APES Vlog #3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Hnrz-106o

Video Blog #2

And another video blog! Yay!

https://youtu.be/1zSGeDjyiHs

Video Blog :)

Check out our APES video blog!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q_eQicYaZY

Eaarth Day Blog

Alan talking about awesome stuff
Source: Proctor Academy Flickr

Eaarth Day was an interesting day at Proctor Academy. There were no lessons - no classes, yet I still learned more about our planet than a normal day at school. I began Eaarth day with an activity in Shirley Hall with Ian Hamlet. Ian explained to us how diesel automobile engines can still power vehicles with various oils, including cooking oil. We learned that the first diesel engine was powered from vegetable oils, but the use of fossil fuels replaced the idea of utilizing vegetables as the outbreak of WWI occurred, and various nations scrambling for war could extract fossil fuels at a relatively inexpensive, and faster rate. The idea of this activity was to create a fuel that could power vehicles that would be completely harmless to human beings. The interesting part though, is that we were to create a fuel with ingredients that would be harmful on their ow
n. My partner and I proceeded to add various chemicals, oils, and other ingredients in a systematic order, and mix these items with a magnetic spinner. We watched in awe as the oily mixture changed in viscosity, slowly turned into violet color, then quickly reverted back into a thick, yellow substance. All done, we were happy that we concocted a fuel source that was entirely harmless to humans. It made me think - a substance like this could theoretically alter human fuel consumption. A harmless oil that humanity could use to replace fossil fuels appears to be an incredible idea. The only problem with this fuel source is that not enough of it could be produced to fulfil civilization's demand for oil. There would not be enough available farmland on Earth to grow enough vegetables to create the desired amount of oil. Though this method is an excellent idea, it appears incredibly unrealistic. Hopefully not for long though.

My second activity was with Phil Goodnow. A bunch of students and I were delegated the task to collect rubbish along the highway next to Proctor Academy. We travelled on a bus to a parking lot away from the school and proceeded to walk in the direction of Proctor Academy and collect as much discarded waste as we possibly could before we reached campus. I wasn't expecting to pick up much trash, yet we found out quickly that our group simply did not have enough plastic bags to collect everything we could. I was astounded to find beer cans, papers, broken plastic, incandescent lights, and disposable coffee cups among other things littered around the road. As we walked towards Proctor Academy, I became increasingly annoyed with the sheer amount of litter. It angered me that there was just so much of it everywhere - why didn't it occur to some individuals that discarding trash like this was wrong? We left our almost overflowing garbage bags on the side of the road for it to be collected by garbage crews and proceeded to attend lunch.

The one and only David Rothenberg
Source: The Globe and Mail

My last activity was a music jam with an experimental jazz musician named David Rothenberg. A professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rothenberg studies the relationship between animal sounds and music. I spent the last hour and a half of Eaarth day playing with him. We began our jam with the sounds of a whale played with a speaker, and Rothenberg proceeded to play a string of notes on his clarinet with these noises. Surprised, I then attempted to replicate a similar scale and rhythm on my guitar to play with Rothenberg and his whales, as did the remaining students in the group. Finding it difficult to pinpoint the proper scale and rhythm due to the erratic noises of the whale and Rothenberg, we soon came to realize that there was no music theory involved, and our musical guest was simply playing to his emotions on a whim. Taking note of his abstract style, we proceeded to play our instruments and we pleased, adding to this unique concoction of sounds. I found Rothenberg's style of music unlike anything I had ever heard before. Though I saw his musical tastes as unique and different, I occasionally felt that the music produced was too challenging to listen to be enjoyed. As an admirer of rock, jazz, alternative and experimental music, I believed that this new genre went beyond anything that I believed was musically challenging. Sitting on the precipice between cacophony and euphony, Rothenberg's animal music was certainly interesting - it just wasn't the right fit for me. Before attending my final activity with Rothenberg, I actually had the chance to hear him speak about his music. In a 90 minute assembly, I heard his thoughts regarding this music - how he made music with birds, whales, and how his friends and him would travel to the ocean on a boat, proceed to remove all their clothing, and play music through an underwater speaker to various humpback whales. This assembly was unlike anything I had seen before. He also described methods of creating musical notation for animal noises, notably whales and transcribed them on paper. Like a concert A note or a musical triplet, he notated the pitch and rhythm of a sound into a single note, something that is almost unheard of in the musical world. Though this unusual technique would not be effective in a western concert musical sense, it seemed perfect for what Rothenberg was attempting to accomplish. It was hard to find words to describe his presentation.

