3. This article catched my eyes because I saw the transparent, amorphous jellyfish sting my mom. It was really gruesome to see this organism under the sea--most people will just freat out.
Actually, more than just being freaked out, the number of jellyfish is exorbitantly increasing thus destroys the balance of ocean ecosystem and sucks in other essential organisms such as plankton. Reading this article, I could know many new information on jellyfish from the difficulty defining the jellyfish in one term to its relationship with human-inducing pollution.
This is quite interesting article though tragic news to people like me who love seafood and beautiful scenary of the ocean. ------------------------------------------- On the morning of November 21, 2007, John Russell awoke to his worst nightmare. Billions of small jellyfish, covering a patch of water 10 miles wide, had infiltrated his fish farm off the coast of Northern Ireland. The sea was so dense with jellyfish that the boats used to try to rescue the fish couldn’t cut through the gooey mush. “The sea was red with these jellyfish and there was nothing we could do about it, absolutely nothing,” Russell told the BBC. By the time the swarm had moved on, the damage was done: Hundreds of thousands of Russell’s salmon were dead, and his company had lost more than $2 million of inventory.
The swarm of jellyfish that overwhelmed Russell’s fish farm would be little more than a science fiction-esque curiosity if it didn’t have such alarming consequences for ocean ecosystems worldwide. Reports of voracious jellyfish swarms are on the rise – they’re being seen in greater numbers, tighter concentrations, and more areas than ever before. To make matters worse, many of the most disruptive swarms are occurring in seas that were, until recently, too cold for jellyfish. As global ocean temperatures steadily rise, many fishermen, scientists, and beach-goers may be watching a real-life environmental horror movie unfold before their very eyes.
Scientists worldwide are moving quickly to understand the dimensions of the problem and its root causes. Already, millions of people have been affected, and nearly every ocean-based industry is getting stung.
Fishermen haul up their nets to find gelatinous bycatch. Beachside resorts struggle to ensure swimmer comfort and safety. Ocean freighters, desalination facilities, seabed mining dredgers, and nuclear power plants have all been forced to curtail operations while jellyfish ooze is excavated from clogged pipes. In Japan, some coastlines have been inundated with hundreds of millions of refrigerator-sized jellyfish, so many and so large that they have forced the temporary closure of electricity plants that provide power to Tokyo.
In order to understand the harmful effects of jellyfish blooms, it’s important to appreciating the animals’ evolutionary panache. The term “jellyfish” is a taxonomist’s torment. Strictly defined as stinging animals of the phylum Cnidaria, the title now colloquially encompasses most gelatinous creatures of the sea, a wide range of “jellyfish-like organisms.” (Because both groups have similar ecological roles, jellyfish and jellyfish-like organisms will be collectively referred to as “jellyfish” in this article.) To add to the confusion, jellyfish – boneless and gill-less – are not actually fish.
Although broadly defined and clumsily named, jellyfish have certainly found their ecological niche. “Evolutionarily, they’re extremely successful animals,” says Dr. Monty Graham, a senior marine scientist at Dauphin Island Sea Lab. Graham cites the fact that jellyfish morphology has remained largely unchanged for more than 600 million years as “tremendous evidence that they’re successful animals.” The key lies in their prolific replication strategy, an unusual combination of sexual and asexual reproduction. Adults release eggs and sperm in the water at impressive rates, with some species dispersing up to 40,000 eggs each day. When fertilization occurs, a larva is formed, which affixes itself to a hard surface as it enters the polyp stage. This is where jellyfish tend to slip off the radar. Polyps are rarely found in the wild, though researchers believe they cover extensive tracts of the ocean floor, biding their time for up to several years until conditions are right. When salinity, temperature, and food levels are favorable, each polyp elongates and buds off, producing many young jellyfish. Because the conditions promoting budding are regional in scale, fields of polyps release their young at roughly the same time, leading to vast flotillas of jellyfish. A bloom is born.
Once a bloom becomes active, little can stop it. Dr. Anthony Moss, an associate professor at Auburn University, describes jellies as “very voracious predators” that seize control of ecosystems from the bottom up. Jellyfish eat all the fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton they can get their tentacles on, an approach that both eliminates potential predators and limits the food available to the competition. In the process, “They’re going to become the top predator because they’ll just replace everything,” Moss notes. “And that’s what’s happening in many places all over the world. What’s going to displace them? Nothing.”
As frightening as these developments are, most of the evidence of increased jellyfish populations is anecdotal, and it is dangerous to read too much into what may be a few freak events. So are jellyfish numbers really rising?
“I approach this thing with a big degree of skepticism,” says Dr. David Agnew, a fisheries scientist at Imperial College London. Agnew notes that jellyfish blooms have been a natural part of oceanic ecosystems for millions of years. The animals grow and reproduce quickly in order to take advantage of ideal, and often fleeting, conditions. But as people continue to move toward the coasts and we become increasingly dependent on the sea for food and resources, even normal blooms have a larger impact on human activities.
In a field where scientists are lucky if a data set extends just a few decades into the past, it’s impossible to evaluate how modern jellyfish levels compare to a reliable historic baseline. That said, there is a growing consensus among marine scientists that jellyfish blooms, if not absolute numbers, are rising.
“There isn’t enough information available at this point to give a definitive answer,” Moss says, “but many of us in the field are pretty sure that’s what’s happening.” Dr. Mary Beth Decker of Yale University says, “There’s some speculation that we may be seeing more frequent, larger blooms.” No matter what the exact number, the blooms, which have stunned ecosystems from the Black Sea to the Bering Sea, are worrisome, especially given that large swaths of ocean appear ripe for equally disruptive jellyfish explosions.
What is causing the apparent surge of jellyfish blooms around the world? Graham compares the situation to another familiar case of fluctuation: “Like following the ticker on the stock market, natural ups and downs are going on.” But, he notes, it’s the longer-term trends, the true departures from historic norms, that reveal fundamental changes in how ecosystems are balanced.
Dr. Jack Costello, a scientist at Providence College, has been closely monitoring one such shift. Costello studies Mnemiopsis leiydi, a small gelatinous organism also known as the “sea walnut” because of its domed shape. Off the coast of New England, Mnemiopsis populations follow seasonal patterns, expanding during the summers and contracting over the winters. Starting in the late 1990s, however, Costello noticed something peculiar: The jellies were blooming up to two months earlier than expected. He and his team ultimately discovered that the organisms were retreating to smaller “refuge sites” that warm up earlier in the year than the open water. “These refuge areas were being most affected by climate alterations,” he explains, “and that’s what was driving the larger system.” Earlier blooms allowed mature Mnemiopsis to consume predators and competitors before they became a real threat. Warming waters have also allowed Mnemiopsis to move farther north than ever before, into regions once deemed too cold for the temperate species. “We’re seeing range expansion, but,” Costello cautions, “we don’t know how permanent that is.” Moss has also noticed other jellyfish species colonizing new waters, thanks to global warming. “I’ve seen the effects and I’m astonished,” he says. “I can read the data like anyone else, but I never expected it would slap me in the face.”
A change to any ecosystem invariably creates winners and losers – and jellyfish, sometimes referred to as “the cockroach of the sea,” have almost always been on the winning side of the equation. Few studies have attempted to systematically evaluate the effect of global warming on jellyfish populations, but one of the best examinations was conducted by Dr. Jennifer Purcell of Western Washington University. In a research paper published by the Marine Biological Association of the UK, Purcell reviewed jellyfish levels and climate records from around the world, concluding 18 out of 24 species she looked at grew in response to warmer water conditions. She warns that “global warming could result in expanded temporal and spatial distributions and larger populations of jellyfish” – as shrill a statement as you’re likely to find in academic literature.
Rising water temperatures are playing a role in the jellyfication of the seas, but the full story is much more complicated. In addition to global warming, “We think there may be other things that we’re doing that make conditions right for jellyfish,” Decker says.
One such activity with unexpected consequences is global shipping, which inadvertently precipitated ecological and economic disaster in and around the Black Sea. Before a ship leaves port, it often takes water on board to provide stability. This “ballast water” often contains many of the smaller flora and fauna native to the departure port’s ecosystem. Upon arrival, the ship dumps the ballast water, unwittingly inoculating the destination port with any surviving organisms.
During the early 1980s, one ocean freighter, likely departing from a more temperate port in the US, introduced Mnemiopsis into the Black Sea. The first reports of the invasive species appeared in 1982, and the population ballooned soon thereafter as the jellyfish feasted on zooplankton, fish eggs, and larvae. By 1989, at the peak of the explosion, there were some 400 jellies per cubic meter of water, and native fish populations were decimated. Finfish and anchovy stocks were hit particularly hard, and fishing fleets in bordering nations were hammered. Turkey alone lost an estimated $43 million in the early 1990s as a result of the collapsed fishery.
Mnemiopsis has since spread to the Caspian Sea, the Sea of Azov, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, often with similarly destructive ecological and economic consequences. The introduction of invasive species via ballast water is particularly dangerous because even the smallest organism can forever upset an elegantly balanced ecosystem. In its native waters, Mnemiopsis has developed a dynamic relationship with its predators and prey. Elsewhere, however, other fish have not evolved specific strategies to counter the habits of the jellyfish, leaving them high and dry. As Moss puts it: “A pretty jellyfish in the Gulf of Mexico” can become “a raging monster in the Caspian Sea.”
Some jellyfish species have thrived thanks to another human alteration of the seascape – ocean “dead zones.” At some 150 offshore locations around the world, huge quantities of agricultural runoff – nitrogen-heavy chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and animal wastes – have led to explosions of algae in the sea. The algae suck oxygen out of the water and block sunlight from reaching other plankton lower in the water column. With less oxygen and fewer types of food on offer, many larger fish move elsewhere or die. The Gulf of Mexico contains the largest dead zone in the Western Hemisphere: In 2008, it was measured at 8,000 square miles, and it is expected to surpass 10,000 square miles by year’s end.
While most other species have declined in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, jellyfish have proliferated, emphatically bucking the trend. During the 1980s and 1990s, the sea nettle and moon jellyfish steadily increased their ranges, and now invasive species like the Australian jellyfish have joined the party, swarming over thousands of square miles. Many fish species struggle to find food when the water column becomes more opaque, but jellyfish, which are not visual hunters, are unbothered. Also, “Jellies can do okay in low-oxygen environments,” Decker says, “because they don’t have complicated bodies, don’t have huge oxygen requirements.” In the murky waters of the dead zone, simplicity pays off, and jellyfish are reaping the rewards.
Overfishing is another man-made factor that may be bolstering jellyfish populations. As human consumption removes large fish from ocean habitats, jellyfish benefit. With fewer predators and competitors, jellies can gorge on more plankton in safety, tightening their grip on the ecosystem. In the Bering Sea, a skyrocketing jellyfish population in the late 1990s was blamed partially on depleted stocks of pollock, a local predator. Graham points out that “the vast majority of our fisheries are depleted,” and the situation isn’t going to improve if the status quo holds. “At our current rate of using oceans, the problems will undoubtedly mount, and jellyfish will likely play a greater role,” he says.
It isn’t only what we’re taking out of oceans that affects jellyfish populations; it’s also what we’re putting in. As ingenious as the jellyfish’s reproductive strategy is, the polyp stage requires a hard surface, or substrate, on which to wait for favorable conditions. According to Decker, “Some people hypothesize that as we’ve added lots of structures to coastal waters – oil rigs, docks, marinas – maybe we’re providing additional substrates for polyps.” More polyps translate into larger blooms, which in turn out-graze competitors and generate a positive feedback loop of gelatinous domination.
The rise of jellyfish cannot be blamed exclusively on global warming or any single factor; rather, a perfect storm of man-made changes in our ocean environments has conspired to provide opportunities that jellies have been quick to exploit. A change to any ecosystem invariably creates winners and losers – and jellyfish, sometimes referred to as “the cockroach of the sea,” have almost always been on the winning side of the equation.
