.11. 2016. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-10-17/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power OECD. 2002. Chernobyl: Assessment on Radiological and Health Impacts. 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten years on. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/ OECD. 2016. Five years after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Nuclear Safety Improvement and lessons learnt. Executive Summary. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/pubs/2016/7285-five-years-fukushima-es.pdf Ripley, W. Ogura, J. and Griffiths, J. 2016. Fukushima: Five years after Japan’s worst nuclear disaster. Updated 11.03.2016. Read 13.11.2016. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/08/asia/fukushima-five-year-anniversary/ United Nation. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ There is no beauty in the finest cloth if it makes hunger and unhappiness. (Mahatma Gandhi) Do you know what is the most polluting industry? Well, that’s an easy one. Of course, it’s oil. Can you guess the second? I was really shocked to find out that it’s fashion. I’ve been searching for this information through the whole Web, hoping that this is just a journalist’s trick, but, unfortunately, it is not. So does it mean that I have a shelf, full with second most polluting stuff? Insane. And definitely not ecofriendly. When I think about it now, this news sounds logical. A lot of chemicals are used to color tissues to make them vivid color, so people would like to buy it. But some costumers like saving money so much, that they are ready to buy them, that were colored with cheap, but dangerous for skin chemicals. I really don’t want to add any of these disturbing photos, but search for them, if you feel like doing so. The cheapest is the dearest, as this case is like a demonstration of the proverb. You may say: "Where should I get money for clothes, if I have a mortgage/student loans/five kids, that need food!". Well, I am not saying, that you should buy the most expensive ones, right? It is possible to find things with really good quality in mass market or even thrift shops (actually, they are full of fashionable treasures). Just always check the compound of your new apparel and keep in your mind that if a fur coat costs ten euros, then there is probably something wrong with it. Furthermore, recycling clothes instead of just throwing it away, will help not only your wallet, but also the environment. I really remember how my grandma put our old t-shirts into stripes and made carpets out of them. To be honest, now barely no one does it, but I think, you got the point. Once again, search the Web. There are really outstanding ideas. The best thing is that you will never see a person with exactly the same clothes. Recycling is a base for eco fashion. Nowadays big mass markets have understood this and give a discount coupon for next buying, because you brought them your old stuff. Isn’t this wonderful? Let’s agree, eco fashion is not clothes from trash bags! I tell you, these are not ready-to-wear collections and they are not going to be in the shops, at least for some years now. They are made by designers only to attract public’s attention about this topic, which turned out to be very serious. So always check what you’re buying, recycle your old clothes and together we can make fashion safer. (Nicole Bridger – Vancouver Eco Fashion Week) References:Eco Watch Contributor, 2015, http://www.ecowatch.com, accessed 13.11.2016, http://www.ecowatch.com/fast-fashion-is-the-second-dirtiest-industry-in-the-world-next-to-big--1882083445.html
Finland is the most forested country in Europe, with forestry land covering about 86% level of whole land area of the country, according to Finnish Forest Association. (See picture 1) So, it’s not a surprise, that on their web-site I found this interesting quote: “Forests are rooted in the Finnish way of life – in its full meaning. Forest is a state of mind”. Definitely, forests play vital role in Finland, because they provide needed timber, food (mushrooms, berries) and fresh air. As well as they are homes for many species of trees, plants, animals, insects, microorganisms and others. PICTURE 1. Land of forests (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) Finns care a lot about sustainable forest management because of importance and necessity of forests in their lives. Forest protection is an essential part of it. The first step was made already in 19th century with the very first Forest Act in 1886, which prohibited destruction of forests in Finland. Nowadays forest ownership is protected by legislation and voluntary certification. This means that forest owners must ensure that after felling a new forest will replace the old one. Almost all commercial forest areas in the country are certified with PEFC (Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification) or FSC standard (Forest Stewardship Council), which results in 90 % and 6 % respectively. Certification establishes the standard of silviculture and helps to improve biodiversity of Finnish forests. (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) Finland has the biggest share of protected forests in Europe. The area of protected forests in Finland has tripled during the past 35 years. (MetsäBoard, 2016) Using timber from certified sources, companies ensure that all wood is harvested legally and can be traced back to their natural environment, which prevent illegal import/export of timber, pulp and paperboard. As an example of good forest management, we can consider MetsäBoard. This company promote sustainable forestry and forest certification, so that all wood would be safe and legal, while forest’s biodiversity and recreation quality would be preserved. For each tree harvested, 4 new seedlings are planted instead, in order to renew forests with fresh trees. Sustainability in forest matter implies that almost every part of each tree will be used for the purpose it suits best, to reduce number of waste in whole process. For example, the main stem is used for construction purposes, while smaller parts of the stem are for pulp, branches and so on, and other parts of discarded wood supply to bioenergy sphere. (MetsäBoard) An example of this multiple usage of the wood can be seen from the picture below. PICTURE 2. Annual timber flow in Finland in 2014 (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) The Natural Resources Institute Finland reported in 2014 that annual the growth of forest area in Finland is around 105 million m³ of timber and exceeds annual forest removal. This fact means that the amount of timber in Finnish forests increases every year and sustainable forestry works. With all the importance of the forests, we shouldn’t forget also, that there are simply beautiful and need our care, then they will make us happy :) PICTURE 3. Remote Finnish road (Yunakovskiy Artem, 2013)
Author: Yunakovskiy Artem References: Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2014, accessed 2.11.2016, http://www.metla.fi/index-en.html Finnish Forest Association, 2016, accessed 2.11.2016, http://www.smy.fi/en/ MetsäBoard, 2016, accessed 3.11.2016, http://www.metsaboard.com/Pages/default.aspx Organic food is filling the shelves and praised like never before, but often it might have travelled a long way before reaching the shelves in the stores. The question I wanted answered was how big an impact the so called food miles (the distance food travels from farm to plate) have on environment. Quite a few studies have been made to conclude if organic or local food is better. For example, a Swedish researcher took a closer look at a typical Swedish breakfast (apple, bread, butter, cheese, coffee, cream, orange juice, sugar). His calculations showed that the distance the breakfast travelled before reaching the breakfast table was approximately one turn around the Earth. A similar calculation was done in Iowa, USA. There the research team concluded that to make one cartoon of strawberry yoghurt the ingredients travelled about 3 550 km. At that point the ice cream hadn’t even left the factory. These numbers, together with the fact that transportation does release a lot of greenhouse gases (especially air and road transport), displays a real problem for the environment. However, to know the environmental impact of food isn’t as easy as calculating food miles. Transportation system and, as with organic food, the process of making the food might have an even greater impact on the environment. For example, potatoes trucked from 100 miles away might have a higher environmental impact than potatoes shipped by rail from 1000 miles away. Still, if looking at the big picture, the food miles only makes up a small part of the total environmental impact of products. DeWeerdt suggests making a life-cycle analysis for food instead of just looking at the food miles. When looking at the production it is obvious that beef and dairy products have some of the highest environmental impacts (see table below). When put shortly, what you eat has a bigger impact than the food miles. Ida Smedlund References:Caputo, V. Nayga Jr, R.M. Scarpa R. 2013. Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preference for food transport footprint with a stated choice study. In Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 57, pp. 465-482.
DeWeerdt, S. 2013. Is Local Food Better? In World Watch Magazine, Volume 22 No. 3. SYKE. Article: Climate-friendly food. SYKE, Aalto-yliopisto, YTK, Ilmatieteen laitos. Read: 19.10.2016. https://ilmasto-opas.fi/en/ilmastonmuutos/hillinta/-/artikkeli/ab196e68-c632-4bef-86f3-18b5ce91d655/ilmastomyotainen-ruoka.html%2017.10.2016 |
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
|