At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic
Lewiston, New York is the site of radioactive wastes disposed of by the federal government. The radio active wastes were buried underground, but a south wind still blows radon gas through the town. Leukemia has been found in children of the area but officials claim that people who smoke take greater risks than those who live near the waste disposal site. Near Lewiston landfills stretch in all directions, trucks dump sludge and bulldozers push it into the ground.
This issue relates to economic decisions and political decisions that are made in regards to the environment. Ideally these two decisions should be the same. Approaching environmental issues from an economical view relates to consumers. It is the consumer’s values that matter and the measure of these values indicates his or her willingness to pay. There is a severe problem with the distribution of goods and services, meaning that more people get more of what they want to buy, while others get less. There is much difficulty in determining the value of an undisturbed landscape because it is difficult to asses the amount someone would be willing to pay to preserve an area in its ‘natural’ state. The ultimate measure of environmental quality is measured by finding the value that people place on a service, or their willingness to pay. We often think of ourselves as citizens rather than always as consumers. We act as consumers to get what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens in order to achieve what we feel is best for the community. But, is what we want for ourselves individually consistent with the goals we should set for ourselves collectively as citizens? Often we support political causes that defeat our consumer interests. For example, we speed on highways but demand that police enforce laws against speeding. I can relate to this statement as I criticise people who drive short distances unnecessarily, but I myself drive to Superstore for just a few groceries, even though I live only a few blocks away.
The Reagan office required all administrative agencies and departments to support all new major regulations with a cost-benefit analysis. This requires that the monetary benefits of a regulation must outweigh its monetary costs. This means that standards may not reflect the personal choices of individuals, but the collective judgements we make on historical, cultural, aesthetic, moral, and ideological grounds.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970, this restricts worker exposure to toxic substances. It requires that no employee will suffer from material impairment of health or functional capacity even if the employee has regular exposure to the hazard, and even if they were exposed to the hazard for all of their working life. The allowable exposure level for benzene, a carcinogen with no known safe threshold, was decreased from ten to one part per million. The American Petroleum Institute challenged this standard arguing that the benefits to workers of this reduction did not equal the costs to the industry. This brings the question about courts; should courts uphold only political decisions that can be defended by economical justification? The problem with cost-benefit analysis is that only preferences that individuals reveal or would reveal in markets are considered. This approach treats everyone equally, but some opinions deserve more respect than others. The cost-benefit analysis does not ask how much economists are willing to pay for what they believe, so why should it ask workers, environmentalists, etc. how much they are willing to pay for what they believe is right? Cost-benefit analysis treats all as equals as it treats them as of no worth, just places at which willingness to pay is found.
When efficiency is the determinant of public health and safety, the visions of what society should be like are often ignored. Some feel that worker safety and environmental quality should be protected only if the benefits of protection outweigh the costs. Others argue that the worker’s safety or the environmental quality should be treated as just a commodity to be traded, but each should be respected for its own sake. Regarding protection of the natural environment, the values we wish to protect include cultural, historical, aesthetic, and moral, all of which are public values. They depend mainly on what people think are important for a community not what each person wants individually. Worker health and safety are not regarded as commodities and hazards are regulated as a matter of right. We refuse to treat environmental resources as simply public goods. We prevent deterioration of air quality as collective self-respect. Finding a balance of efficiency between moral, cultural, and aesthetic values in policy for the workplace and the environment has proven to be extremely difficult. Usually the best way to find this balance is by voting after a legislative debate.
The cost-benefit analysis treats values as just statements of preference, attitude, or emotion. Values are only important in cost-benefit analysis if it is measured how much someone is willing to pay to satisfy their wants. Those who are willing to pay the most have the right to view and are seen as having a more informed opinion, better aesthetic judgement, and deeper moral insight than those who are less willing to pay. Economists prefer to make decisions by determining preferences using mathematics. For example, those who oppose abortion could eliminate it if they were willing to pay more to prevent it than the price anyone would pay to have an abortion.
The Kantian approach to ethics regards some values more reasonable than others; therefore these values have a better claim upon the consent of members of the community. Values and beliefs can be neither correct nor mistaken. There are two approaches to public policy; first, normative versions of welfare economics, in which only policy recommendations can or need to be defended on objective grounds, is wealth-maximizing. However, the Kantian approach assumes policy recommendations can be justified or refuted on objective grounds.
The residents of Lewiston demanded the truth about the dangers confronting them and the reasons for those dangers. They wanted to be convinced that the sacrifice asked of them was legitimate, even if it served interests of others. The citizens of Lewiston are powerless and do not know how to criticises, resist or justify power. To have power to act as a nation we must be able to act on a public philosophy. It is important that we do not abandon the moral function of public law.
I agree that from an economical opinion it is important to be aware of the monetary value of laws and regulations, but I do feel that when it comes down to determining the value of peoples lives or well being that no appropriate price tag can be attached to these factors. The safety of those who are exposed to carcinogens must be protected. People who own businesses and are exploiting these workers should not be in the position to determine regulations just so that they can make a bit more money.