“It doesn’t take a whole lot in terms of perturbing an ecosystem to get it to respond with increases in jellyfish,” Graham says. Jellyfish take advantage of warming waters to expand their range and accelerate their rates of reproduction. They hitchhike in ballast water to seas that are evolutionarily unprepared to deal with their presence. Their simple ways of life pay dividends in the primordial conditions of dead zones. They fill in the gaps as commercial fishermen harvest their predators and competitors, and they co-opt humans’ ocean infrastructure as their very own nursery. In all of these cases, jellyfish are relentless, quick to turn a toehold into a chokehold. “These things can respond,” Moss says. “They’re plastic. They can change. They can reproduce rapidly. They are astonishing animals.”
Despite growing awareness of the economic and environmental threats posed by increasing swarms, the jellyfish challenge isn’t likely to be resolved anytime soon. “We can see what’s happening, but is there anything to do?” Moss asks. “We need to think in terms of much bigger things” that could restore ecosystems to their previous levels of diversity.
Curing ocean ills, however, will take time, money, and sustained political will. Dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, restoring dead zone habitats, and managing fisheries in sustainable ways are all enormous challenges. “None of those is a very easy problem to tackle on short time scales,” Graham says, “so it will take real long-term commitment on a societal level.” Although such problems’ contribution to rising jellyfish populations has only recently become apparent, these issues are already well fixed on the environmental agenda. A number of groups – including governments, scientists, and activists – are working on each of these challenges, and hopefully oceanic ecosystems can be restored to balance in the process.
With no end to the increasing presence of jellyfish in sight, what can we expect of our future oceans? Will jellies soon dominate oceans worldwide? Graham believes that “at our current rate of using oceans, the problems will undoubtedly mount, and jellyfish will likely play a greater role in regulating the flow of nutrients and energy through tomorrow’s oceans just as they did in yesterday’s oceans.”
In this sense, the jellyfish resurgence runs against the evolutionary grain, placing a decidedly less-evolved organism in a dominant ecological position. As a result, other species lose out. “If diversity of the ecosystem is what we define as good,” Costello says, “then we’re most probably seeing decreased diversity.” But, Graham points out, “Life on this planet is extremely diverse, and this overall diversity we have, over deep evolutionary time, is not going to go away.”
Despite the gloomy predictions, there may be a silver lining. Even as some scientists, environmentalists, and politicians seek ways to address the underlying cause of the slime, others are finding ways to adapt to the new age of jellyfish.
Japanese researcher Kiminori Ushida is one person who believes he has found a benefit to increased jelly blooms, a way of transforming a terror into a treasure. Ushida and his colleagues are perfecting a technique for harvesting jellyfish’s mucin protein, a substance that displays antibacterial properties and is used in drug delivery, cosmetics, and food additives. Ushida’s team has also extracted from jellyfish a previously unknown type of mucin, the therapeutic effects of which are currently under investigation. These findings open the door to a new branch of pharmacology, possibly revealing these “pest” organisms as an untapped medicine cabinet.
Diners may also experience the growing role of jellyfish in the food chain. The slimy bells, appreciated for their oddly satisfying rubbery and crunchy texture, are trendy ingredients in a number of dishes, particularly in Chinese cuisine. Joe Lai, head chef at London’s renowned Dragon Castle restaurant, mixes strips of boiled jellyfish with cucumbers and sesame seeds into a popular appetizer. Nutritionally, Lai sees many advantages: “It’s rich in protein, but it doesn’t have much fat – it’s a healthy snack.” If consumers can be convinced that jellyfish are a palatable alternative to other protein sources, the sea creatures may soon be taking over the dinner table as well.
The rise of jellyfish is among the latest unintended effects of wide-scale environmental degradation, and the problems are likely to get worse before they get better. “It will become what it will become,” reflects Moss philosophically. “That’s how biological systems work, but it won’t be what we like or what we expect.” Ships’ pipes will be clogged, fish farms will be damaged, ecosystems will become increasingly homogeneous, and swimmers will be stung. Having set in motion the conditions that have allowed jellies to dominate, the only recourse is to redouble our efforts to combat climate change, overfishing, and dead zones. In the meantime, there’s little to do but manage the consequences – and develop a taste for boiled jellyfish ---------------------------- http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/beautiful_but_deadly/
3. Sony was able to make a battery running on sugar. Its power output is still low with 50mW (2007), which surprisingly is said to be already 70mW in 2009. I think this technology is interesting since it includes the use of enzymes and thereby is using chemical energy differently than combustion and maybe even more efficient. Not to mention the idea to get the energy for your MP3 from a softdrink.
---- Sony Develops "Bio Battery" Generating Electricity from Sugar - Achieves world's highest power output for passive-type bio batteries -
TOKYO, August 23, 2007- Sony today announced the development of a bio battery1 that generates electricity from carbohydrates (sugar) utilizing enzymes as its catalyst, through the application of power generation principles found in living organisms.
Test cells of this bio battery have achieved power output of 50 mW, currently the world's highest level2 for passive-type3 bio batteries. The output of these test cells is sufficient to power music play back on a memory-type Walkman.
In order to realize the world's highest power output, Sony developed a system of breaking down sugar to generate electricity that involves efficiently immobilizing enzymes and the mediator (electronic conduction materials) while retaining the activity of the enzymes at the anode. Sony also developed a new cathode structure which efficiently supplies oxygen to the electrode while ensuring that the appropriate water content is maintained. Optimizing the electrolyte for these two technologies has enabled these power output levels to be reached.
Sugar is a naturally occurring energy source produced by plants through photosynthesis. It is therefore regenerative, and can be found in most areas of the earth, underlining the potential for sugar-based bio batteries as an ecologically-friendly energy device of the future.
Sony will continue its development of immobilization systems, electrode composition and other technologies in order to further enhance power output and durability, with the aim of realizing practical applications for these bio batteries in the future.
The research results presented here have been accepted as an academic paper at the 234th American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition in Boston, MA USA, and were announced at 11 am local time on August 22, 2007.
Masayo Endo, an employee for Japanese electronics giant Sony, displays a new bio battery, including three cubic cells that generate enough electricity to drive a Walkman digital music player, at the International Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Expo in Tokyo on February 25, 2009 while an electric fan (bottom), powered by a bio battery cell whose energy source is a soft drink, winds. Sony has developed a passive type bio battery system of breaking down sugar to generate the world's highest level electric power of 70mW from a cell as an eco-friendly energy. Sony exhibited various eco-friendly power sources, including fuel cell batteries and bio batteries at the exhibition. --------------------- http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200708/07-074E/index.html
3. Batteries, batteries, they're everywhere! It seems as though scientists are competing in some sort of 'green race' to make up for all those 'messy batteries' we've been using. Which makes me wonder- did we not know about the dangers of the way we produce energy back when it was first used?
So anyway, scientists have now succeeded on making 'green batteries' by using viruses. When I found this headline, I had to blink a few times- viruses? The ones that cause all kinds of annoying diseases? I really didn't think that genetic engineering (let alone viruses) would ever be used to make batteries (...or maybe I'm just ignorant). I guess this can only be good news- as long as we are able to control those viruses the way we want.
---------------------------------------------- Viruses Used to Grow "Greener" Batteries Charles Q. Choi for National Geographic News April 3, 2009
With the help of a common virus, scientists have built a battery that rivals the state-of-the-art rechargeable models now powering personal electronics and hybrid vehicles.
The hope is to replace the costly, toxic electrodes currently used in lithium-ion batteries.
The researchers modified the M13 virus, which infects only bacteria, to grow proteins on its surface that attract amorphous iron phosphate.
The result: Wires just nanometers thick of the material, which is cheaper and environmentally friendlier than ones currently used to make electrodes for lithium-ion batteries.
The scientists also programmed the virus so that one end became sticky to carbon nanotubes, which are extraordinarily good conductors of electricity.
Electrons easily travel along the carbon nanotubes to the amorphous iron phosphate networks, transferring energy in a very short time.
Using these ingredients, the researchers devised coin-sized batteries comparable in performance to commercial lithium-ion batteries.
"The more genetic engineering we did, the better it got," said researcher Angela Belcher, a materials scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Carbon nanotubes are still expensive, and researchers debate what risks they might pose to the environment. If the nanotubes become a barrier, the same process could be performed with other good electrical conductors such as silver or gold, Belcher said.
While her team is still in the early stages of its work, Belcher thinks the project could soon get "twice the power performance of what we demonstrated with this proof of principle here."
Findings detailed online in the April 2 issue of the journal Science. ----------------- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/68934729.html
3. This article talks about a recent study of the benefit of fish oils. Fish oils which have many benefits to our human bodies can have a benefit to the environment also. When two percent fish oil is put into the diet of cattle, it reduces methane emissions by animals. Thus, this will help the environment by lowering gas emissions. It says that 50 percent of Irish agricultural methane emissions are result from farm animals, and it would not be necessary to cut down numbers of animals if methane levels are reduced by diet. It was very interesting to find about omega 3 fatty acids in fish oils, which I take daily, can help the environment as well. ----------------------------- The benefits to humans of omega 3 fatty acids in fish oils are well documented, but a new study has found that fish oils can have a wider benefit to the environment -- by reducing the amount of methane produced by cows. The report produced by University College Dublin found that by including two percent fish oil in the diet of cattle they achieved a reduction in the amount of methane released by the animals. Lowering methane emissions is important for the environment, as the gas given off by farm animals is a major contributor to greenhouse gas levels. More than a third of all methane emissions, around 900 billion tonnes every year, are produced by methanogen bacteria that live in the digestive systems of cattle, sheep and goats. By volume, methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide making it a potent greenhouse gas. "The fish oil affects the methane-producing bacteria in the rumen part of the cow's gut, leading to reduced emissions," said Dr Lorraine Lillis, one of the researchers, speaking at the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate, England. "Understanding which microbial species are particularly influenced by changes in diet and relating them to methane production could bring about a more targeted approach to reducing methane emissions in animals." Approximately 50 percent of Irish agricultural methane emissions result from farm animals, which has led to suggestions that, to help combat global warming, the numbers of cattle, sheep and goats should be capped. The researchers believe that it may not be necessary to limit the number of farm animals if their methane levels are reduced through diet.
