Industry Still Churns, Even as Cleanup Plan Proceeds for a Canal

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science&

I read the New York Times article Industry Still Churns, Even as Cleanup Plan Proceeds for a Canal  by Kia Gregory. This article discusses the new plan to clean up the long time industrial, Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, NYC. This canal is in the center of an industrial area of the city, as a result has become very polluted over the years. The site has been designated by the EPA as a Superfund site, this means the government will oversee the cleanup. The cleanup will last approximately eight to ten years with auxiliary maintenance lasting indefinitely. Unfortunately it is near-impossible to clean the canal completely, contamination goes as far as 100 feet deep in some places. 

The pollution in the Gowanus canal is a concern for many New Yorkers living in the area. The canal will most likely be never clean enough to swim in and it will be years till the fish residing there are safe to eat. The canal also smells bad and looks very ugly which lowers real estate prices in the area. The clean-up of the canal will be an improvement and will make the surrounding area much more pleasant.

I thought this is a very thoughtful article pertaining to a pressing issue. Kia Gregory did a great job at stating the facts for the reader. The author did a good job of giving examples of companies that have been responsible for the pollution and bringing in professional opinions on the matter. Hopefully this will bring more attention and awareness to the decrepitated state of the city’s waterways. 

A Quake Shakes Loose an Island

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/science/quake-shakes-loose-an-island.html?ref=science&_r=0

The article I read was called "A Quake Shakes Loose an Island" by Henry Fountain, and it was about an earthquake that happened in Pakistan about a week ago. Pakistan is located in South Asia, Southwest Asia, Middle East, and converges with Central Asia and the Middle East. During the earthquake, a small island, about 100 feet by 250 feet and about 60 feet in altitude, rose above the sea surface. Experts say that it most likely formed when the shaking released methane gas and water trapped in undersea sediments, and the gas and water forced part of the seabed to the surface. The earthquake was said to have a 7.7 in magnitude and was followed by a 6.8 magnitude aftershock. Townspeople and scientists who visited the island told news agencies that it was muddy and rocky and was letting out flammable gas, and Methane, the main component of natural gas, is highly flammable. The methane is created through the action of bacteria on organic matter, and would have been trapped in the sediments as free molecules of gas. The article also gave a few examples of similar occurrences such as this one at the end of the article, but I didn’t think they were too relevant.

            I thought this article was relevant because it talked about how the island released gas when it emerged, and we are kind of learning about this in chemistry. Also, I thought it was extremely interesting how the island just arose from the sea, and it made me think about how many other things and possibly more islands underwater around the world that are waiting for a large enough commotion to make it emerge. I also think that scientists should take this topic into account, because I think it’s fascinating thinking about more underwater wonders.

            I think one strength in this article is how the author did a great job at explaining the details of exactly what had to happen for the island to show itself, and how it included everything about the gas being emitted from the island. In my opinion, the author didn’t do a very good job with explaining different viewpoints of the topic, like who thought what about the earthquake and others ideas. One way to improve it would be include different quotes from different scientists to see different viewpoint.

U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions

Gills, Justin. "U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=science>.

Last Friday, September 27^th, the UN Climate Panel put a limit on greenhouse gases by setting a target level on how much of these gases people can put in the atmosphere before unalterable climate changes occur. This is the first time the UN has put a limit on greenhouse gasses. In their report, scientists listed many climate changes that are already happening and that most likely will worsen if emissions are not reduced. They also said there is almost complete certainty that human activity is the main reason behind global climate change, causing the atmosphere and ocean to warm, the global water cycle to change, reduced snow and ice, a rise in average sea level, and extreme climate changes. The limit for carbon dioxide emissions (the main greenhouse gas) has been set at 1 trillion metric tons, which will likely be exceeded in 2040 if these emissions are not reduced soon. The UN says that once this trillionth ton is burned, companies that continue to burn fossil fuels will have to come up with a way to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions underground. However, critics argue that the Obama Administration is waging a “war on coal,” and that rising ocean levels and plant and animal extinction are natural and inevitable. On the other hand, others argue that the UN’s proposal was too cautious, saying that the report included data that was questionable regarding the earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. The data says that the earth is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions as we previously thought. Despite all of the criticism on the plan, the UN secretary general declared his intension to push a global climate treaty forward in 2014.