The wonderful Tita Evertsz
Source: Lemonade International

Our last speaker was the fabulous Tita Evertsz, a woman who spearheads Lemonade International, an organization in Guatemala that aims to facilitate community development and benefit the lives of the Guatemalan people. Located in a destitute locale in Guatemala City named La Limonada, Lemonade International educates, rehabilitates and provides service to children and young adults in an attempt to give them the tools they need to acquire an honorable occupation and a sustainable future, and deter many youth from joining violent gangs in the area. Because of Tita Evertsz's work, La Limonada is gradually being nursed back to health. Watching her speak and describe her experiences made me feel happy that there are people who truly care about others, and will stop at nothing to benefit the lives of many. Her documentary and her story had me look at my own life, and realize that I feel obligated to follow in her footsteps and help the lives of those that are in need. I was very glad to hear Tita Evertsz speak, and I hope that she succeeds in her honorable endeavors.

Nuclear Power: Potential, or a Problem?

Pandora's Promise (2013)

What is nuclear power? Is it a reliable source of energy? And more importantly, is it sustainable and safe? These are all questions that the documentary Pandora’s Promise (2013) attempts to answer. In a world where society fears but respects nuclear powers potential, the documentary tries to shed some light on the topic of the possible widespread use of nuclear energy.

A controversial source of energy, Pandora’s Promise opens depicting various anti-nuclear rallies, demonstrations and speeches, with participants comparing nuclear power to death and suffering. The documentary juxtaposes this with voiceovers of individuals that were previously anti-nuclear, glossing over what led to their eventual transition to a pro-nuclear stance. The documentary then briefly illustrates the history of plutonium and uranium as energy sources and makes a point that many individuals fear anything remotely nuclear because of nuclear accidents such as the events surrounding Chernobyl, and the parallels people draw with the use of atomic weaponry on Japan during WW2. Despite the stigma and the possibility of disaster, one nuclear engineer speaks highly of nuclear energy and its potential. “The equivalency is huge…” Nuclear engineer Len Koch states. “One pound of uranium, which is the size of my fingertip…” “If you could release all of the energy that has an equivalent to about 5,000 barrels of oil… That to me is amazing”

Pandora's Promise (2013)

The documentary later affirms that nuclear power is a reasonable, efficient, and clean alternative to fossil fuel energy. One pro-nuclear individual explains: “If you add up all fossil fuel combustion in the United States, just from power plants, fine particulates alone kill 13,000 people per year. Worldwide, 3 million people die a year from fossil fuel plants.” (Gwyneth Cravens). The documentary eventually explains that though wind and solar energy happen to be clean, they are not always reliable or effective. Whereas there may be days that the sun doesn’t shine and there is a lack of wind, hampering the abilities of solar and wind energy, nuclear power plants will continue to produce regardless of the weather. Another pro-nuclear speaker states: “You can’t keep using less energy.” (Mark Lynas)  In reference to society learning how to conserve energy. Though this is a task that is almost impossible given the extreme population growth our planet is experiencing, I believe there is no harm in learning how to find more efficient ways of acquiring electricity and the blatant wasting of it should be cut down.

Vattenfall (2013)

As an individual that is enthusiastic about nuclear power, a part of me was proud to see pro-nuclear individuals dispelling ideas and rumors about a possible Armageddon following the widespread implementation of nuclear power. However, as the documentary progressed I repeatedly noticed a clear lack of speakers on the anti-nuclear side. As a believer of journalistic integrity, I found that I sometimes doubted if this documentary was really attempting to inform people instead of acting as a rallying cry for pro-nuclear activists. Though I do understand the benefits of nuclear power and hope to see nuclear plants as a suitable replacement for fossil fuels plants, I was left rather confused as some points in the documentary when speakers almost presented nuclear power as an infallible, utopian pipe dream. I am proudly pro-nuclear, but I was occasionally uncomfortable with the methods of presenting this overwhelming positive and slightly biased review of nuclear energy.