1. Shim Kyuhee 2. Biofuel deserves a try 3. So the article on clean coal I posted about last week was not very hopeful. But I believe that we must keep on searching for new innovative ways to solve our environmental problems. This week I discovered another unique bioengineering trick, biochar. I first learned of the term biochar on a blog posting. It reminded me of some of the concepts we studied earlier in the course. Below is another article I found that describes the mechanism in more detail. Biochar is a form of charcoal that is made by burning biomass materials – composed of, for example, decomposing animal carcasses, dead plants, and leftover crop. The resulting charcoal can be helpful to us in many ways. First, the process of making biochar itself helps control carbon dioxide emissions. The CO2 resulting from decomposing biomass, that would otherwise be added to the atmosphere’s level of carbon dioxide, would be trapped inside the charcoal (this reminded me of how ocean waves similarly do the same thing). Second, the carbon from burning biomass can be converted into synthetic gas or oil (biofuel). Third, when the charcoal is buried in the ground, it provides fertile soil for farming. In other words, the biochar is a natural fertilizer much like the terra preta that was used in the Amazonian lands long ago. This part was especially exciting to me because in the class we had discussed the terra preta I thought that it was a big shame that it wasn’t available in the 21st century. Now I hope that biochar could be our civilization’s terra preta – of which we are in desperate need of. Despite our modern technology we had just went through a global food crisis just last year. I posted an article about this topic earlier in the course, and the article suggested that we had to devise ways to increase agricultural productivity in order to feed an exploding population. Perhaps this could be an environmentally sound way to achieve that goal. And although the article says that biochar will not drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, I still think that we can use all the help we can get, and this shouldn’t be a reason to dismiss the potential of biochar. We can’t expect to find one perfect solution to our environmental problems. It will more likely be the combined effect of small changes that will save our environment. -------------------------------------------------- Editorial: Biochar - The Great Black Hope 04/02/2009 By Bart King When it comes to climate change, every potential solution seems to have a downside. For example, biofuels that could offset petroleum divert food stocks and/or have the potential to degrade ecosystems. Solar power is intermittent, requires the production of toxic materials and gases, and is still prohibitively expensive. And wind turbines are considered an eyesore by many and a threat to winged wildlife by others. However, biochar might be different. Despite a rather unpleasant name, which calls to mind road kill on hot summer day, it has refreshingly unspoiled promise. Admittedly, research into the production and use of biochar—also known as agrichar—is not yet widespread. It could still prove to be a bad idea—producing, for example, a breed of oversized zombie earthworms. But so far things look good. Simplicity is its greatest virtue. First of all, biochar is just another name for charcoal. It’s produced by burning any biomass under high temperatures and with very little oxygen—a process called pyrolysis. Roughly half of the carbon from wood chips, manure or crop residues fed into the oven is converted into synthetic gas or bio oil, which can be used as fuel or in co-products like cosmetics. The remaining carbon is turned into charcoal, which is resistant to decomposition for hundreds of years, assuming it isn’t used to fire up the grill. Estimates suggest that 7 to 12 billion cubic meters of biomass from fields, pastures and rangelands are burned in the open each year, creating soot, nitrous oxide, ozone and other pollutants. Additionally massive amounts of crop residues and animal waste are allowed to decompose into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Biochar has the potential to reduce these emissions and over time could actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere by breaking the cycle through which decomposing plants emit CO2 that they captured while growing. As a result, biochar has been labeled “carbon negative.” So what do you do with all the blackened carbon? Bury it of course. Not the way we bury trash—and infinitely less expensive than carbon sequestration plans touted by the coal industry. Biochar is a valuable soil amendment first used by indigenous cultures in the Amazon Basin centuries ago to improve the fertility of barren lands. The porous charcoal retains moisture and leads to increased microbes that are critical to soil health. Mixed with topsoil, biochar can reduce fertilizer requirements and the leaching of nitrogen into ground water, while increasing crop yields. The Amazonian soils—called terra preta, or “dark earth,” by Portuguese explorers—are said to contain about 80% of the carbon sequestered in them 500 years ago. Studies have revealed between 16 and 108 tons of biochar per hectare and 400 to 500 tons of organic carbon in the form of humus, bacterial biomass and fungal roots. So, it seems that the overall carbon storage capacity of these soils is significantly greater than just the biochar itself, which acts kind of like a carbon magnet. If farms throughout the U.S. and around the world had small biochar ovens, each season they could return a portion of their waste biomass to the soil in the form of charcoal. In the process they would offset fossil fuel use for energy and fertilizers, reduce emissions from decomposition, increase food production and draw down atmospheric CO2 levels. How’s that for a win-win-win-win? The 2007 Farm Bill created federal funding for biochar, and it’s being developed in research programs at the University of Georgia, Virginia Tech, Cornell and a handful of other universities. The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) is working to introduce ovens on the household and village level in nine developing nations, including Belize, Cameroon, India and Mongolia. The group is pressing the United Nations to make biochar projects eligible for the clean development mechanism (CDM) through which rich nations fund greenhouse gas reductions in developing countries. Biochar has also been embraced by some big names in climate science, including James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, and James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Mind you though, biochar is not the Holy Grail of the climate change crusade. Even if it lives up to its brilliant potential and is widely deployed, researchers say there is a limit to how much CO2 it could remove from the atmosphere—about 8 parts per million (ppm) over the next 50 years. Currently global emissions add about 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year, and we are already at 385 ppm, well beyond the 350-ppm threshold that marks disaster territory, according to scientists. But hey, the bright spots are few and far between. So, I’m enjoying this one for what it’s worth—a bit of cautious hope. ++++ Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication. Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1659
1. Dakyung Lee 2. Religion and Environment 3. Last week in class, we discussed how religion can play a role in changing the environment. While searching through different online newspapers, I found this particular article that demonstrated that religious leaders and groups were, in reality, taking action to tackle environmental issues. Before class reading and discussion on how religion can impact our environment, I never thought to make the connection between the two. However, as this article shows, I realized that even small local eco-friendly projects can make a difference for the environment. While big projects that are well-equipped with lots of resources and funding may be more appealing to people, initiating them and making them into reality may be unattainable. Therefore, it seems way more practical that people begin to make changes by taking smaller steps and working their way up, as can be witnessed by this Christian church. Another aspect that caught my attention was what the pastor said regarding the commonality in all religions. While theological beliefs may vary from religion to religion, it can be assumed that most religions are on the same page in terms of their concerns for the environment. Through history, we have witnessed many dramatic events and changes that occurred as a result of people's religious beliefs. Religion can have a huge impact on the way people think and act on a daily basis. Therefore, I think it will become increasingly important for religious leaders and groups to advocate the importance of saving the environment and spreading the word about the necessity for us to take action in tackling environmental issues.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/ibru_center/article01/indexn2_html?pdate=290309&ptitle=Use%20Religion%20As%20Agent%20Of%20Change%20To%20Affect%20Lives,%20Fashola%20Tells%20Religious%20Leaders Above is another recent article on how religion should be used as an agent of change to affect lives. ------------------------------
Caring for the environment is an important part of the mission of the Church, says recent UQ PhD recipient Clive Ayre.
After spending most of his life working in and studying the church, Dr Ayre has just completed his PhD on religion's role in tackling issues such as climate change.
"It's becoming such an important issue in general that it seems logical that churches get involved, especially since it stems from the most basic theology," he said.
Dr Ayre said his study had significant implications for social justice in addition to ecological issues.
"Part of the problem has been that Christian theology and mission has tended to be anthropocentric, and along with the population at large, to have taken the natural world very much for granted," he said.
To gauge the level of eco-theology and eco-mission practices in Australia, Dr Ayre created a targeted survey that was distributed to 90 groups and individuals, and conducted a series of interviews.
"From that, I was able to build up quite a good picture," he said.
"Part of my work looked at such things as emerging themes, how eco-congregations form, why they sometimes fail, and whether they have a mission statement."
His research also saw him travel to the UK to see what eco-friendly measures the churches had taken, and how these compared to those in Australia.
"There are a number of variations between Australia and England, mainly relating to issues such as heating and cooling, and the UK has a focus on local issues, such as cleaning up graveyards and recycling," he said.
"One thing I did like in Britain was that churches have a good support network available, and are able to work for eco-awards."
Dr Ayre said that Australian churches at all levels are increasing looking at ways of helping to care for the natural environment, in co-operation with other groups.
"Some are into local, practical issues, such as waterway cleaning in Sydney, and there are a number of those where people get their hands dirty, planting trees and gardens.
"In some cases environmental audits are being conducted, and the use of solar power is being explored.
"There are also some who include ecology in worship, have education programs, and encourage lifestyle integrity of members.
"My own congregation has an ecological mission statement and is starting to implement it, but many other groups don't know how to begin. My research gives them a theological background and a practical way to be eco-friendly."
While science and religion have sometimes had a difficult relationship, Dr Ayre believes caring for the environment is one issue both sides agree on.
"With faith and science, I've argued that the main problems occur because there are fundamentalists on both sides of the equation who see their views as the only one, and they tend to distort the position of the other," he said.
"But the relationship between religion and science is a very productive one, and extending it to other faiths is a further step."
Dr Ayre also said that there was a lot of work to be done to encourage eco-theology education and eco-mission practices at various levels of the Church's life.
"Care for the environment is part of the churches' charter and mission, and while my research was mainly limited to Uniting, Anglican and Catholic Churches, many of the major faith perspectives are saying very similar things," he said.
"When you look beyond Christian religions, major world faiths are essentially on the same page with this issue. There is so much commonality. The official position is that faiths want to save the planet, but unfortunately this doesn't always filter through to all the levels."
3. I choose this article because when I first saw the title, I thought that this must be related to climate change. Every Korean, who is more than about 10 year, would nowadays realize that the climate has changed a lot. Few days ago, in the news said that it had snowed. wow!!! I couldn't close my mouth~ March and snow? That's really strange. Not only that nowadays I have no idea what to wear. yes, it is spring and in spring the temparature changes a lot. However this is too much. As far as I remember, even last year wasn't like this. Some people say that it is a natural phenomenon. I am not sure but I am against the opinion. That's because human did too much bad things to nature. Also I don't think it isn't late to do make it right. Climate is something closely related to human. It will have a great influence on us. That's why, we should do something.
-------------- An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped.
Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and provides further evidence or rapid change in the region.
Sited on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Wilkins shelf has been retreating since the 1990s.
Researchers regarded the ice bridge as an important barrier, holding the remnant shelf structure in place.
Its removal will allow ice to move more freely between Charcot and Latady islands, into the open ocean.
European Space Agency satellite pictures had indicated last week that cracks were starting to appear in the bridge. Newly created icebergs were seen to be floating in the sea on the western side of the peninsula, which juts up from the continent towards South America's southern tip. Professor David Vaughan is a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey who planted a GPS tracker on the ice bridge in January to monitor its movement.
He said the breaking of the bridge had been expected for some weeks; and much of the ice shelf behind is likely to follow.
"We know that [the Wilkins Ice Shelf] has been completely or very stable since the 1930s and then it started to retreat in the late 1990s; but we suspect that it's been stable for a very much longer period than that," he told BBC News.
"The fact that it's retreating and now has lost connection with one of its islands is really a strong indication that the warming on the Antarctic is having an effect on yet another ice shelf."
While the break-up will have no direct impact on sea level because the ice is floating, it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.
Over the past 50 years, the peninsula has been one of the fastest warming places on the planet.
Many of its ice shelves have retreated in that time and six of them have collapsed completely (Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf).
Separate research shows that when ice shelves are removed, the glaciers and landed ice behind them start to move towards the ocean more rapidly. It is this ice which can raise sea levels, but by how much is a matter of ongoing scientific debate.
Such acceleration effects were not included by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment said ice dynamics were poorly understood.
1. Hye Sung, Yoon 2. Title: Global slowdown brings cleaner air to China - Shuttered factories, tighter regulations behind lower pollution levels 3. When I first saw the title of this article, I was really wondered why global slowdown brings cleaner air to China. Obviously, tighter regulations have a negative effect on economy. However, they heip the air to be cleaner. Looking the last sentence in this article, it says, "As Chairman Mao said, under certain circumstances, the bad thing can lead to a good result." In this sentence, I think 'the bad thing' may be the economic slowdown. Even though the ecomonic slackness can be a bad news, that reduces the pollution. I felt that economic decision can affect the environment. They are so related!! -------------------- BEIJING - Last summer, Xu Demin struggled to cut emissions from his coal-fired factories as part of China's all-out effort to clean the air for the Beijing Olympics.
He could have simply waited six months. This spring, overseas demand for his farming and construction machinery plummeted, forcing him to close two plants and lay off 300 workers.
The global economic slowdown is helping to accomplish what some in China's leadership have tried to do for years: rein in the insatiable demand for coal-powered energy that has fed the country's breakneck growth but turned it into one of the world's most polluted nations.
Beijing, China's normally smog-choked capital, is breathing some of its cleanest air in nearly a decade, as pollution-control efforts get a sizable boost from a slowing economy.
"It's like the sky I saw overseas. I can see clouds. I've seen days here like I've seen in Europe or the U.S.," Xu says, his voice echoing in the cavernous space of his idle factory outside Beijing.
An Associated Press analysis of government figures backs up his observations: In the second half of last year, a period that included the Olympics in August, Beijing recorded its lowest air pollution readings since 2000, according to data from the Ministry of Environmental Protection.
The average monthly air pollution index was 74, about 25 percent lower than the previous seven years. Earlier data were not available.
Experts see several reasons for the improvement, including the relocation of some of Beijing's dirtiest factories outside the city and the partial continuation of traffic limits imposed for the Olympics.
Blue skies again Perhaps most significant has been the economic downturn. Even elsewhere in China, where no Olympic pollution measures were imposed, the level of dirty air is down.
Chak Chan, who has published studies on China's air quality, warns the relief offered by the slump is temporary. "But if taken as an opportunity to do more in terms of energy efficiency and clean technology, then it can have a long-term effect in improving air quality," said Chan, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
For now, the cleaner air is a vindication of sorts for Beijing. China won its bid to host the Olympics partly on the promise that it would lead to a cleaner capital.