Global climate change effects human life in a variety of ways. Atmosphere and ocean warming, global water cycle change, reduced snow and ice, average sea level rising, and extreme climate changes all have detrimental effects on life as we know it. If these changes were to worsen, and it is likely that they will, they could have potentially catastrophic effects on our planet, our one and only home.

I found this article very informative on the UN’s plan to reduce emissions. I would have liked if the author talked more about why this is the first time the UN has made a plan to reduce emissions and how people can take steps to prevent climate change from worsening. Overall, this article was very well written and clearly explains a very important current event.

In Fragmented Forests, Rapid Mammal Extinctions

 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/science/in-fragmented-forests-rapid-mammal-extinctions.html?adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1380481329-0F3edeLnJAlc2V/pF9TCzQ 

            In 1987 Thailand built a dam across the Khlong Saeng River creating a 60-square-mile reservoir. As water levels rose they flooded the river valley and turned 150 hills into islands. Scientists began investigation how long it took certain species to go extinct. Dr. Gibson and his colleagues have tracked mammals on these islands and report that their extinction is going dangerously fast. Sometimes we change a species habitat and they survive but have to go through the stress of adapting to the new environment. Also on these islands the population of some species that mutations form and these animals are prone to diseases. Scientists have used these islands to study these species extinction. Scientists tagged these animals to track them and noticed that they are rarer on these islands than the mainland. Dr. Gibson returned many years later and found one species of a field rat. The rat hadn’t even lived there at first, it swam to the island in the years the scientists hadn’t visited the island. These islands are prone to an invasion of rats.

            The more we destroy these tropical forests the faster these species are going to go extinct. When we reduce these animals to a small habitat they are not going to be able to keep their population. As well as destroying these species habitat we are making these lands inhabitable for humans. These forests become infested with rats and that makes it hard for us humans to live there because rats carry deathly diseases. Unlike some species that once we destroy their habitat it takes those centuries to go extinct these animals in these forests can go extinct within a decade. Mutations are formed and the whole population dies off.

            This article really brought my attention to these awful events happening in our world. These mammals are dying and also the birds in the Amazon are dying off. We are also destroying these animal’s homes just to make our lives better. We don’t NEED a dam we just will benefit from it in the long run. I hope we can fix these problems soon and maybe these species will thrive once again.

Industry Still Churns, Even as Cleanup Plan Proceeds for a Canal

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html?ref=science&_r=0

            This article talks about the Gowanus Canal in New York City, and it explains how this canal is turning into a garbage dump. The main reason of the pollution caused by the canal, are decades of sewage garbage carried into it. In the past years people have been throwing metals and bricks into the canal. This not only harms any animals that live in the water and causes pollution, but it also makes it harder to load barges. “The canal acts as an infrastructure that supports the city,” said Mike Petrosino, and it shouldn’t be treated as a garbage dump. Businesses like Benson Metal, Greco Brothers Concrete, and Sixth Street Iron and Metal were arrested for pouring dirty water into the canal which violates the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. They had to pay money for all of the garbage that they put into the canal. Benson, for example paid $85,000.

            All of the garbage in the canal produces even more pollution to the environment. The federal government wants to put to action a $500 million cleanup plan for the canal. All of the pollution that we are causing is making the air dirtier. Factories, for example are producing a lot of carbon dioxide. Pollution is hurting animals too. All of the metals that we release into oceans, fish and other sea creatures eat. The Gowanus canal is just one example, but there are many areas in the world where animals are dying because of the garbage that we cause.

            The article talked more about who is throwing garbage into the cannel than how does garbage in the canal affect us. The article only says that the pollution in the canal interferes with the barges.  The author should have included more explanations to how this affects our life. She should have also included ways that we can help clean the canal.