At the very least, the people of Lewiston deserved to know the risks associated with the community in which they live. They should have been provided with fair information immediately after a problem had been assessed. A fair opportunity should have been provided for these people to determine if they were willing to accept the risks of the community or if they found it more beneficial to start a new life in a new community. I think that wiliness to pay can be a good indicator of benefits and downfalls of decisions but other factors such as ethics should also play a very key role in decision making.
Lewiston, New York is the site of radioactive wastes disposed of by the federal government. The radio active wastes were buried underground, but a south wind still blows radon gas through the town. Leukemia has been found in children of the area but officials claim that people who smoke take greater risks than those who live near the waste disposal site. Near Lewiston landfills stretch in all directions, trucks dump sludge and bulldozers push it into the ground.
This issue relates to economic decisions and political decisions that are made in regards to the environment. Ideally these two decisions should be the same. Approaching environmental issues from an economical view relates to consumers. It is the consumer’s values that matter and the measure of these values indicates his or her willingness to pay. There is a severe problem with the distribution of goods and services, meaning that more people get more of what they want to buy, while others get less. There is much difficulty in determining the value of an undisturbed landscape because it is difficult to asses the amount someone would be willing to pay to preserve an area in its ‘natural’ state. The ultimate measure of environmental quality is measured by finding the value that people place on a service, or their willingness to pay. We often think of ourselves as citizens rather than always as consumers. We act as consumers to get what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens in order to achieve what we feel is best for the community. But, is what we want for ourselves individually consistent with the goals we should set for ourselves collectively as citizens? Often we support political causes that defeat our consumer interests. For example, we speed on highways but demand that police enforce laws against speeding. I can relate to this statement as I criticise people who drive short distances unnecessarily, but I myself drive to Superstore for just a few groceries, even though I live only a few blocks away.
The Reagan office required all administrative agencies and departments to support all new major regulations with a cost-benefit analysis. This requires that the monetary benefits of a regulation must outweigh its monetary costs. This means that standards may not reflect the personal choices of individuals, but the collective judgements we make on historical, cultural, aesthetic, moral, and ideological grounds.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970, this restricts worker exposure to toxic substances. It requires that no employee will suffer from material impairment of health or functional capacity even if the employee has regular exposure to the hazard, and even if they were exposed to the hazard for all of their working life. The allowable exposure level for benzene, a carcinogen with no known safe threshold, was decreased from ten to one part per million. The American Petroleum Institute challenged this standard arguing that the benefits to workers of this reduction did not equal the costs to the industry. This brings the question about courts; should courts uphold only political decisions that can be defended by economical justification? The problem with cost-benefit analysis is that only preferences that individuals reveal or would reveal in markets are considered. This approach treats everyone equally, but some opinions deserve more respect than others. The cost-benefit analysis does not ask how much economists are willing to pay for what they believe, so why should it ask workers, environmentalists, etc. how much they are willing to pay for what they believe is right? Cost-benefit analysis treats all as equals as it treats them as of no worth, just places at which willingness to pay is found.
When efficiency is the determinant of public health and safety, the visions of what society should be like are often ignored. Some feel that worker safety and environmental quality should be protected only if the benefits of protection outweigh the costs. Others argue that the worker’s safety or the environmental quality should be treated as just a commodity to be traded, but each should be respected for its own sake. Regarding protection of the natural environment, the values we wish to protect include cultural, historical, aesthetic, and moral, all of which are public values. They depend mainly on what people think are important for a community not what each person wants individually. Worker health and safety are not regarded as commodities and hazards are regulated as a matter of right. We refuse to treat environmental resources as simply public goods. We prevent deterioration of air quality as collective self-respect. Finding a balance of efficiency between moral, cultural, and aesthetic values in policy for the workplace and the environment has proven to be extremely difficult. Usually the best way to find this balance is by voting after a legislative debate.
The cost-benefit analysis treats values as just statements of preference, attitude, or emotion. Values are only important in cost-benefit analysis if it is measured how much someone is willing to pay to satisfy their wants. Those who are willing to pay the most have the right to view and are seen as having a more informed opinion, better aesthetic judgement, and deeper moral insight than those who are less willing to pay. Economists prefer to make decisions by determining preferences using mathematics. For example, those who oppose abortion could eliminate it if they were willing to pay more to prevent it than the price anyone would pay to have an abortion.
The Kantian approach to ethics regards some values more reasonable than others; therefore these values have a better claim upon the consent of members of the community. Values and beliefs can be neither correct nor mistaken. There are two approaches to public policy; first, normative versions of welfare economics, in which only policy recommendations can or need to be defended on objective grounds, is wealth-maximizing. However, the Kantian approach assumes policy recommendations can be justified or refuted on objective grounds.