The government spent billions of dollars to clean up the air. It followed that spending with two months of drastic measures, temporarily shutting factories across five provinces, suspending construction in the capital, and ordering drivers to idle their cars every other day from July to September.
The results were dramatic, with air pollution index hitting record lows in August and September. Viewers around the world watched some sporting events take place under crystal blue skies.
In an assessment released in February, the U.N. Environmental Program said carbon monoxide levels fell 47 percent and sulfur dioxide 38 percent during the two-week Olympics. Even Beijing's worst pollutant — tiny particles of dust, soot and aerosol known as particulate matter 10 — was reduced by 20 percent. The U.N. report praised China for investing in long-term solutions such as public transport, urban parks and renewable-energy vehicles.
City officials also kept some traffic limits in place after the Olympics. Car owners are banned from driving one day a week, depending on their license plate numbers.
Air pollution, while not as low as in August and September when the harshest restrictions were in place, has remained far below recent years. From October through February, the average monthly pollution index was 82.
Breathing easy On a recent sunny morning, Li Heng, 66, joined dozens of seniors in Beijing's Ritan Park for a daily round of tai chi, the slow breathing exercises.
"I think the air is much better recently. We can take very deep breaths and the air feels fresh," he said, inhaling and exhaling loudly before thumping his chest.
It's not just Beijing. Southern China, home to many of the country's export-producing factories, has seen clear improvement.
Many cities in Guangdong province, where 62,400 businesses closed last year, have seen a drop in the number of badly polluted days, according to data on the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau Web site.
For example, the factory city of Dongguan reported more than a dozen days in the first half of 2008 when the air pollution index topped 100, a level considered unhealthy for sensitive groups including infants and the elderly. But in the second half of the year, there were only two such days.
Not all cities saw improvements. But across a sampling of seven key cities, the average number of badly polluted days halved between the first and second half of 2008.
A similar phenomenon was seen when the Soviet Union collapsed, causing the industrial haze over the Arctic to drop by nearly 50 percent, said Kenneth Rahn, an atmospheric chemist from the University of Rhode Island who has studied air quality in China.
"In principle, a reduction in economic activity can and will reduce air pollution," he wrote in an e-mail response. "I would expect something similar for China but of lesser magnitude."
During boom times, demand for electricity was so high in Guangdong's Pearl River Delta that companies often endured rotating blackouts. Some installed their own generators, which burned low-grade, dirty fuel.
But since last fall, blackouts have been few, and generators are seldom used.
Opportunity for greener technology Environmental advocates say the downturn presents an opportunity for the government to move more aggressively to shut the dirtiest plants and enact stricter emissions regulations.
"The fact that the economy has slowed down has made it easier to stick to their plans to consolidate and close plants," said Deborah Seligsohn, director of the China climate program for the U.S-based World Resources Institute.
Seligsohn said she is encouraged by the fact that China's $586 billion economic stimulus plan includes funding for better technology and infrastructure that could benefit the environment.
In Guangdong, the slowdown could spur long-held plans to transform the region from dirty, labor-intensive manufacturing to cleaner high-tech industries.
Wang Xiaoming, director of communication for the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, said he hopes companies will take advantage of the slowdown to install more energy-efficient and cleaner technology.
"This period is an opportunity for each factory to adjust their production methods. If they were operating at full capacity, they would never have the time for this," he said.
It's advice that Xu, 59, has taken to heart as he seeks to reinvent Beijing Famed Machinery, his two-decade-old company.
With production down 75 percent this year, he has now decided to focus his energy on what had largely been a side project: making and selling machines that turn agricultural waste into what he calls "green coal" — fuel pellets that burn more cleanly than coal.
"It's up to us whether we can turn crisis into opportunity," he said. "This is a good time for our biomass product."
The longtime business owner even draws inspiration from the late founding father of communist China: "As Chairman Mao said, under certain circumstances, the bad thing can lead to a good result." --------
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30045929/
3. A few weeks ago I encountered an article online showing new innovative products that are "going green." A few of these products were laptops and computers, created with bamboo casing, as part of their companies' line of green products. I never knew electronic companies had the burden of creating environmentally friendly computers -- partly because I never considered what would happen when I throw away my computer.
The article uses a term I was not familiar with called "e-waste." I think what really strikes home is this line from the article: "As a result of the west's decision to export e-waste, cities such as Lagos, Nigeria, and Accra, Ghana, play home to huge toxic dumps full of discarded computers and electronic devices, where scavengers – often children – attempt to extract the metals in order to resell them."
Now I know where my old electronics are going. Pretty interesting article, especially because it says that Apple is leading the way for the green movement in computer electronics. It seems like Apple sets the standards for most things in this generation.
---------------------------------
Greenpeace has accused three of the world's biggest PC manufacturers of failing to live up to their promises to make more environmentally friendly computers.
Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Lenovo have all been singled out in a report from the environmental campaign group, which claims they have failed to deliver new machines that do not depend so heavily on toxic chemicals.
"HP, Lenovo and Dell had promised to eliminate vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from their products by the end of 2009. Now they've told us that they won't make it this year," Greenpeace said in its latest Guide to Greener Electronics report.
"The phase-out of toxic substances is an urgent priority to help tackle the growing tide of e-waste. Still, producers only go green when they feel public and consumer pressure to do so," it continued.
Indeed, computer companies are facing a different kind of pressure thanks to the recession – which analysts say has caused the biggest slump for the industry in its history.
Despite such a slowdown, however, hundreds of millions of PCs are still sold every year. In the last quarter alone, the three companies singled out by Greenpeace sold more than 30m computers around the world.
Given such high sales volumes, the use of toxic components can have a devastating environmental impact – particularly in west African countries that accept vast amounts of electronic waste from Europe and the US, in contradiction with international regulations.
As a result of the west's decision to export e-waste, cities such as Lagos, Nigeria, and Accra, Ghana, play home to huge toxic dumps full of discarded computers and electronic devices, where scavengers – often children – attempt to extract the metals in order to resell them.
Since 2006, Greenpeace has monitored companies' promises to reduce the number of toxic components and has noted a gradual improvement from many electronics manufacturers.
The Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia currently leads in Greenpeace's rankings, after keeping up with plans to reduce its CO2 emissions. The Japanese videogames company Nintendo remains bottom of the rankings for its approach to e-waste and a lack of transparency.
The PC makers lost position after pushing back plans to introduce greener products. Lenovo said its line of eco-friendly laptops would be delayed until 2010, while HP and Dell – the world's two largest computer makers – have put similar schemes on indefinite hold.
Some brands, however – including Apple and the Taiwanese manufacturer Acer – have made significant progress in reducing their long-term impact on the environment. This, said Greenpeace, should stand as an example to others.
"If Apple can find the solutions, there should be no reason why other leading PC companies can't," said Iza Kurszewska, who leads the organisation's campaign against toxics. "All of them should have at least one toxic-free line of products on the market by the end of this year."
Presented with Greenpeace's concerns, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard did not directly address the accusations. Instead, she said that "the Greenpeace report confirms that the electronics industry as a whole continues to make progress".
"For decades, HP has adopted practices in product development, operations and supply chain that are transparent and help reduce its environmental impact," she said, adding that the company would "continue its efforts".
Dell and Lenovo did not respond to requests for comment.
1.Choi gue lang 2. Flame Retardant Chemicals Taint All U.S. Coastal Waters
3.Since we are complexly connected to each other socially as well as environmentally, it is actually quite frightening to assume that literally 'whatever we do' indirectly affects each on of us, which, consequently, affects the entire world.
I become tremendously terrified whenever I imagine myself being indirectly affected by anything at all. However, I feel especially worse when affected by an elusive environmental problem, very particular problems which I could not even imagine before. For example if I were pregnant, I would obviously try to avoid polluted air because I am completely aware of its awful affect on my health. But I wouldn't imagine that it could be harmful to breast-feed to my baby because of consuming fish from the Florida coast, which I thought were healthy.
I mean, things which can be easily considered as trifles are sometimes not trifles at all. Moreover, they can actually be quite severe, and if I refrain from being cautious, my actions could be detrimental to my health.
------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON, DC, April 1, 2009 (ENS) - Chemicals used as flame retardants in consumer products since the 1970s now are found in all U.S. coastal waters and the Great Lakes, with elevated levels near urban and industrial centers, according to a federal government report issued today.
The nationwide survey found that New York's Hudson-Raritan Estuary had the highest overall concentrations of the chemicals, both in sediments and shellfish, but scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found polybrominated diphenyl ethers, PBDEs, in all U.S. coastal waters.
These toxic chemicals are used as flame retardants in building materials, electronics, furnishings, motor vehicles, plastics, polyurethane foams and textiles.
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances says that the concentrations of PBDEs in human blood, breast milk, and body fat indicate that most Americans are exposed to low levels of PBDEs.
A growing body of research points to evidence that exposure to PBDEs may produce detrimental health effects in animals, including humans.
Toxicological studies indicate that liver, thyroid and neurobehavioral development may be impaired by exposure to PBDEs and they have been found to impair the immune systems of animals. These chemicals are known to pass from mother to infant in breast milk.
"This is a wake-up call for Americans concerned about the health of our coastal waters and their personal health," said John Dunnigan, NOAA assistant administrator of the National Ocean Service.
"Scientific evidence strongly documents that these contaminants impact the food web and action is needed to reduce the threats posed to aquatic resources and human health," he said.
Based on data from NOAA's Mussel Watch Program, which has been monitoring coastal water contaminants for 24 years, the new findings are in contrast to analysis of samples as far back as 1996 that identified PBDEs in only a limited number of sites around the nation.
Individual sites with the highest PBDE measurements were found in shellfish taken from Anaheim Bay, California, and four sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. This estuary, with its 650 miles of shoreline, hosts the Port of New York and New Jersey and is fed by waters from the Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic and Raritan Rivers, which drain major watersheds of New York and New Jersey.
High PBDE concentrations also were documented in the Southern California Bight, Puget Sound, the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico off the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida coast, and Lake Michigan waters near Chicago and Gary, Indiana.
PBDEs get into the environment from runoff and municipal waste incineration and sewage outflows, the report found. Other pathways include leaching from aging consumer products, land application of sewage sludge as bio-solids, industrial discharges and accidental spills.
The chemicals do not dissolve easily in water, but stick to particles and settle to the bottom of rivers or lakes.
Similar in chemical structure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, the flame retardants have raised concerns among scientists and regulators that their impacts on human health will prove equally adverse.
PBDE production has been banned in a number of European and Asian countries. In the United States, production of most PBDE mixtures has been voluntarily discontinued.
The NOAA Mussel Watch survey found that the highest concentrations of PBDEs in the U.S. coastal zone were measured at industrial and urban locations. Still, the chemicals have been detected in remote places far from major sources, which NOAA says is evidence of atmospheric transport.
People may be exposed to PBDEs from eating foods or breathing air contaminated with the chemicals, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances.
Workers involved in the manufacture of PBDEs or products that contain PBDEs may be exposed to higher levels than usual. Occupational exposure also can occur in people who work in enclosed spaces where PBDE-containing products are repaired or recycled.
"We do not know whether PBDEs can cause cancer in humans," says the Agency for Toxic Substances. "Rats and mice that ate food with decabromodiphenyl ether - one type of PBDE - throughout their lives, developed liver tumors. Based on this evidence, the EPA has classified decabromodiphenyl ether as a possible human carcinogen."
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
1. Yoo GaEun
ReplyDelete2. Beautiful, but Deadly
3. This article catched my eyes because I saw
the transparent, amorphous jellyfish sting my
mom. It was really gruesome to see this organism
under the sea--most people will just freat out.
Actually, more than just being freaked out, the number of jellyfish is exorbitantly increasing thus destroys the balance of ocean ecosystem and sucks in other essential organisms such as plankton.
Reading this article, I could know many new information on jellyfish from the difficulty defining the jellyfish in one term to its relationship with human-inducing pollution.
This is quite interesting article though tragic news to people like me who love seafood and beautiful scenary of the ocean.