Challenges Await Plan to Reduce Emissions

Challenges Await Plan to Reduce Emissions

                This article says that the Obama Administration’s plan to limit carbon emissions on new power plants will face several political and legal obstacles. People are arguing that the technology needed to make this plan work, “has not been close to being proven as the law requires.” “The proposal would limit gas-fired power plants to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt-hour and new coal plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide.” This would drop the average amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted from coal plants by 700 pounds. At the time the rule is in effect, power plants would need to collect their carbon dioxide from smokestacks. There are three current systems that are capturing carbon. The most popular method is to convert coal to a mixture of hydrogen, and carbon monoxide, which together is not a pollutant. One power plant that is close to opening is Southern Company’s Kemper County plant that will convert coal to gases and strain the carbon dioxide. This plant will reduce emissions by 65%. However, the plant cost is 5 billion dollars, which is 1 billion dollars over the budget.

                This plan will positively affect our lives because simply reducing carbon dioxide emissions is naturally good for the environment. The carbon dioxide that is collected from the power plants can also be sold in certain places and that can help create jobs in certain areas, helping decrease the unemployment rate and helping the economy. The carbon will be sold to for use in oil fields because the carbon helps more oil come up to the surface. Because the price of oil has risen, the value of carbon dioxide to oil drillers has also risen. However, the value of the carbon-reduction system is not clear, because the carbon is sold to oil drillers and the oil will eventually be burned into emissions. We will be basically be going into a huge circle then.         

                I believe that this article was written very well, however I do think that it could have been made less wordy so it could be more appealing to younger audiences. The article included several interesting facts and cause and effect scenarios that may possibly happen.

Into the Wildfire, what science is learning about fire and how to live with it.

Tullis, Paul. "Into the Wildfire." Www.nytimes.com. N.p., 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/magazine/into-the-wildfire.html?ref=earth&_r=0>.

 

            Lassen Volcanic National Park, in Northern California, has more than 100,000 acres of wilderness and woodlands surrounding Lassen Peak, a volcanic area that blew in 1915, when found out it was an active volcano. In the park, lack of water due to the droughts dehydrates the woodlands. On July 23, 2012 smoke was spotted coming from the park and a wildfire had occurred, burning up a large portion of the park. Since the fire was up towards the mountain approximately  7,100 feet above sea level, the fire wouldn’t spread that much, but it would be a challenge to stop it. Another problem is that scientists don’t know when or where the fire will spread to, and how long it will take before it burns out by itself, or if firefighters have to step in and try to take it out, which costs a lot of the government money. Scientists are now trying to invent a way to "see into the future" as to when a fire might possibly occur. Although this is a good idea, it may not work because although nature is a key element to wild fires, so are the people who illegally start fires in the woods while camping, and don’t put it out correctly which starts a wild fire that has to telling where it could spread.

            This effects humanity because the more woodland that is burned down, the more animals there are that don’t have a home, or the more animals that are killed which could soon lead to extinction. Also, scientists studied that the more people that build houses into the woodlands, the more danger they put themselves in. If people keep building into the woodlands, and a wild fire starts, the more likely they are of getting g hurt, or their belongings getting destroyed.

            This article was very well written and I liked how the author backed up the article by stories and statistics that proved the cause and effects of wild fires. I also liked how he got opinions from multiple scientists that tied into the wildfire topic, and explained what they were and causes etc One thing I would have liked to see in the article is the author incorporate personal options on the topic. Also, I would have liked for the author to incorporate stories from further back in time then just from 2009. Other than that, this article taught me that there are all different kinds of wildfires and they are all caused by different things, and that if they continue to happen, woodlands and wildlife will soon come to extinction.

 

 

 

A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some

Gillis, Justin. "A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/science/a-climate-alarm-too-muted-for-some.html?_r=0>.