Despite this slightly biased stance on nuclear energy, I believe that Pandora’s Promise allowed me to learn a little more about nuclear power. Nuclear power has potential to be an effective and clean source of energy, and is a much better alternative to burning fossil fuels for power. In a world where millions die every year because of fossil fuel extraction, refining, smoke inhalation etc., it’s nice to know that not one nuclear related death has occurred in the United States. As humans continue to slowly disrupt Earth’s natural ecosystems, whether it’s digging up natural habitats for fossil fuels, polluting our environment with oil/coal, or emitting a dangerous amount of greenhouse gasses, suddenly nuclear energy appears to be a clean, reliable and safe method of powering our cities. The fact that France’s electricity is about 80% nuclear powered and happens to have the least expensive electricity in Europe proves that governments and societies around the world have the ability to make such a switch. Yet despite the potential, there is still stigma, especially in the United States, regarding the use of nuclear power.

Guest Speaker: Kent Armstrong

In this latest lesson, our AP Environmental Science class hosted a guest speaker that shed some light on his role in protecting and preserving mother nature. Mr Kent Armstrong of the organization Biostryke spoke to us that day about what his company does for the environment and how his endeavors are accomplished.

Mr Armstrong himself
Photo taken by Max Kaesshaefer

Mr Armstrong is the head of Biostryke – a company that aims to cleanse or decontaminate buildings, land, or other areas that have been affected by harmful chemicals. Since 1974, this organization has been active in cleaning up areas blighted by chemicals. Because of his work, there are less toxic chemicals in our local environment that c

ould potentially be harmful to people. Armstrong also described many methods of removing chemicals from the ground and their pros and cons. One such technique included the ‘hog and haul’, a system in which contaminated ground or objects are simply picked up/dug up and deposited at a landfill. This presents a very quick method of removing contaminants. However, this technique simply displaces chemicals instead of actually rendering them harmless. Also, to ‘hog and haul’ can cost a significant amount of money to collect, transfer and deposit these contaminants. As a truck can only carry one ton of contaminants, hiring a very large amount is necessary. Armstrong mentioned that "money is ruling the roost,” and that to ‘hog and haul’ is not advisable. Another method of decontaminating areas that Biostryke specializes in is the fertilization of contaminated ground with a food that can nurture colonies of microscopic organisms that consume toxic chemicals. This method is also known as bioremediation. Bioremediation is a much slower process than the ‘hog and haul’ method but instead of simply relocating chemicals, these organisms, or ‘bugs’ as Mr Armstrong called them, can clean an area and remove any potential harm associated with it. Also, bioremediation is significantly cheaper than to ‘hog and haul’. Kent Armstrong later explained the utilization of a superfund in an effort to publicly clean various places.

Bioremediation
Photo taken by Max Kaesshaefer

In addition to an elaboration on his job, Armstrong explained the dangers associated with harmful chemicals. He stressed that as students we should “doubt everything, question everything, be aware." Armstrong made it clear that toxic chemicals pose a threat to our health and longevity and that they can be found everywhere. Armstrong recalled an incident where the very walls and ceilings of a cafeteria in a school were oozing with mercury. A spike in cancer rates worldwide can be attributed to the presence of chemicals that humans ingest, inhale, or enter our bodies in another form. It is likely that mercury poisoning could be prevalent among students that once were enrolled at this school. He also stated that "One of the biggest polluters is the military and the second is industry." Because of the absurdly harmful nature of high tech weaponry, an area can be made unliveable after being tested on by a military force. This has shown to be a significant problem for areas such as Iraq, where once fertile ground has been ravaged due to recurring bombardment and subsequent contamination.