The residents of Lewiston demanded the truth about the dangers confronting them and the reasons for those dangers. They wanted to be convinced that the sacrifice asked of them was legitimate, even if it served interests of others. The citizens of Lewiston are powerless and do not know how to criticises, resist or justify power. To have power to act as a nation we must be able to act on a public philosophy. It is important that we do not abandon the moral function of public law.
I agree that from an economical opinion it is important to be aware of the monetary value of laws and regulations, but I do feel that when it comes down to determining the value of peoples lives or well being that no appropriate price tag can be attached to these factors. The safety of those who are exposed to carcinogens must be protected. People who own businesses and are exploiting these workers should not be in the position to determine regulations just so that they can make a bit more money.
At the very least, the people of Lewiston deserved to know the risks associated with the community in which they live. They should have been provided with fair information immediately after a problem had been assessed. A fair opportunity should have been provided for these people to determine if they were willing to accept the risks of the community or if they found it more beneficial to start a new life in a new community. I think that wiliness to pay can be a good indicator of benefits and downfalls of decisions but other factors such as ethics should also play a very key role in decision making.
Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment
In this article Sandra Steingraber discusses the effects that cancer has had on her. She was diagnosed with cancer as a young adult and cancer runs in her family...her adoptive family. In cancer studies of adoptees it has been found that there are correlations with their adoptive families but not with their biological ones. The adoptive families share an environment with their adopted child. What runs in families often does not necessarily run in blood.
In 1974 the words breast cancer entered public conversation because First Lady Betty Ford and Second Lady Happy Rockefeller both underwent mastectomies. Women who may have delayed checkups rushed to doctors offices. Many people were diagnosed with breast cancer within a short period of time, Steingraber’s mother being one of them.
A gene was detected that was responsible for human bladder cancer. It was found that this cancer is caused by a substitution of one unit of genetic material for another single rung of the DNA helix; guanine was switched for thymine. This resulted in the gene instructing the cell to produce valine. This caused alterations in structure of proteins involved in signal transduction. Steingraber questions when this mutation happened to her, if this was the cause of her cancer. Bladder carcinogens are called aromatic amines and occur in cigarette smoke, rubber, clothing dye, leather, photo paper, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Aniline, benzidine, naphthylamine, and o-toluidine are all aromatic amines. These aromatic amines are detoxified by the body by acetylation, which is carried out by detoxifying enzymes. Some people detoxify these carcinogens at a slower rate, putting them at higher risk of cancer, especially if they have been exposed to relatively high levels of aromatic amines. Bladder carcinogens were among the earliest human carcinogens to ever be discovered. Bladder cancer rates increased by 10% between 1973 and 1991 and were especially dramatic among African Americans. One third of bladder cancer in women is attributed to cigarette smoking, which is the largest risk factor for the disease. Presence of known and suspected bladder carcinogens in rivers, groundwater, dump sites, and indoor air is extremely concerning. Workers who were exposed to rubber chemicals were found to be six times more likely to have bladder cancer. In a Connecticut pharmaceutical plant workers were found eight times more likely to suffer from bladder cancer. There are many suspected bladder carcinogens including tetrachloroethylene, which is found in dry-cleaning solvents and sometimes as a contaminant of drinking water.
The obsession of scientists with relating cancer to genetics may be a factor that prevents cancer research regarding environmental factors. Hereditary mutations are present at conception and are carried in the DNA of every cell. Acquired mutations accumulate of a person’s lifetime and are passed on only to descendants of the cells from which they arise. Hereditary cancers account for fewer than 10% of all malignancies. Cancer rates are not increasing due to formation of new cancer genes, but because of increasing carcinogens. Perhaps more science should be devoted to environmental causes of cancer as people cannot change their ancestors, but to a greater extent can influence the environment they place them self in. I feel that this is an extremely important issue. Prior to reading this article I assumed that cancer was something that ran ‘in the blood’ more often than it was an environmental factor. It seems that more tests should be done on possible carcinogens before they are released into the market. For example, cell phones were recently proved to be non-carcinogenic, good thing as we have been using them for many years.
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, addressed the threat to human health created by reckless pollution. An important risk with this pollution was caused by the failure to inform citizens about the dangers of pollution. It is important to look into the past then reassess the present situation; we then must imagine an alternative future.
Many carcinogens are carried within our bodies that are not even produced or used currently but continue to linger in the environment or within human tissue. This causes the interaction of humans with banned chemicals. Exposure of carcinogens to people at even young ages can result in cancer risk. For this reason it is important that we find out what pesticides were used, what household chemicals were used, and research other chemicals which could be affecting people today. Currently, carcinogens are regulated by their use, release and disposal, but perhaps it would be more effective to regulate their production. I agree that production of carcinogenic materials should be limited or not allowed at all. More research should be done before this materials are allowed to be used by the public.