The United Nations panel about the science of climate change will be meeting in Stockholm this month to finish a document about what is likely to happen if we continue polluting the earth over the next century.  There are two opposing views that are fighting over what is causing the problem.  One group says that the fossil fuels we are burning is causing the land ice to melt and could raise the ocean by 3 feet by 2100 and some say it may even be a five foot raise.  The second group is more focused on the Carbon Dioxide emissions and that it will drastically raise the earth’s temperature.  They claim that if the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere doubles, which it looks like it will, then the temperatures will rise at least 3.6°F but probably over 5°F.  Many believe that these panels exaggerate their data in order to cause panic and get something done.  It appears that in this study they are using the more accurate and less dramatic data and are saying that all this data is likely not definite.  Their data could change; they still haven’t released their final report and it won’t be released until September 27^th.

                If this report is correct, something needs to be done, and very quickly.  These increases in temperature will cause the oceans to flood many areas and also will destroy a lot of natural habitats for animals like Polar Bears.  These increases in carbon dioxide will also cause major changes and probably make a world that is more sensitive to carbon dioxide.  The major problem is that these are only predictions, we don’t know if they are accurate or if they will be much worse.  Hopefully these are just exaggerations.  If they are accurate, then we need to change our way of life, like switching to more environmentally friendly power sources and stay away from fossil fuels. 

                I found this article to be very interesting, but it was light on actual details about the document and focused too much on the politics of this situation.  It would be much more helpful if it had some information about a call to action in this document, or if it was just going to be stating the predictions.  It will be interesting to see the final document, and whether it is supported by the world, or ridiculed.    

In a Breathtaking First, NASA Craft Exits the Solar System

         

Barnes, Brooks. "In a Breathtaking First, NASA’s Voyager 1 Exits the Solar System." New York Times. N.p., 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/science/in-a-breathtaking-first-nasa-craft-exits-the-solar-system.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=science>.

          “In a Breathtaking First, NASA Craft Exits the Solar System” by Brooks Barnes is a article about how NASA confirmed that Voyager 1 had left the solar system back in the summer of 2012, around the 25^th of August. For many scientists comprehending how far Voyager 1 has traveled is almost impossible. After drifting through space Voyager 1 is now 36 years old, but still sending back signals to NASA headquarters. For many years Voyager 1 has been in a way forgotten by the scientific community, but now that it has done something that has never seen before, the outdated craft is back in the spotlight. The incredible thing about Voyager 1 is that its technology is extremely simple compared to technology we have now such as the iPhone, yet it is getting the job done even though it has 1/240,00^th of the memory that is found in an iPhone that you might have in your pocket. After sometime the Voyager 1 staff was made to include 12 people only, one of these people is Ms. Dodd, who earlier in the year was embarrassed to even walk among those who are in charge of the Curiosity Mars rover. As of now these 12 people are overlooking one of the most exciting missions since the moon landing. Because of the small amount of space on the Voyager 1 craft, the Voyager 1 staff must now plan everything out perfectly, allowing for the available space to be put to good use. Now that the Voyager craft has left our solar system it has begun a new mission, where it shall relay information about interstellar space.

          As a human being I feel like humanity has taken another large leap. After hearing about Voyager 1 leaving our solar system I was extremely proud of the human race. For not only did we put a man on the moon but in the same century we have sent a man made object into interstellar space. This breakthrough shall lead to great discoveries about what is beyond our solar system, and hopefully us humans shall understand a lot more about the universe In the coming years. 

          I personally really enjoyed this article for its detailed information and the way it was written. As I was reading the writing style literally made me excited as I was reading, I believe the author did a great job in keeping a flow to the article itself. I hope to read more articles like this in the future.

            

In South Florida, a Polluted Bubble Ready to Burst

Alvarez, Lizette. "In South Florida, a Polluted Bubble Ready to Burst." The New York Times. The New York Times, 8 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/us/lake-okeechobee-in-florida-a-polluted-bubble-ready-to-burst.html?pagewanted=1>.