-------------------------------------------
On the morning of November 21, 2007, John Russell awoke to his worst nightmare. Billions of small jellyfish, covering a patch of water 10 miles wide, had infiltrated his fish farm off the coast of Northern Ireland. The sea was so dense with jellyfish that the boats used to try to rescue the fish couldn’t cut through the gooey mush. “The sea was red with these jellyfish and there was nothing we could do about it, absolutely nothing,” Russell told the BBC. By the time the swarm had moved on, the damage was done: Hundreds of thousands of Russell’s salmon were dead, and his company had lost more than $2 million of inventory.
The swarm of jellyfish that overwhelmed Russell’s fish farm would be little more than a science fiction-esque curiosity if it didn’t have such alarming consequences for ocean ecosystems worldwide. Reports of voracious jellyfish swarms are on the rise – they’re being seen in greater numbers, tighter concentrations, and more areas than ever before. To make matters worse, many of the most disruptive swarms are occurring in seas that were, until recently, too cold for jellyfish. As global ocean temperatures steadily rise, many fishermen, scientists, and beach-goers may be watching a real-life environmental horror movie unfold before their very eyes.
Scientists worldwide are moving quickly to understand the dimensions of the problem and its root causes. Already, millions of people have been affected, and nearly every ocean-based industry is getting stung.
Fishermen haul up their nets to find gelatinous bycatch. Beachside resorts struggle to ensure swimmer comfort and safety. Ocean freighters, desalination facilities, seabed mining dredgers, and nuclear power plants have all been forced to curtail operations while jellyfish ooze is excavated from clogged pipes. In Japan, some coastlines have been inundated with hundreds of millions of refrigerator-sized jellyfish, so many and so large that they have forced the temporary closure of electricity plants that provide power to Tokyo.
In order to understand the harmful effects of jellyfish blooms, it’s important to appreciating the animals’ evolutionary panache. The term “jellyfish” is a taxonomist’s torment. Strictly defined as stinging animals of the phylum Cnidaria, the title now colloquially encompasses most gelatinous creatures of the sea, a wide range of “jellyfish-like organisms.” (Because both groups have similar ecological roles, jellyfish and jellyfish-like organisms will be collectively referred to as “jellyfish” in this article.) To add to the confusion, jellyfish – boneless and gill-less – are not actually fish.
Although broadly defined and clumsily named, jellyfish have certainly found their ecological niche. “Evolutionarily, they’re extremely successful animals,” says Dr. Monty Graham, a senior marine scientist at Dauphin Island Sea Lab. Graham cites the fact that jellyfish morphology has remained largely unchanged for more than 600 million years as “tremendous evidence that they’re successful animals.” The key lies in their prolific replication strategy, an unusual combination of sexual and asexual reproduction. Adults release eggs and sperm in the water at impressive rates, with some species dispersing up to 40,000 eggs each day. When fertilization occurs, a larva is formed, which affixes itself to a hard surface as it enters the polyp stage. This is where jellyfish tend to slip off the radar. Polyps are rarely found in the wild, though researchers believe they cover extensive tracts of the ocean floor, biding their time for up to several years until conditions are right. When salinity, temperature, and food levels are favorable, each polyp elongates and buds off, producing many young jellyfish. Because the conditions promoting budding are regional in scale, fields of polyps release their young at roughly the same time, leading to vast flotillas of jellyfish. A bloom is born.
Once a bloom becomes active, little can stop it. Dr. Anthony Moss, an associate professor at Auburn University, describes jellies as “very voracious predators” that seize control of ecosystems from the bottom up. Jellyfish eat all the fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton they can get their tentacles on, an approach that both eliminates potential predators and limits the food available to the competition. In the process, “They’re going to become the top predator because they’ll just replace everything,” Moss notes. “And that’s what’s happening in many places all over the world. What’s going to displace them? Nothing.”
As frightening as these developments are, most of the evidence of increased jellyfish populations is anecdotal, and it is dangerous to read too much into what may be a few freak events. So are jellyfish numbers really rising?
“I approach this thing with a big degree of skepticism,” says Dr. David Agnew, a fisheries scientist at Imperial College London. Agnew notes that jellyfish blooms have been a natural part of oceanic ecosystems for millions of years. The animals grow and reproduce quickly in order to take advantage of ideal, and often fleeting, conditions. But as people continue to move toward the coasts and we become increasingly dependent on the sea for food and resources, even normal blooms have a larger impact on human activities.
In a field where scientists are lucky if a data set extends just a few decades into the past, it’s impossible to evaluate how modern jellyfish levels compare to a reliable historic baseline. That said, there is a growing consensus among marine scientists that jellyfish blooms, if not absolute numbers, are rising.
“There isn’t enough information available at this point to give a definitive answer,” Moss says, “but many of us in the field are pretty sure that’s what’s happening.” Dr. Mary Beth Decker of Yale University says, “There’s some speculation that we may be seeing more frequent, larger blooms.” No matter what the exact number, the blooms, which have stunned ecosystems from the Black Sea to the Bering Sea, are worrisome, especially given that large swaths of ocean appear ripe for equally disruptive jellyfish explosions.
What is causing the apparent surge of jellyfish blooms around the world? Graham compares the situation to another familiar case of fluctuation: “Like following the ticker on the stock market, natural ups and downs are going on.” But, he notes, it’s the longer-term trends, the true departures from historic norms, that reveal fundamental changes in how ecosystems are balanced.
Dr. Jack Costello, a scientist at Providence College, has been closely monitoring one such shift. Costello studies Mnemiopsis leiydi, a small gelatinous organism also known as the “sea walnut” because of its domed shape. Off the coast of New England, Mnemiopsis populations follow seasonal patterns, expanding during the summers and contracting over the winters. Starting in the late 1990s, however, Costello noticed something peculiar: The jellies were blooming up to two months earlier than expected. He and his team ultimately discovered that the organisms were retreating to smaller “refuge sites” that warm up earlier in the year than the open water. “These refuge areas were being most affected by climate alterations,” he explains, “and that’s what was driving the larger system.” Earlier blooms allowed mature Mnemiopsis to consume predators and competitors before they became a real threat. Warming waters have also allowed Mnemiopsis to move farther north than ever before, into regions once deemed too cold for the temperate species. “We’re seeing range expansion, but,” Costello cautions, “we don’t know how permanent that is.” Moss has also noticed other jellyfish species colonizing new waters, thanks to global warming. “I’ve seen the effects and I’m astonished,” he says. “I can read the data like anyone else, but I never expected it would slap me in the face.”
A change to any ecosystem invariably creates winners and losers – and jellyfish, sometimes referred to as “the cockroach of the sea,” have almost always been on the winning side of the equation.
Few studies have attempted to systematically evaluate the effect of global warming on jellyfish populations, but one of the best examinations was conducted by Dr. Jennifer Purcell of Western Washington University. In a research paper published by the Marine Biological Association of the UK, Purcell reviewed jellyfish levels and climate records from around the world, concluding 18 out of 24 species she looked at grew in response to warmer water conditions. She warns that “global warming could result in expanded temporal and spatial distributions and larger populations of jellyfish” – as shrill a statement as you’re likely to find in academic literature.
Rising water temperatures are playing a role in the jellyfication of the seas, but the full story is much more complicated. In addition to global warming, “We think there may be other things that we’re doing that make conditions right for jellyfish,” Decker says.
One such activity with unexpected consequences is global shipping, which inadvertently precipitated ecological and economic disaster in and around the Black Sea. Before a ship leaves port, it often takes water on board to provide stability. This “ballast water” often contains many of the smaller flora and fauna native to the departure port’s ecosystem. Upon arrival, the ship dumps the ballast water, unwittingly inoculating the destination port with any surviving organisms.
During the early 1980s, one ocean freighter, likely departing from a more temperate port in the US, introduced Mnemiopsis into the Black Sea. The first reports of the invasive species appeared in 1982, and the population ballooned soon thereafter as the jellyfish feasted on zooplankton, fish eggs, and larvae. By 1989, at the peak of the explosion, there were some 400 jellies per cubic meter of water, and native fish populations were decimated. Finfish and anchovy stocks were hit particularly hard, and fishing fleets in bordering nations were hammered. Turkey alone lost an estimated $43 million in the early 1990s as a result of the collapsed fishery.
Mnemiopsis has since spread to the Caspian Sea, the Sea of Azov, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, often with similarly destructive ecological and economic consequences. The introduction of invasive species via ballast water is particularly dangerous because even the smallest organism can forever upset an elegantly balanced ecosystem. In its native waters, Mnemiopsis has developed a dynamic relationship with its predators and prey. Elsewhere, however, other fish have not evolved specific strategies to counter the habits of the jellyfish, leaving them high and dry. As Moss puts it: “A pretty jellyfish in the Gulf of Mexico” can become “a raging monster in the Caspian Sea.”
Some jellyfish species have thrived thanks to another human alteration of the seascape – ocean “dead zones.” At some 150 offshore locations around the world, huge quantities of agricultural runoff – nitrogen-heavy chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and animal wastes – have led to explosions of algae in the sea. The algae suck oxygen out of the water and block sunlight from reaching other plankton lower in the water column. With less oxygen and fewer types of food on offer, many larger fish move elsewhere or die. The Gulf of Mexico contains the largest dead zone in the Western Hemisphere: In 2008, it was measured at 8,000 square miles, and it is expected to surpass 10,000 square miles by year’s end.
While most other species have declined in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, jellyfish have proliferated, emphatically bucking the trend. During the 1980s and 1990s, the sea nettle and moon jellyfish steadily increased their ranges, and now invasive species like the Australian jellyfish have joined the party, swarming over thousands of square miles. Many fish species struggle to find food when the water column becomes more opaque, but jellyfish, which are not visual hunters, are unbothered. Also, “Jellies can do okay in low-oxygen environments,” Decker says, “because they don’t have complicated bodies, don’t have huge oxygen requirements.” In the murky waters of the dead zone, simplicity pays off, and jellyfish are reaping the rewards.
Overfishing is another man-made factor that may be bolstering jellyfish populations. As human consumption removes large fish from ocean habitats, jellyfish benefit. With fewer predators and competitors, jellies can gorge on more plankton in safety, tightening their grip on the ecosystem. In the Bering Sea, a skyrocketing jellyfish population in the late 1990s was blamed partially on depleted stocks of pollock, a local predator. Graham points out that “the vast majority of our fisheries are depleted,” and the situation isn’t going to improve if the status quo holds. “At our current rate of using oceans, the problems will undoubtedly mount, and jellyfish will likely play a greater role,” he says.
It isn’t only what we’re taking out of oceans that affects jellyfish populations; it’s also what we’re putting in. As ingenious as the jellyfish’s reproductive strategy is, the polyp stage requires a hard surface, or substrate, on which to wait for favorable conditions. According to Decker, “Some people hypothesize that as we’ve added lots of structures to coastal waters – oil rigs, docks, marinas – maybe we’re providing additional substrates for polyps.” More polyps translate into larger blooms, which in turn out-graze competitors and generate a positive feedback loop of gelatinous domination.
The rise of jellyfish cannot be blamed exclusively on global warming or any single factor; rather, a perfect storm of man-made changes in our ocean environments has conspired to provide opportunities that jellies have been quick to exploit. A change to any ecosystem invariably creates winners and losers – and jellyfish, sometimes referred to as “the cockroach of the sea,” have almost always been on the winning side of the equation.
“It doesn’t take a whole lot in terms of perturbing an ecosystem to get it to respond with increases in jellyfish,” Graham says. Jellyfish take advantage of warming waters to expand their range and accelerate their rates of reproduction. They hitchhike in ballast water to seas that are evolutionarily unprepared to deal with their presence. Their simple ways of life pay dividends in the primordial conditions of dead zones. They fill in the gaps as commercial fishermen harvest their predators and competitors, and they co-opt humans’ ocean infrastructure as their very own nursery. In all of these cases, jellyfish are relentless, quick to turn a toehold into a chokehold. “These things can respond,” Moss says. “They’re plastic. They can change. They can reproduce rapidly. They are astonishing animals.”