Unfortunately for some, not all people bear equal risks regarding carcinogens in the environment. Workers who manufacture carcinogens and those who live near chemical graveyards are at much higher risks. Also, people are not all affected by carcinogens to the same extent as some people are much more vulnerable to their effects. The article refers to cancer as being similar to a lottery, except not all people have the same odds of “winning.”
A modest estimate of people who suffer from environmental cancer is 2%. Assuming this is correct that equals 10,940 people in the United States who die each year from environmental causes. Note, that this is likely a very modest estimate. This is equivalent to 30 funerals each day. So many causes have much more funding and awareness than environmental cancer, but actually have far fewer people die from them. This includes children and teenagers who die from firearms, non-smokers killed by lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke, and breast cancer. This is fairly surprising as so many issues which kill far less people than environmental cancer get so much more funding to raise awareness. I feel it is important that the public be provided more education regarding which items they use on a daily basis could be potentially lethal.
The principle of the least toxic alternative should be utilized meaning that toxic substance will not be used unless there is no other way. This principle attempts to make safer choices more available and the deliberate and routine release of chemical carcinogens unthinkable. I agree that this principle should be used. Unfortunately I assume that there will be legal issues that make ceasing production of some products much more difficult then I would like to assume.
Until reading this article I was relatively unaware of the risks I place myself in for contracting an environmental form of cancer. I would consider myself to be someone who is relatively careless regarding substances, the handling of pesticides for example. This has been a very informative article.
Impacts on Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Marine ecosystems in human populated areas are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species. The consequences of this loss are largely unknown. This article summarizes some tests on the effects of biodiversity loss on marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Resource collapse and recovery potential as well as stability and water quality have decreased significantly as diversity declines. Increasing productivity has been seen with the restoration of biodiversity, also decreased variability within the ecosystem. Loss of biodiversity within the oceans inhibits its ability to maintain water quality, provide food, and recover from disturbances. Species richness has been found to significantly aid in productivity and stability.
A large portion of the world’s population lives near the oceans and a loss of services, including flood control and waste
detoxification, could be devastating. Changes in the ocean biodiversity are the result of exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change. Marine extinctions are occurring especially fast in estuaries, coral reefs (shown at left), coastal and oceanic fish communities.
Thirty-two controlled experiments were done to study the effects of variation in marine diversity on primary and secondary production, resource use, nutrient cycling and ecosystem stability. Increased diversity of producers and consumers was found to enhance production to about 80% for diverse communities, rather than monocultures at about 25% resource use efficiency. Diversity was found to enhance stability, allowing it to recover more easily or to better withstand disturbances.
Since industrialization native species diversity has declined rapidly. Ecosystems with more regional species richness appear more stable and are at less risk to collapse and extinction. Three of the ecosystem services that are impaired by a loss in biodiversity include fisheries, nursery habitats, and water quality. With increasing sea level rise, loss of floodplains and erosion have been major effects. Increasing numbers of species invasions has accompanied the loss of native biodiversity. It has been well discussed that the more species-rich systems have been much more stable in delivering their specified ecosystem services.
In large marine ecosystems the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services was analysed using data on fish and invertebrate catches from 1950 to 2003 for 64 of the world’s large marine ecosystems. The rate of fisheries collapses has been acceleration over time, as of 2003 29% of currently fished species were considered collapsed. Collapse of these ecosystems has occurred most quickly in the species-poor ecosystems. Increases in species richness greatly help to decrease this collapse. In higher diversity areas fishers may switch their target species as one begins to dwindle, this allows that species to rebuild its population as another is caught. A diverse number of species provides more organisms that can carryout different actions, making performance more efficient.
The article questions whether marine services can be restored after a loss has already occurred. This has been tested through the use of reserves and closures which aimed to reverse the decline of marine biodiversity. These attempts proved an average of a 23% increase in species richness with increased species diversity of target and nontarget species. This allowed for significant increase in fishery productivity. It was determined that it is in fact possibly to recover lost biodiversity, at least on local and regional levels. This recovery is accompanied by increased productivity and decreased variability, resulting in increased revenue.
Worm concludes that the current trend of decreasing biodiversity may result in the collapse of all presently fished taxa by the middle of the 21st century. Decreased biodiversity impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed the human population and decreases their ability to maintain stability and recover from the changing marine environment. Some general patterns of this article include the ability of high diversity systems to provide more services with decreased variability. Restoration of marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and creation of marine reserves allows us to invest in the productivity and reliability of the ocean’s goods and services which are essential to humanity.
Hopefully we as a society will choose to make a change to the way we treat marine ecosystems before it is too late for them to recover. This would cause an extreme loss of food for the entire world. Two ways that I expect could greatly help this issue include decreasing the amount of overfishing that occurs as well as preventing the dumping of raw sewage into surface water.