In South Florida, a Polluted Bubble Ready to Burst

Lake Okeechobee, a lake in South Florida, was hit with huge downpours earlier this year. The waters were at their limit, and there were two choices. One was to place a catastrophe on the agricultural areas and small communities near the lake if the dike breached, or to move the polluted waters to estuaries on the east and the west. The Army Corps of Engineers chose to put the water into the estuaries, which are extremely delicate and are breeding grounds for marine life. When the waters became polluted, large numbers of oysters died, and manatees, shellfish, sea grasses, and reefs were badly affected. “These estuaries,” said Mark D. Perry, executive director of the Florida Oceanographic Society, “are so important to us, our environment, and our economies.”

           

I was upset reading this article. Although both options with what to do with the polluted, overflowing water would have ended badly, it is extremely disappointing to see the pollution being moved to such important areas of life. Also, as Perry said, these estuaries are a big part of the nearby economy. The pollution interferes with jobs and businesses. Also, it is a horrible thing to do to the marine life. After all, life is life, and destroying it means destroying part of the natural environment that is supposed to be there. I don’t quite understand why people are knowingly polluting the environment when there are so many environmental problems already.

I enjoyed reading this article because it gave me a lot of insight on what is going on in the environment in my country and how people are handling it. It really showed me a lot about the choices we are making as a country and what our priorities are when it comes to the environment. This article provided me with a lot of interesting knowledge that I would not have known otherwise.

Wildfires and Climate Change

Liv Cappello                                                                                                                           9/4/13

Chemistry IH / C Block (Even)                                                                                              Mr. Ippolito

Galbraith, Kate. "Wildfires and Climate Change." The New York Times. The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/business/energy-environment/wildfires-and-climate-change.html?ref=science>.

Major wildfires are spreading throughout the United States and much of the world due to intrusions by humans in forests, alterations in forest ecology, and most of all, climate change. Wildfires have always occurred throughout the world, but their patterns are changing to due to the intrusion of humans. Humans are largely responsible for many forest fires, whether the cause is accidental or intentional. An accidental fire normally occurs when people try to suppress smaller fires, which lead to “buildups of burnable brush” that can cause huge fires when sparked. People most times try to clear land by setting fires, which cause forests to dry out. For example, in the Amazon, moisture is recycled, so if there is less forest to do the recycling, land becomes dry and more vulnerable. Climate change has the most harmful effects from wildfires. A paper published in the ‘Ecosphere’ journal says that “climate change has effects on wildfires that varies widely, especially in accordance with that area’s precipitation patterns.” In areas such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and in Artic regions, there is much carbon-rich peat soil. This soil, when burned, creates massive fires which emit vast amounts of greenhouse gas. Recently, fires in Indonesia have caused bad air quality and haze problems, leading to major health and economic concerns. Similar concerns are also spreading in the US. Fires in San Francisco caused ash to contaminate the city’s water supply, and the quality of air and infrastructure are instable in other parts of the US. Ultimately, climate change is heating up and drying out many areas throughout the world, which can all simply be reduced by stopping human intrusion in forest areas.

Wildfires are very dangerous and affect many people around the world. It is important to know about these conditions, not only to prevent any activities that can cause wildfires, but to be aware that conditions like this are active around us in the United States and in foreign countries. In this article, humans are blamed for the cause of these massively destructive fires. The article was written in part as a call to action to prevent the causes of wildfires and to stop preventable fires from spreading around the world. I chose this article because I believe this is a big issue that can easily be prevented, and with enough awareness and support, wildfires can be stopped.

Although this article conveyed important information about a very legitimate issue, it wasn’t detailed in its writing. The author didn’t include vital information, such as how humans are causing these fires more specifically. The author only says that humans interfere by intrusions in forests, climate change, and forest ecology, but not specifically how each affect different aspects in causing these fires. Also, this article had ideas strewn throughout the text; there weren’t clear ideas in each of the paragraphs, just a bunch of disconnected information. I think that the author succeeded in getting the information to the reader, but could have done it in a more straightforward and put-together way.

Wildfires and Climate Change - Original Article