Despite growing awareness of the economic and environmental threats posed by increasing swarms, the jellyfish challenge isn’t likely to be resolved anytime soon. “We can see what’s happening, but is there anything to do?” Moss asks. “We need to think in terms of much bigger things” that could restore ecosystems to their previous levels of diversity.
Curing ocean ills, however, will take time, money, and sustained political will. Dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, restoring dead zone habitats, and managing fisheries in sustainable ways are all enormous challenges. “None of those is a very easy problem to tackle on short time scales,” Graham says, “so it will take real long-term commitment on a societal level.” Although such problems’ contribution to rising jellyfish populations has only recently become apparent, these issues are already well fixed on the environmental agenda. A number of groups – including governments, scientists, and activists – are working on each of these challenges, and hopefully oceanic ecosystems can be restored to balance in the process.
With no end to the increasing presence of jellyfish in sight, what can we expect of our future oceans? Will jellies soon dominate oceans worldwide? Graham believes that “at our current rate of using oceans, the problems will undoubtedly mount, and jellyfish will likely play a greater role in regulating the flow of nutrients and energy through tomorrow’s oceans just as they did in yesterday’s oceans.”
In this sense, the jellyfish resurgence runs against the evolutionary grain, placing a decidedly less-evolved organism in a dominant ecological position. As a result, other species lose out. “If diversity of the ecosystem is what we define as good,” Costello says, “then we’re most probably seeing decreased diversity.” But, Graham points out, “Life on this planet is extremely diverse, and this overall diversity we have, over deep evolutionary time, is not going to go away.”
Despite the gloomy predictions, there may be a silver lining. Even as some scientists, environmentalists, and politicians seek ways to address the underlying cause of the slime, others are finding ways to adapt to the new age of jellyfish.
Japanese researcher Kiminori Ushida is one person who believes he has found a benefit to increased jelly blooms, a way of transforming a terror into a treasure. Ushida and his colleagues are perfecting a technique for harvesting jellyfish’s mucin protein, a substance that displays antibacterial properties and is used in drug delivery, cosmetics, and food additives. Ushida’s team has also extracted from jellyfish a previously unknown type of mucin, the therapeutic effects of which are currently under investigation. These findings open the door to a new branch of pharmacology, possibly revealing these “pest” organisms as an untapped medicine cabinet.
Diners may also experience the growing role of jellyfish in the food chain. The slimy bells, appreciated for their oddly satisfying rubbery and crunchy texture, are trendy ingredients in a number of dishes, particularly in Chinese cuisine. Joe Lai, head chef at London’s renowned Dragon Castle restaurant, mixes strips of boiled jellyfish with cucumbers and sesame seeds into a popular appetizer. Nutritionally, Lai sees many advantages: “It’s rich in protein, but it doesn’t have much fat – it’s a healthy snack.” If consumers can be convinced that jellyfish are a palatable alternative to other protein sources, the sea creatures may soon be taking over the dinner table as well.
The rise of jellyfish is among the latest unintended effects of wide-scale environmental degradation, and the problems are likely to get worse before they get better. “It will become what it will become,” reflects Moss philosophically. “That’s how biological systems work, but it won’t be what we like or what we expect.” Ships’ pipes will be clogged, fish farms will be damaged, ecosystems will become increasingly homogeneous, and swimmers will be stung. Having set in motion the conditions that have allowed jellies to dominate, the only recourse is to redouble our efforts to combat climate change, overfishing, and dead zones. In the meantime, there’s little to do but manage the consequences – and develop a taste for boiled jellyfish
----------------------------
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/beautiful_but_deadly/
1. Martin Weiser
ReplyDelete2. Bio Batteries
3. Sony was able to make a battery running on sugar. Its power output is still low with 50mW (2007), which surprisingly is said to be already 70mW in 2009. I think this technology is interesting since it includes the use of enzymes and thereby is using chemical energy differently than combustion and maybe even more efficient. Not to mention the idea to get the energy for your MP3 from a softdrink.
----
Sony Develops "Bio Battery" Generating Electricity from Sugar
- Achieves world's highest power output for passive-type bio batteries -
TOKYO, August 23, 2007- Sony today announced the development of a bio battery1 that generates electricity from carbohydrates (sugar) utilizing enzymes as its catalyst, through the application of power generation principles found in living organisms.
Test cells of this bio battery have achieved power output of 50 mW, currently the world's highest level2 for passive-type3 bio batteries. The output of these test cells is sufficient to power music play back on a memory-type Walkman.
In order to realize the world's highest power output, Sony developed a system of breaking down sugar to generate electricity that involves efficiently immobilizing enzymes and the mediator (electronic conduction materials) while retaining the activity of the enzymes at the anode. Sony also developed a new cathode structure which efficiently supplies oxygen to the electrode while ensuring that the appropriate water content is maintained. Optimizing the electrolyte for these two technologies has enabled these power output levels to be reached.
Sugar is a naturally occurring energy source produced by plants through photosynthesis. It is therefore regenerative, and can be found in most areas of the earth, underlining the potential for sugar-based bio batteries as an ecologically-friendly energy device of the future.
Sony will continue its development of immobilization systems, electrode composition and other technologies in order to further enhance power output and durability, with the aim of realizing practical applications for these bio batteries in the future.
The research results presented here have been accepted as an academic paper at the 234th American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition in Boston, MA USA, and were announced at 11 am local time on August 22, 2007.
Masayo Endo, an employee for Japanese electronics giant Sony, displays a new bio battery, including three cubic cells that generate enough electricity to drive a Walkman digital music player, at the International Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Expo in Tokyo on February 25, 2009 while an electric fan (bottom), powered by a bio battery cell whose energy source is a soft drink, winds. Sony has developed a passive type bio battery system of breaking down sugar to generate the world's highest level electric power of 70mW from a cell as an eco-friendly energy. Sony exhibited various eco-friendly power sources, including fuel cell batteries and bio batteries at the exhibition.
---------------------
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200708/07-074E/index.html
http://www.daylife.com/photo/02pD3df8u8af6
1. Mikah Lee
ReplyDelete2. Green Viruses
3. Batteries, batteries, they're everywhere! It seems as though scientists are competing in some sort of 'green race' to make up for all those 'messy batteries' we've been using. Which makes me wonder- did we not know about the dangers of the way we produce energy back when it was first used?
So anyway, scientists have now succeeded on making 'green batteries' by using viruses. When I found this headline, I had to blink a few times- viruses? The ones that cause all kinds of annoying diseases? I really didn't think that genetic engineering (let alone viruses) would ever be used to make batteries (...or maybe I'm just ignorant). I guess this can only be good news- as long as we are able to control those viruses the way we want.
----------------------------------------------
Viruses Used to Grow "Greener" Batteries
Charles Q. Choi
for National Geographic News
April 3, 2009
With the help of a common virus, scientists have built a battery that rivals the state-of-the-art rechargeable models now powering personal electronics and hybrid vehicles.
The hope is to replace the costly, toxic electrodes currently used in lithium-ion batteries.
The researchers modified the M13 virus, which infects only bacteria, to grow proteins on its surface that attract amorphous iron phosphate.
The result: Wires just nanometers thick of the material, which is cheaper and environmentally friendlier than ones currently used to make electrodes for lithium-ion batteries.
The scientists also programmed the virus so that one end became sticky to carbon nanotubes, which are extraordinarily good conductors of electricity.
Electrons easily travel along the carbon nanotubes to the amorphous iron phosphate networks, transferring energy in a very short time.
Using these ingredients, the researchers devised coin-sized batteries comparable in performance to commercial lithium-ion batteries.
"The more genetic engineering we did, the better it got," said researcher Angela Belcher, a materials scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Carbon nanotubes are still expensive, and researchers debate what risks they might pose to the environment. If the nanotubes become a barrier, the same process could be performed with other good electrical conductors such as silver or gold, Belcher said.
While her team is still in the early stages of its work, Belcher thinks the project could soon get "twice the power performance of what we demonstrated with this proof of principle here."
Findings detailed online in the April 2 issue of the journal Science.
-----------------
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/68934729.html
1. Sohyun Park
ReplyDelete2. Flatulent cows could be curtailed by fish oils
3. This article talks about a recent study of the benefit of fish oils. Fish oils which have many benefits to our human bodies can have a benefit to the environment also. When two percent fish oil is put into the diet of cattle, it reduces methane emissions by animals. Thus, this will help the environment by lowering gas emissions. It says that 50 percent of Irish agricultural methane emissions are result from farm animals, and it would not be necessary to cut down numbers of animals if methane levels are reduced by diet. It was very interesting to find about omega 3 fatty acids in fish oils, which I take daily, can help the environment as well.
-----------------------------
The benefits to humans of omega 3 fatty acids in fish oils are well documented, but a new study has found that fish oils can have a wider benefit to the environment -- by reducing the amount of methane produced by cows.
The report produced by University College Dublin found that by including two percent fish oil in the diet of cattle they achieved a reduction in the amount of methane released by the animals.
Lowering methane emissions is important for the environment, as the gas given off by farm animals is a major contributor to greenhouse gas levels.
More than a third of all methane emissions, around 900 billion tonnes every year, are produced by methanogen bacteria that live in the digestive systems of cattle, sheep and goats.
By volume, methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide making it a potent greenhouse gas.
"The fish oil affects the methane-producing bacteria in the rumen part of the cow's gut, leading to reduced emissions," said Dr Lorraine Lillis, one of the researchers, speaking at the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate, England.
"Understanding which microbial species are particularly influenced by changes in diet and relating them to methane production could bring about a more targeted approach to reducing methane emissions in animals."
Approximately 50 percent of Irish agricultural methane emissions result from farm animals, which has led to suggestions that, to help combat global warming, the numbers of cattle, sheep and goats should be capped.
The researchers believe that it may not be necessary to limit the number of farm animals if their methane levels are reduced through diet.
---
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/30/cows.fishoil/index.html
1. Shim Kyuhee
ReplyDelete2. Biofuel deserves a try
3. So the article on clean coal I posted about last week was not very hopeful. But I believe that we must keep on searching for new innovative ways to solve our environmental problems. This week I discovered another unique bioengineering trick, biochar. I first learned of the term biochar on a blog posting. It reminded me of some of the concepts we studied earlier in the course. Below is another article I found that describes the mechanism in more detail.
Biochar is a form of charcoal that is made by burning biomass materials – composed of, for example, decomposing animal carcasses, dead plants, and leftover crop. The resulting charcoal can be helpful to us in many ways. First, the process of making biochar itself helps control carbon dioxide emissions. The CO2 resulting from decomposing biomass, that would otherwise be added to the atmosphere’s level of carbon dioxide, would be trapped inside the charcoal (this reminded me of how ocean waves similarly do the same thing). Second, the carbon from burning biomass can be converted into synthetic gas or oil (biofuel).
Third, when the charcoal is buried in the ground, it provides fertile soil for farming. In other words, the biochar is a natural fertilizer much like the terra preta that was used in the Amazonian lands long ago. This part was especially exciting to me because in the class we had discussed the terra preta I thought that it was a big shame that it wasn’t available in the 21st century.
Now I hope that biochar could be our civilization’s terra preta – of which we are in desperate need of. Despite our modern technology we had just went through a global food crisis just last year. I posted an article about this topic earlier in the course, and the article suggested that we had to devise ways to increase agricultural productivity in order to feed an exploding population. Perhaps this could be an environmentally sound way to achieve that goal.
And although the article says that biochar will not drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, I still think that we can use all the help we can get, and this shouldn’t be a reason to dismiss the potential of biochar. We can’t expect to find one perfect solution to our environmental problems. It will more likely be the combined effect of small changes that will save our environment.
--------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Biochar - The Great Black Hope
04/02/2009
By Bart King
When it comes to climate change, every potential solution seems to have a downside. For example, biofuels that could offset petroleum divert food stocks and/or have the potential to degrade ecosystems. Solar power is intermittent, requires the production of toxic materials and gases, and is still prohibitively expensive. And wind turbines are considered an eyesore by many and a threat to winged wildlife by others.