Life and Death of the Salt Marsh
Along the eastern coast of North America lies a green strip of soft, salty, wet, low-lying land that we refer to as the salt marshes. This land is partly solid and partly mobile water. The marsh reaches as far inland as the tides can go. The marsh plants move outward as far as they can survive in the saline ocean water. The marsh is home to many wildlife species including vast amounts of birds. Crabs move through the marsh vegetation in search of food. The wetlands have a distinctive sea and salt water scent. In the past marshes have been disturbed as they are dug up, have trashed dumped into them, and are destroyed by city waste. This causes a distinct hydrogen sulphide odour. Spartinia patens is a marsh grass that has been cut for use as salt hay, adding to marsh disturbance. In the southern marshes, just one species, Spartinia alterniflora, covers the entire marsh. The ground of a marsh consists of a mat of plant roots and mud layered on top of a liquid underlayer.
Human activities have been threatening salt marshes (shown below) for many years. Marshes and shallow water bodies have been destroyed by dredging, filling, building and pollution. This destruction is often foolish as frequent
ly the area is much more valuable when maintained as a marsh than it is in its altered form. Maintenance of marshes will benefit everyone from the fisherman to the consumer of the fishery product. It is understood that some marshland destruction is inevitable. If we cannot avoid destroying some marshes, how do we choose which ones to protect and which can be destroyed? How should we go about protecting them? National level planning is essential as the whole marsh system needs protection, not just individual marshes. Protection must include safeguards against pressure to develop these areas to be used for alternate purposes. For a marsh to be replaced a developer must only ‘win’ once, for a marsh to maintain in its original state conservation must ‘win’ many more battles. In the past hundred years the United States has accomplished the protection of many natural resources including the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone hot springs, and the Everglades. Now they country must step up and protect these marshes in their entirety.
To my knowledge, one very important role of marshes is their ability to filter toxins out of water that enters the groundwater system. By filling in marshes or building over top of them this function is lost. I agree with the authors, who state that often marshes are much more valuable than the buildings that replace them. The pressure placed on a landowner must be extreme as the marsh isn’t worth a of money as a marsh, but it is worth a lot to the environment as a marsh. When a developer offers someone a large sum of money to build over the marsh it must be pretty tempting to sell. Something needs to be done to help dissipate this temptation. Perhaps the government could purchase these areas and refuse to sell them to developers.
Blood Di
amond
Blood diamond is an eye opening movie which displays the daily battles that take place in Sierra Leone for the control of the diamond industry. The movie focuses on the impact that the diamond industry has had on Solomon Vandy’s family. During a raid of their community Solomon was captured by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and forced to work searching for diamonds, Solomon’s son, Dia, was captured and forced to be a child soldier. Solomon’s wife and other children were sent to a refugee camp. Danny Archer, played by Leonardo Dicaprio, smuggles ‘dirty diamonds’ for a military colonel.
Solomon found a diamond, approximately 100 carats, and hid it for himself. When one of the RUF saw him hide it they were about to kill him when the government raided the area. The movie continues with a struggle to find the stone and for Solomon to get his family back safely. Danny helps Solomon to get his family back and find the diamond. It seems that Danny is just helping Solomon because he wants to steal the diamond, but in the end Danny dies, leaving Solomon and Dia with the diamond. Now that Solomon has the diamond he can demand the safety of his family as well as money.
The film discusses how when anything of value is found in Africa corruption occurs as many people strive to control the particular industry. In the case of diamonds, these ‘dirty’ diamonds constantly make it into the ‘clean’ supply of diamonds. Van de Kaap Diamonds, a well respected diamond company that claims they do not purchase blood diamonds, tries to purchase the diamond from Vandy. This is documented by Maddy Bowen, a journalist who exposes the issue of blood diamonds. This means that people in even Canada who purchase diamonds are supporting the mistreatment of so many people who suffer during diamond mining in Africa. This story displays the ability of humans to become so corrupt when dealing with such a valuable good.
I enjoyed this film very much as it was a very controversial issue being discussed. The treatment of the people, especially the children, was nearly unbelievable. I fail to see how this is an important environmental issue, aside from the fact that much of the countryside has been dug up as the search for diamonds goes on, but this is not an impacted displayed greatly in the film. This was a very powerful movie and I would recommend it to anyone interested in this type of issue.
Discussion
Diamonds: Are They Worth It?
This is a very controversial to
pic. I would like to believe that if I were engaged I wouldn’t care about the size of my diamond, or the fact that it is a diamond, but truthfully I think I would. I think it is a very large step in the right direction that diamond companies are trying to avoid ‘dirty diamonds’, but from the movie “Blood Diamond” it seems this may be a difficult task. The Canadian polar bear diamonds are a great option as they ensure that they have been acquired in a much more humane way, although they seem to be significantly more expensive. I feel that it is unfortunate how much of a symbol that the diamond ring has become. If people could get past that opinion and be able to look at other gems, or even other items as representing the same ‘love’ perhaps many lives could be saved.