I found our guest speaker to be very enlightening. Prior to his speech, my knowledge concerning the cleanup of harmful chemicals was very limited. In fact, I had no idea that micro-organisms could consume toxic chemicals at all. To learn about what Biostryke does for our environment gave me some confidence that perhaps we did had some way of correcting our mistakes after all. Before Armstrong explained his mission, I was under the impression that cleaning contaminated ground was an unrealistic task that could be tremendously expensive, and would yield poor results. Learning about Armstrong gave me confidence in Biostryke's abilities and I hope that their technique of bioremediation is implemented at a larger scale.

Our Toxic Planet

In AP Environmental Science, we have discussed how toxic chemicals are present in daily life. But what does this mean for us exactly? What does it mean to be surrounded by harmful substances. The interesting part is that they're everywhere: on our clothes, in our bedsheets - even in the food we eat. But what does this mean? How did they get there? And more importantly - how does this affect us? Can this be damaging to human beings? These toxic chemicals that are present in our everyday life have a serious impact on our health and the environment around us. We may not yet realize it, but to an extent, we are all sick because of them.

To understand these chemicals more is to understand why they are so prevalent in man-made objects. One example is aluminium hydroxide. A chemical popular with manufacturers, aluminium hydroxide is commonly used as a flame retardant for plastics and textiles. Basically, this chemical acts as a finish that inhibits, suppresses, or delays the production of flames which prevents the spread of fire. A chemical like this appears safe because it can prevent objects from catching fire and harming people. However, if a chemical like this is burned and released into the atmosphere, it can have negative consequences for those that are around it. In a documentary our teacher assigned for us to watch in class, a veteran firefighter acquires a rare form of cancer most commonly found in workers that have had jobs in chemical factories. Puzzled by this rarity, he explains how he asks his doctor why this is the case, where the doctor explains rather jokingly that he did work in a chemical factory. The firefighter later explains how two other colleagues were diagnosed with the same rare form of cancer. He then concludes that recurring inhalation of chemicals released into the atmosphere by burning household materials is to blame for his unfortunate condition. "...And during this period of time too, it seemed like every month somebody else would be diagnosed with some form of cancer... Every month we'd be going to the funeral of somebody else that had contracted it, that had retired and died." - Tony Stefani, San Francisco Fire Department 1974 - 2002.

However, sometimes it takes less than a material to burn for someone to inhale a toxic flame retardant. Dr. Sarah Janssen, of the UCSF School of Medicine explains how flame retardants in the foams of couches are "not tightly bound to the foam", and "they like to attach to dust particles." She later describes how simply sitting on a couch can cause these chemicals that have clung to dust particles to float up out of your furniture, "which them eventually come back down and form a film on your couch or on the floor which is where most kids spend most of their time." This shows that simply putting your body on furniture is dangerous for your own health, and those that associate with this furniture.

The Chicago Tribune conducted an investigation on the potentially harmful effects of flame retardants, and found that ingesting or inhaling flame retardants have "damaging health effects, such as birth defects and cancer." - Patrician Callahan, investigator for the Chicago tribune. Callahan also discovered "a large amount of deceit and bribery from the chemical industry". Further investigation proved that chemical companies have funded politicians that have expressed the need to keep flame retardants in households in an effort to block any anti-flame retardant legislation from being enacted. A Maine politician, Hannah Pingree, expressed concern over the presence of flame retardants in daily life. After having doctors running tests on her health, she was surprised to find that: "I saw that I had all these chemicals in my body including flame retardants, including mercury and arsenic..." Because of this, Hannah Pingree has devoted her time to removing flame retardants from our furniture.

In conclusion, it's scary knowing that there are toxic chemicals around us all the time, and even more frightening that we have already been affected by them. The chemicals within us now and repeated exposure could result in our death from cancer decades in the future. Regardless of location or age, these harmful substances are destroying our bodies, and we barely realize it. And the worst part, is that flame retardants may not actually stop fire. A recent study from expert Donald Lucas found that though flame retardants can slow down the rate of which furniture burns "when the fabric catches fire, you could end up with a bigger flame."

Is it not worrying having the information that these chemicals that were made with the intent of saving lives aren't actually doing their jobs?