However, biochar might be different. Despite a rather unpleasant name, which calls to mind road kill on hot summer day, it has refreshingly unspoiled promise. Admittedly, research into the production and use of biochar—also known as agrichar—is not yet widespread. It could still prove to be a bad idea—producing, for example, a breed of oversized zombie earthworms. But so far things look good.
Simplicity is its greatest virtue. First of all, biochar is just another name for charcoal. It’s produced by burning any biomass under high temperatures and with very little oxygen—a process called pyrolysis. Roughly half of the carbon from wood chips, manure or crop residues fed into the oven is converted into synthetic gas or bio oil, which can be used as fuel or in co-products like cosmetics. The remaining carbon is turned into charcoal, which is resistant to decomposition for hundreds of years, assuming it isn’t used to fire up the grill.
Estimates suggest that 7 to 12 billion cubic meters of biomass from fields, pastures and rangelands are burned in the open each year, creating soot, nitrous oxide, ozone and other pollutants. Additionally massive amounts of crop residues and animal waste are allowed to decompose into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Biochar has the potential to reduce these emissions and over time could actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere by breaking the cycle through which decomposing plants emit CO2 that they captured while growing. As a result, biochar has been labeled “carbon negative.”
So what do you do with all the blackened carbon? Bury it of course. Not the way we bury trash—and infinitely less expensive than carbon sequestration plans touted by the coal industry.
Biochar is a valuable soil amendment first used by indigenous cultures in the Amazon Basin centuries ago to improve the fertility of barren lands. The porous charcoal retains moisture and leads to increased microbes that are critical to soil health. Mixed with topsoil, biochar can reduce fertilizer requirements and the leaching of nitrogen into ground water, while increasing crop yields.
The Amazonian soils—called terra preta, or “dark earth,” by Portuguese explorers—are said to contain about 80% of the carbon sequestered in them 500 years ago. Studies have revealed between 16 and 108 tons of biochar per hectare and 400 to 500 tons of organic carbon in the form of humus, bacterial biomass and fungal roots. So, it seems that the overall carbon storage capacity of these soils is significantly greater than just the biochar itself, which acts kind of like a carbon magnet.
If farms throughout the U.S. and around the world had small biochar ovens, each season they could return a portion of their waste biomass to the soil in the form of charcoal. In the process they would offset fossil fuel use for energy and fertilizers, reduce emissions from decomposition, increase food production and draw down atmospheric CO2 levels. How’s that for a win-win-win-win?
The 2007 Farm Bill created federal funding for biochar, and it’s being developed in research programs at the University of Georgia, Virginia Tech, Cornell and a handful of other universities. The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) is working to introduce ovens on the household and village level in nine developing nations, including Belize, Cameroon, India and Mongolia. The group is pressing the United Nations to make biochar projects eligible for the clean development mechanism (CDM) through which rich nations fund greenhouse gas reductions in developing countries.
Biochar has also been embraced by some big names in climate science, including James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, and James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Mind you though, biochar is not the Holy Grail of the climate change crusade. Even if it lives up to its brilliant potential and is widely deployed, researchers say there is a limit to how much CO2 it could remove from the atmosphere—about 8 parts per million (ppm) over the next 50 years. Currently global emissions add about 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year, and we are already at 385 ppm, well beyond the 350-ppm threshold that marks disaster territory, according to scientists.
But hey, the bright spots are few and far between. So, I’m enjoying this one for what it’s worth—a bit of cautious hope.
++++
Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication.
Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1659
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Dakyung Lee
ReplyDelete2. Religion and Environment
3. Last week in class, we discussed how religion can play a role in changing the environment. While searching through different online newspapers, I found this particular article that demonstrated that religious leaders and groups were, in reality, taking action to tackle environmental issues. Before class reading and discussion on how religion can impact our environment, I never thought to make the connection between the two. However, as this article shows, I realized that even small local eco-friendly projects can make a difference for the environment. While big projects that are well-equipped with lots of resources and funding may be more appealing to people, initiating them and making them into reality may be unattainable. Therefore, it seems way more practical that people begin to make changes by taking smaller steps and working their way up, as can be witnessed by this Christian church.
Another aspect that caught my attention was what the pastor said regarding the commonality in all religions. While theological beliefs may vary from religion to religion, it can be assumed that most religions are on the same page in terms of their concerns for the environment. Through history, we have witnessed many dramatic events and changes that occurred as a result of people's religious beliefs. Religion can have a huge impact on the way people think and act on a daily basis. Therefore, I think it will become increasingly important for religious leaders and groups to advocate the importance of saving the environment and spreading the word about the necessity for us to take action in tackling environmental issues.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/ibru_center/article01/indexn2_html?pdate=290309&ptitle=Use%20Religion%20As%20Agent%20Of%20Change%20To%20Affect%20Lives,%20Fashola%20Tells%20Religious%20Leaders
Above is another recent article on how religion should be used as an agent of change to affect lives.
------------------------------
Caring for the environment is an important part of the mission of the Church, says recent UQ PhD recipient Clive Ayre.
After spending most of his life working in and studying the church, Dr Ayre has just completed his PhD on religion's role in tackling issues such as climate change.
"It's becoming such an important issue in general that it seems logical that churches get involved, especially since it stems from the most basic theology," he said.
Dr Ayre said his study had significant implications for social justice in addition to ecological issues.
"Part of the problem has been that Christian theology and mission has tended to be anthropocentric, and along with the population at large, to have taken the natural world very much for granted," he said.
To gauge the level of eco-theology and eco-mission practices in Australia, Dr Ayre created a targeted survey that was distributed to 90 groups and individuals, and conducted a series of interviews.
"From that, I was able to build up quite a good picture," he said.
"Part of my work looked at such things as emerging themes, how eco-congregations form, why they sometimes fail, and whether they have a mission statement."
His research also saw him travel to the UK to see what eco-friendly measures the churches had taken, and how these compared to those in Australia.
"There are a number of variations between Australia and England, mainly relating to issues such as heating and cooling, and the UK has a focus on local issues, such as cleaning up graveyards and recycling," he said.
"One thing I did like in Britain was that churches have a good support network available, and are able to work for eco-awards."
Dr Ayre said that Australian churches at all levels are increasing looking at ways of helping to care for the natural environment, in co-operation with other groups.
"Some are into local, practical issues, such as waterway cleaning in Sydney, and there are a number of those where people get their hands dirty, planting trees and gardens.
"In some cases environmental audits are being conducted, and the use of solar power is being explored.
"There are also some who include ecology in worship, have education programs, and encourage lifestyle integrity of members.
"My own congregation has an ecological mission statement and is starting to implement it, but many other groups don't know how to begin. My research gives them a theological background and a practical way to be eco-friendly."
While science and religion have sometimes had a difficult relationship, Dr Ayre believes caring for the environment is one issue both sides agree on.
"With faith and science, I've argued that the main problems occur because there are fundamentalists on both sides of the equation who see their views as the only one, and they tend to distort the position of the other," he said.
"But the relationship between religion and science is a very productive one, and extending it to other faiths is a further step."
Dr Ayre also said that there was a lot of work to be done to encourage eco-theology education and eco-mission practices at various levels of the Church's life.
"Care for the environment is part of the churches' charter and mission, and while my research was mainly limited to Uniting, Anglican and Catholic Churches, many of the major faith perspectives are saying very similar things," he said.
"When you look beyond Christian religions, major world faiths are essentially on the same page with this issue. There is so much commonality. The official position is that faiths want to save the planet, but unfortunately this doesn't always filter through to all the levels."
-----
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=17758http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/ibru_center/article01/indexn2_html?pdate=290309&ptitle=Use%20Religion%20As%20Agent%20Of%20Change%20To%20Affect%20Lives,%20Fashola%20Tells%20Religious%20Leaders
1. Lee Soo-Bin
ReplyDelete2. Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic
3. I choose this article because when I first saw the title, I thought that this must be related to climate change. Every Korean, who is more than about 10 year, would nowadays realize that the climate has changed a lot. Few days ago, in the news said that it had snowed. wow!!! I couldn't close my mouth~ March and snow? That's really strange.
Not only that nowadays I have no idea what to wear. yes, it is spring and in spring the temparature changes a lot. However this is too much. As far as I remember, even last year wasn't like this.
Some people say that it is a natural phenomenon. I am not sure but I am against the opinion. That's because human did too much bad things to nature. Also I don't think it isn't late to do make it right. Climate is something closely related to human. It will have a great influence on us. That's why, we should do something.
--------------
An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped.
Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and provides further evidence or rapid change in the region.
Sited on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Wilkins shelf has been retreating since the 1990s.
Researchers regarded the ice bridge as an important barrier, holding the remnant shelf structure in place.
Its removal will allow ice to move more freely between Charcot and Latady islands, into the open ocean.
European Space Agency satellite pictures had indicated last week that cracks were starting to appear in the bridge. Newly created icebergs were seen to be floating in the sea on the western side of the peninsula, which juts up from the continent towards South America's southern tip.
Professor David Vaughan is a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey who planted a GPS tracker on the ice bridge in January to monitor its movement.
He said the breaking of the bridge had been expected for some weeks; and much of the ice shelf behind is likely to follow.
"We know that [the Wilkins Ice Shelf] has been completely or very stable since the 1930s and then it started to retreat in the late 1990s; but we suspect that it's been stable for a very much longer period than that," he told BBC News.
"The fact that it's retreating and now has lost connection with one of its islands is really a strong indication that the warming on the Antarctic is having an effect on yet another ice shelf."
While the break-up will have no direct impact on sea level because the ice is floating, it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.
Over the past 50 years, the peninsula has been one of the fastest warming places on the planet.
Many of its ice shelves have retreated in that time and six of them have collapsed completely (Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf).
Separate research shows that when ice shelves are removed, the glaciers and landed ice behind them start to move towards the ocean more rapidly. It is this ice which can raise sea levels, but by how much is a matter of ongoing scientific debate.
Such acceleration effects were not included by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment said ice dynamics were poorly understood.
-------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7984054.stm
1. Hye Sung, Yoon
ReplyDelete2. Title: Global slowdown brings cleaner air to China - Shuttered factories, tighter regulations behind lower pollution levels
3. When I first saw the title of this article, I was really wondered why global slowdown brings cleaner air to China. Obviously, tighter regulations have a negative effect on economy. However, they heip the air to be cleaner. Looking the last sentence in this article, it says, "As Chairman Mao said, under certain circumstances, the bad thing can lead to a good result." In this sentence, I think 'the bad thing' may be the economic slowdown. Even though the ecomonic slackness can be a bad news, that reduces the pollution. I felt that economic decision can affect the environment. They are so related!!
--------------------
BEIJING - Last summer, Xu Demin struggled to cut emissions from his coal-fired factories as part of China's all-out effort to clean the air for the Beijing Olympics.
He could have simply waited six months. This spring, overseas demand for his farming and construction machinery plummeted, forcing him to close two plants and lay off 300 workers.
The global economic slowdown is helping to accomplish what some in China's leadership have tried to do for years: rein in the insatiable demand for coal-powered energy that has fed the country's breakneck growth but turned it into one of the world's most polluted nations.
Beijing, China's normally smog-choked capital, is breathing some of its cleanest air in nearly a decade, as pollution-control efforts get a sizable boost from a slowing economy.
"It's like the sky I saw overseas. I can see clouds. I've seen days here like I've seen in Europe or the U.S.," Xu says, his voice echoing in the cavernous space of his idle factory outside Beijing.
An Associated Press analysis of government figures backs up his observations: In the second half of last year, a period that included the Olympics in August, Beijing recorded its lowest air pollution readings since 2000, according to data from the Ministry of Environmental Protection.
The average monthly air pollution index was 74, about 25 percent lower than the previous seven years. Earlier data were not available.
Experts see several reasons for the improvement, including the relocation of some of Beijing's dirtiest factories outside the city and the partial continuation of traffic limits imposed for the Olympics.
Blue skies again
Perhaps most significant has been the economic downturn. Even elsewhere in China, where no Olympic pollution measures were imposed, the level of dirty air is down.