Environmental Science 2000
I have enjoyed the class as it has provided me with the opportunity to learn many new things and to look at many of my previous opinions from a different point of view. As a student in the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences I feel that it is very important to have the chance to look at issues related to agriculture from a different perspective; although I will admit that I often don’t completely agree with either the agricultural or the environmental side. I would enjoy a course that fairly displayed opinions from both perspectives. I enjoyed the blog readings, for the most part, some were much more interesting than others. The videos in class were similar, as some were interesting and some were rather ‘dry’. Overall, I feel this has been a very beneficial class in my degree at U of M.
In this article Sandra Steingraber discusses the effects that cancer has had on her. She was diagnosed with cancer as a young adult and cancer runs in her family...her adoptive family. In cancer studies of adoptees it has been found that there are correlations with their adoptive families but not with their biological ones. The adoptive families share an environment with their adopted child. What runs in families often does not necessarily run in blood.
In 1974 the words breast cancer entered public conversation because First Lady Betty Ford and Second Lady Happy Rockefeller both underwent mastectomies. Women who may have delayed checkups rushed to doctors offices. Many people were diagnosed with breast cancer within a short period of time, Steingraber’s mother being one of them.
A gene was detected that was responsible for human bladder cancer. It was found that this cancer is caused by a substitution of one unit of genetic material for another single rung of the DNA helix; guanine was switched for thymine. This resulted in the gene instructing the cell to produce valine. This caused alterations in structure of proteins involved in signal transduction. Steingraber questions when this mutation happened to her, if this was the cause of her cancer. Bladder carcinogens are called aromatic amines and occur in cigarette smoke, rubber, clothing dye, leather, photo paper, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Aniline, benzidine, naphthylamine, and o-toluidine are all aromatic amines. These aromatic amines are detoxified by the body by acetylation, which is carried out by detoxifying enzymes. Some people detoxify these carcinogens at a slower rate, putting them at higher risk of cancer, especially if they have been exposed to relatively high levels of aromatic amines. Bladder carcinogens were among the earliest human carcinogens to ever be discovered. Bladder cancer rates increased by 10% between 1973 and 1991 and were especially dramatic among African Americans. One third of bladder cancer in women is attributed to cigarette smoking, which is the largest risk factor for the disease. Presence of known and suspected bladder carcinogens in rivers, groundwater, dump sites, and indoor air is extremely concerning. Workers who were exposed to rubber chemicals were found to be six times more likely to have bladder cancer. In a Connecticut pharmaceutical plant workers were found eight times more likely to suffer from bladder cancer. There are many suspected bladder carcinogens including tetrachloroethylene, which is found in dry-cleaning solvents and sometimes as a contaminant of drinking water.
The obsession of scientists with relating cancer to genetics may be a factor that prevents cancer research regarding environmental factors. Hereditary mutations are present at conception and are carried in the DNA of every cell. Acquired mutations accumulate of a person’s lifetime and are passed on only to descendants of the cells from which they arise. Hereditary cancers account for fewer than 10% of all malignancies. Cancer rates are not increasing due to formation of new cancer genes, but because of increasing carcinogens. Perhaps more science should be devoted to environmental causes of cancer as people cannot change their ancestors, but to a greater extent can influence the environment they place them self in. I feel that this is an extremely important issue. Prior to reading this article I assumed that cancer was something that ran ‘in the blood’ more often than it was an environmental factor. It seems that more tests should be done on possible carcinogens before they are released into the market. For example, cell phones were recently proved to be non-carcinogenic, good thing as we have been using them for many years.
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, addressed the threat to human health created by reckless pollution. An important risk with this pollution was caused by the failure to inform citizens about the dangers of pollution. It is important to look into the past then reassess the present situation; we then must imagine an alternative future.
Many carcinogens are carried within our bodies that are not even produced or used currently but continue to linger in the environment or within human tissue. This causes the interaction of humans with banned chemicals. Exposure of carcinogens to people at even young ages can result in cancer risk. For this reason it is important that we find out what pesticides were used, what household chemicals were used, and research other chemicals which could be affecting people today. Currently, carcinogens are regulated by their use, release and disposal, but perhaps it would be more effective to regulate their production. I agree that production of carcinogenic materials should be limited or not allowed at all. More research should be done before this materials are allowed to be used by the public.
Unfortunately for some, not all people bear equal risks regarding carcinogens in the environment. Workers who manufacture carcinogens and those who live near chemical graveyards are at much higher risks. Also, people are not all affected by carcinogens to the same extent as some people are much more vulnerable to their effects. The article refers to cancer as being similar to a lottery, except not all people have the same odds of “winning.”