Chak Chan, who has published studies on China's air quality, warns the relief offered by the slump is temporary. "But if taken as an opportunity to do more in terms of energy efficiency and clean technology, then it can have a long-term effect in improving air quality," said Chan, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
For now, the cleaner air is a vindication of sorts for Beijing. China won its bid to host the Olympics partly on the promise that it would lead to a cleaner capital.
The government spent billions of dollars to clean up the air. It followed that spending with two months of drastic measures, temporarily shutting factories across five provinces, suspending construction in the capital, and ordering drivers to idle their cars every other day from July to September.
The results were dramatic, with air pollution index hitting record lows in August and September. Viewers around the world watched some sporting events take place under crystal blue skies.
In an assessment released in February, the U.N. Environmental Program said carbon monoxide levels fell 47 percent and sulfur dioxide 38 percent during the two-week Olympics. Even Beijing's worst pollutant — tiny particles of dust, soot and aerosol known as particulate matter 10 — was reduced by 20 percent. The U.N. report praised China for investing in long-term solutions such as public transport, urban parks and renewable-energy vehicles.
City officials also kept some traffic limits in place after the Olympics. Car owners are banned from driving one day a week, depending on their license plate numbers.
Air pollution, while not as low as in August and September when the harshest restrictions were in place, has remained far below recent years. From October through February, the average monthly pollution index was 82.
Breathing easy
On a recent sunny morning, Li Heng, 66, joined dozens of seniors in Beijing's Ritan Park for a daily round of tai chi, the slow breathing exercises.
"I think the air is much better recently. We can take very deep breaths and the air feels fresh," he said, inhaling and exhaling loudly before thumping his chest.
It's not just Beijing. Southern China, home to many of the country's export-producing factories, has seen clear improvement.
Many cities in Guangdong province, where 62,400 businesses closed last year, have seen a drop in the number of badly polluted days, according to data on the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau Web site.
For example, the factory city of Dongguan reported more than a dozen days in the first half of 2008 when the air pollution index topped 100, a level considered unhealthy for sensitive groups including infants and the elderly. But in the second half of the year, there were only two such days.
Not all cities saw improvements. But across a sampling of seven key cities, the average number of badly polluted days halved between the first and second half of 2008.
A similar phenomenon was seen when the Soviet Union collapsed, causing the industrial haze over the Arctic to drop by nearly 50 percent, said Kenneth Rahn, an atmospheric chemist from the University of Rhode Island who has studied air quality in China.
"In principle, a reduction in economic activity can and will reduce air pollution," he wrote in an e-mail response. "I would expect something similar for China but of lesser magnitude."
During boom times, demand for electricity was so high in Guangdong's Pearl River Delta that companies often endured rotating blackouts. Some installed their own generators, which burned low-grade, dirty fuel.
But since last fall, blackouts have been few, and generators are seldom used.
Opportunity for greener technology
Environmental advocates say the downturn presents an opportunity for the government to move more aggressively to shut the dirtiest plants and enact stricter emissions regulations.
"The fact that the economy has slowed down has made it easier to stick to their plans to consolidate and close plants," said Deborah Seligsohn, director of the China climate program for the U.S-based World Resources Institute.
Seligsohn said she is encouraged by the fact that China's $586 billion economic stimulus plan includes funding for better technology and infrastructure that could benefit the environment.
In Guangdong, the slowdown could spur long-held plans to transform the region from dirty, labor-intensive manufacturing to cleaner high-tech industries.
Wang Xiaoming, director of communication for the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, said he hopes companies will take advantage of the slowdown to install more energy-efficient and cleaner technology.
"This period is an opportunity for each factory to adjust their production methods. If they were operating at full capacity, they would never have the time for this," he said.
It's advice that Xu, 59, has taken to heart as he seeks to reinvent Beijing Famed Machinery, his two-decade-old company.
With production down 75 percent this year, he has now decided to focus his energy on what had largely been a side project: making and selling machines that turn agricultural waste into what he calls "green coal" — fuel pellets that burn more cleanly than coal.
"It's up to us whether we can turn crisis into opportunity," he said. "This is a good time for our biomass product."
The longtime business owner even draws inspiration from the late founding father of communist China: "As Chairman Mao said, under certain circumstances, the bad thing can lead to a good result."
--------
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30045929/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com
1. Daniel Cheng
ReplyDelete2. PC Makers Are Failing the Environment
3. A few weeks ago I encountered an article online showing new innovative products that are "going green." A few of these products were laptops and computers, created with bamboo casing, as part of their companies' line of green products. I never knew electronic companies had the burden of creating environmentally friendly computers -- partly because I never considered what would happen when I throw away my computer.
The article uses a term I was not familiar with called "e-waste." I think what really strikes home is this line from the article: "As a result of the west's decision to export e-waste, cities such as Lagos, Nigeria, and Accra, Ghana, play home to huge toxic dumps full of discarded computers and electronic devices, where scavengers – often children – attempt to extract the metals in order to resell them."
Now I know where my old electronics are going. Pretty interesting article, especially because it says that Apple is leading the way for the green movement in computer electronics. It seems like Apple sets the standards for most things in this generation.
---------------------------------
Greenpeace has accused three of the world's biggest PC manufacturers of failing to live up to their promises to make more environmentally friendly computers.
Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Lenovo have all been singled out in a report from the environmental campaign group, which claims they have failed to deliver new machines that do not depend so heavily on toxic chemicals.
"HP, Lenovo and Dell had promised to eliminate vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from their products by the end of 2009. Now they've told us that they won't make it this year," Greenpeace said in its latest Guide to Greener Electronics report.
"The phase-out of toxic substances is an urgent priority to help tackle the growing tide of e-waste. Still, producers only go green when they feel public and consumer pressure to do so," it continued.
Indeed, computer companies are facing a different kind of pressure thanks to the recession – which analysts say has caused the biggest slump for the industry in its history.
Despite such a slowdown, however, hundreds of millions of PCs are still sold every year. In the last quarter alone, the three companies singled out by Greenpeace sold more than 30m computers around the world.
Given such high sales volumes, the use of toxic components can have a devastating environmental impact – particularly in west African countries that accept vast amounts of electronic waste from Europe and the US, in contradiction with international regulations.
As a result of the west's decision to export e-waste, cities such as Lagos, Nigeria, and Accra, Ghana, play home to huge toxic dumps full of discarded computers and electronic devices, where scavengers – often children – attempt to extract the metals in order to resell them.
Since 2006, Greenpeace has monitored companies' promises to reduce the number of toxic components and has noted a gradual improvement from many electronics manufacturers.
The Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia currently leads in Greenpeace's rankings, after keeping up with plans to reduce its CO2 emissions. The Japanese videogames company Nintendo remains bottom of the rankings for its approach to e-waste and a lack of transparency.
The PC makers lost position after pushing back plans to introduce greener products. Lenovo said its line of eco-friendly laptops would be delayed until 2010, while HP and Dell – the world's two largest computer makers – have put similar schemes on indefinite hold.
Some brands, however – including Apple and the Taiwanese manufacturer Acer – have made significant progress in reducing their long-term impact on the environment. This, said Greenpeace, should stand as an example to others.
"If Apple can find the solutions, there should be no reason why other leading PC companies can't," said Iza Kurszewska, who leads the organisation's campaign against toxics. "All of them should have at least one toxic-free line of products on the market by the end of this year."
Presented with Greenpeace's concerns, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard did not directly address the accusations. Instead, she said that "the Greenpeace report confirms that the electronics industry as a whole continues to make progress".
"For decades, HP has adopted practices in product development, operations and supply chain that are transparent and help reduce its environmental impact," she said, adding that the company would "continue its efforts".
Dell and Lenovo did not respond to requests for comment.
-----------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/01/greenpeace-criticises-hp-dell-and-lenovo-over-environment
1.Choi gue lang
ReplyDelete2. Flame Retardant Chemicals Taint All U.S. Coastal Waters
3.Since we are complexly connected to each other socially as well as environmentally, it is actually quite frightening to assume that literally 'whatever we do' indirectly affects each on of us, which, consequently, affects the entire world.
I become tremendously terrified whenever I imagine myself being indirectly affected by anything at all. However, I feel especially worse when affected by an elusive environmental problem, very particular problems which I could not even imagine before. For example if I were pregnant, I would obviously try to avoid polluted air because I am completely aware of its awful affect on my health. But I wouldn't imagine that it could be harmful to breast-feed to my baby because of consuming fish from the Florida coast, which I thought were healthy.
I mean, things which can be easily considered as trifles are sometimes not trifles at all. Moreover, they can actually be quite severe, and if I refrain from being cautious, my actions could be detrimental to my health.
------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC, April 1, 2009 (ENS) - Chemicals used as flame retardants in consumer products since the 1970s now are found in all U.S. coastal waters and the Great Lakes, with elevated levels near urban and industrial centers, according to a federal government report issued today.
The nationwide survey found that New York's Hudson-Raritan Estuary had the highest overall concentrations of the chemicals, both in sediments and shellfish, but scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found polybrominated diphenyl ethers, PBDEs, in all U.S. coastal waters.
These toxic chemicals are used as flame retardants in building materials, electronics, furnishings, motor vehicles, plastics, polyurethane foams and textiles.
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances says that the concentrations of PBDEs in human blood, breast milk, and body fat indicate that most Americans are exposed to low levels of PBDEs.
A growing body of research points to evidence that exposure to PBDEs may produce detrimental health effects in animals, including humans.
Toxicological studies indicate that liver, thyroid and neurobehavioral development may be impaired by exposure to PBDEs and they have been found to impair the immune systems of animals. These chemicals are known to pass from mother to infant in breast milk.
"This is a wake-up call for Americans concerned about the health of our coastal waters and their personal health," said John Dunnigan, NOAA assistant administrator of the National Ocean Service.
"Scientific evidence strongly documents that these contaminants impact the food web and action is needed to reduce the threats posed to aquatic resources and human health," he said.
Based on data from NOAA's Mussel Watch Program, which has been monitoring coastal water contaminants for 24 years, the new findings are in contrast to analysis of samples as far back as 1996 that identified PBDEs in only a limited number of sites around the nation.
Individual sites with the highest PBDE measurements were found in shellfish taken from Anaheim Bay, California, and four sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. This estuary, with its 650 miles of shoreline, hosts the Port of New York and New Jersey and is fed by waters from the Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic and Raritan Rivers, which drain major watersheds of New York and New Jersey.
High PBDE concentrations also were documented in the Southern California Bight, Puget Sound, the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico off the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida coast, and Lake Michigan waters near Chicago and Gary, Indiana.
PBDEs get into the environment from runoff and municipal waste incineration and sewage outflows, the report found. Other pathways include leaching from aging consumer products, land application of sewage sludge as bio-solids, industrial discharges and accidental spills.
The chemicals do not dissolve easily in water, but stick to particles and settle to the bottom of rivers or lakes.
Similar in chemical structure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, the flame retardants have raised concerns among scientists and regulators that their impacts on human health will prove equally adverse.
PBDE production has been banned in a number of European and Asian countries. In the United States, production of most PBDE mixtures has been voluntarily discontinued.
The NOAA Mussel Watch survey found that the highest concentrations of PBDEs in the U.S. coastal zone were measured at industrial and urban locations. Still, the chemicals have been detected in remote places far from major sources, which NOAA says is evidence of atmospheric transport.
People may be exposed to PBDEs from eating foods or breathing air contaminated with the chemicals, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances.
Workers involved in the manufacture of PBDEs or products that contain PBDEs may be exposed to higher levels than usual. Occupational exposure also can occur in people who work in enclosed spaces where PBDE-containing products are repaired or recycled.
"We do not know whether PBDEs can cause cancer in humans," says the Agency for Toxic Substances. "Rats and mice that ate food with decabromodiphenyl ether - one type of PBDE - throughout their lives, developed liver tumors. Based on this evidence, the EPA has classified decabromodiphenyl ether as a possible human carcinogen."
--------------------------------------
http://www.kmtr.com/news/environmental/story/Flame-Retardant-Chemicals-Taint-All-U-S-Coastal/wsj0On7ov0aDG8jbCm1SJg.cspx