A modest estimate of people who suffer from environmental cancer is 2%. Assuming this is correct that equals 10,940 people in the United States who die each year from environmental causes. Note, that this is likely a very modest estimate. This is equivalent to 30 funerals each day. So many causes have much more funding and awareness than environmental cancer, but actually have far fewer people die from them. This includes children and teenagers who die from firearms, non-smokers killed by lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke, and breast cancer. This is fairly surprising as so many issues which kill far less people than environmental cancer get so much more funding to raise awareness. I feel it is important that the public be provided more education regarding which items they use on a daily basis could be potentially lethal.
The principle of the least toxic alternative should be utilized meaning that toxic substance will not be used unless there is no other way. This principle attempts to make safer choices more available and the deliberate and routine release of chemical carcinogens unthinkable. I agree that this principle should be used. Unfortunately I assume that there will be legal issues that make ceasing production of some products much more difficult then I would like to assume.
Until reading this article I was relatively unaware of the risks I place myself in for contracting an environmental form of cancer. I would consider myself to be someone who is relatively careless regarding substances, the handling of pesticides for example. This has been a very informative article.
Impacts on Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Marine ecosystems in human populated areas are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species. The consequences of this loss are largely unknown. This article summarizes some tests on the effects of biodiversity loss on marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Resource collapse and recovery potential as well as stability and water quality have decreased significantly as diversity declines. Increasing productivity has been seen with the restoration of biodiversity, also decreased variability within the ecosystem. Loss of biodiversity within the oceans inhibits its ability to maintain water quality, provide food, and recover from disturbances. Species richness has been found to significantly aid in productivity and stability.
A large portion of the world’s population lives near the oceans and a loss of services, including flood control and waste
detoxification, could be devastating. Changes in the ocean biodiversity are the result of exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change. Marine extinctions are occurring especially fast in estuaries, coral reefs (shown at left), coastal and oceanic fish communities.Thirty-two controlled experiments were done to study the effects of variation in marine diversity on primary and secondary production, resource use, nutrient cycling and ecosystem stability. Increased diversity of producers and consumers was found to enhance production to about 80% for diverse communities, rather than monocultures at about 25% resource use efficiency. Diversity was found to enhance stability, allowing it to recover more easily or to better withstand disturbances.
Since industrialization native species diversity has declined rapidly. Ecosystems with more regional species richness appear more stable and are at less risk to collapse and extinction. Three of the ecosystem services that are impaired by a loss in biodiversity include fisheries, nursery habitats, and water quality. With increasing sea level rise, loss of floodplains and erosion have been major effects. Increasing numbers of species invasions has accompanied the loss of native biodiversity. It has been well discussed that the more species-rich systems have been much more stable in delivering their specified ecosystem services.
In large marine ecosystems the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services was analysed using data on fish and invertebrate catches from 1950 to 2003 for 64 of the world’s large marine ecosystems. The rate of fisheries collapses has been acceleration over time, as of 2003 29% of currently fished species were considered collapsed. Collapse of these ecosystems has occurred most quickly in the species-poor ecosystems. Increases in species richness greatly help to decrease this collapse. In higher diversity areas fishers may switch their target species as one begins to dwindle, this allows that species to rebuild its population as another is caught. A diverse number of species provides more organisms that can carryout different actions, making performance more efficient.
The article questions whether marine services can be restored after a loss has already occurred. This has been tested through the use of reserves and closures which aimed to reverse the decline of marine biodiversity. These attempts proved an average of a 23% increase in species richness with increased species diversity of target and nontarget species. This allowed for significant increase in fishery productivity. It was determined that it is in fact possibly to recover lost biodiversity, at least on local and regional levels. This recovery is accompanied by increased productivity and decreased variability, resulting in increased revenue.
Worm concludes that the current trend of decreasing biodiversity may result in the collapse of all presently fished taxa by the middle of the 21st century. Decreased biodiversity impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed the human population and decreases their ability to maintain stability and recover from the changing marine environment. Some general patterns of this article include the ability of high diversity systems to provide more services with decreased variability. Restoration of marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and creation of marine reserves allows us to invest in the productivity and reliability of the ocean’s goods and services which are essential to humanity.
Hopefully we as a society will choose to make a change to the way we treat marine ecosystems before it is too late for them to recover. This would cause an extreme loss of food for the entire world. Two ways that I expect could greatly help this issue include decreasing the amount of overfishing that occurs as well as preventing the dumping of raw sewage into surface water.
Life and Death of the Salt Marsh
Along the eastern coast of North America lies a green strip of soft, salty, wet, low-lying land that we refer to as the salt marshes. This land is partly solid and partly mobile water. The marsh reaches as far inland as the tides can go. The marsh plants move outward as far as they can survive in the saline ocean water. The marsh is home to many wildlife species including vast amounts of birds. Crabs move through the marsh vegetation in search of food. The wetlands have a distinctive sea and salt water scent. In the past marshes have been disturbed as they are dug up, have trashed dumped into them, and are destroyed by city waste. This causes a distinct hydrogen sulphide odour. Spartinia patens is a marsh grass that has been cut for use as salt hay, adding to marsh disturbance. In the southern marshes, just one species, Spartinia alterniflora, covers the entire marsh. The ground of a marsh consists of a mat of plant roots and mud layered on top of a liquid underlayer.
Human activities have been threatening salt marshes (shown below) for many years. Marshes and shallow water bodies have been destroyed by dredging, filling, building and pollution. This destruction is often foolish as frequent
ly the area is much more valuable when maintained as a marsh than it is in its altered form. Maintenance of marshes will benefit everyone from the fisherman to the consumer of the fishery product. It is understood that some marshland destruction is inevitable. If we cannot avoid destroying some marshes, how do we choose which ones to protect and which can be destroyed? How should we go about protecting them? National level planning is essential as the whole marsh system needs protection, not just individual marshes. Protection must include safeguards against pressure to develop these areas to be used for alternate purposes. For a marsh to be replaced a developer must only ‘win’ once, for a marsh to maintain in its original state conservation must ‘win’ many more battles. In the past hundred years the United States has accomplished the protection of many natural resources including the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone hot springs, and the Everglades. Now they country must step up and protect these marshes in their entirety.To my knowledge, one very important role of marshes is their ability to filter toxins out of water that enters the groundwater system. By filling in marshes or building over top of them this function is lost. I agree with the authors, who state that often marshes are much more valuable than the buildings that replace them. The pressure placed on a landowner must be extreme as the marsh isn’t worth a of money as a marsh, but it is worth a lot to the environment as a marsh. When a developer offers someone a large sum of money to build over the marsh it must be pretty tempting to sell. Something needs to be done to help dissipate this temptation. Perhaps the government could purchase these areas and refuse to sell them to developers.
Blood Di
amondBlood diamond is an eye opening movie which displays the daily battles that take place in Sierra Leone for the control of the diamond industry. The movie focuses on the impact that the diamond industry has had on Solomon Vandy’s family. During a raid of their community Solomon was captured by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and forced to work searching for diamonds, Solomon’s son, Dia, was captured and forced to be a child soldier. Solomon’s wife and other children were sent to a refugee camp. Danny Archer, played by Leonardo Dicaprio, smuggles ‘dirty diamonds’ for a military colonel.
Solomon found a diamond, approximately 100 carats, and hid it for himself. When one of the RUF saw him hide it they were about to kill him when the government raided the area. The movie continues with a struggle to find the stone and for Solomon to get his family back safely. Danny helps Solomon to get his family back and find the diamond. It seems that Danny is just helping Solomon because he wants to steal the diamond, but in the end Danny dies, leaving Solomon and Dia with the diamond. Now that Solomon has the diamond he can demand the safety of his family as well as money.
The film discusses how when anything of value is found in Africa corruption occurs as many people strive to control the particular industry. In the case of diamonds, these ‘dirty’ diamonds constantly make it into the ‘clean’ supply of diamonds. Van de Kaap Diamonds, a well respected diamond company that claims they do not purchase blood diamonds, tries to purchase the diamond from Vandy. This is documented by Maddy Bowen, a journalist who exposes the issue of blood diamonds. This means that people in even Canada who purchase diamonds are supporting the mistreatment of so many people who suffer during diamond mining in Africa. This story displays the ability of humans to become so corrupt when dealing with such a valuable good.
I enjoyed this film very much as it was a very controversial issue being discussed. The treatment of the people, especially the children, was nearly unbelievable. I fail to see how this is an important environmental issue, aside from the fact that much of the countryside has been dug up as the search for diamonds goes on, but this is not an impacted displayed greatly in the film. This was a very powerful movie and I would recommend it to anyone interested in this type of issue.
Discussion
Diamonds: Are They Worth It?
This is a very controversial to
pic. I would like to believe that if I were engaged I wouldn’t care about the size of my diamond, or the fact that it is a diamond, but truthfully I think I would. I think it is a very large step in the right direction that diamond companies are trying to avoid ‘dirty diamonds’, but from the movie “Blood Diamond” it seems this may be a difficult task. The Canadian polar bear diamonds are a great option as they ensure that they have been acquired in a much more humane way, although they seem to be significantly more expensive. I feel that it is unfortunate how much of a symbol that the diamond ring has become. If people could get past that opinion and be able to look at other gems, or even other items as representing the same ‘love’ perhaps many lives could be saved.Environmental Science 2000
I have enjoyed the class as it has provided me with the opportunity to learn many new things and to look at many of my previous opinions from a different point of view. As a student in the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences I feel that it is very important to have the chance to look at issues related to agriculture from a different perspective; although I will admit that I often don’t completely agree with either the agricultural or the environmental side. I would enjoy a course that fairly displayed opinions from both perspectives. I enjoyed the blog readings, for the most part, some were much more interesting than others. The videos in class were similar, as some were interesting and some were rather ‘dry’. Overall, I feel this has been a very beneficial class in my degree at U of M.
No comments:
Post a Comment