On the morning of the 20th of January, our AP Environmental class was visited by Kent Armstrong. A local of Andover, New Hampshire, Kent was very happy about coming to talk to us about a subject he is currently involved in, Bioremediation. Throughout the time he talked to us, we learned that he had spent 35 years working in Site Assessments for building projects, bioremediation, and environmental evaluations. It was quite interesting to hear someone talk who is so knowledgable about this subject and had such a keen interest.
He went on to talk about how our hazardous waste was mucking up the environment because we did not dispose of it correctly. The effect of these byproducts are causing a serious disruption in the ecosystems, not only here but everywhere. It is quite awful that we cannot make sure that our waste does not reach these areas.
As he went through his presentation, he talked about how the Chemical Age began. Starting in the 40s, companies began to try and convince people that these chemicals that they were making were vital in their lives. And because at this time there were no real regulations against these chemicals being made, it allowed them to simply test it themselves and, because it was their product, they were biased and would warp the results to be in their favor.
When the companies did this, it allowed chemicals that are incredibly harmful to be introduced into our everyday lives. The toxicology of these chemicals showed that many of them were carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive impacts. This meant that not only were people being poisoned themselves but they were passing these chemicals onto their children and they were causing birth defects.
Now, think. If these chemicals are harming us to this degree, what are they doing to our ecosystem. Just the fact that in each gram of topsoil, there is 20,000 species of organisms means that not only do these chemicals affect the small insects and herbivores but all those that eat them. These chemicals are not only coming from our home furnishings but they are being fed through the food chain. It is a tragedy that these chemicals are allowed to be in our daily lives. They are in what we eat, what we wear, what we sleep in and on. We need to get better control over these dangerous chemicals and the waste that we put out.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Toxic Hot Seat
While watching the movie, Toxic Hot Seat, in AP Environmental Science late last week, our class learned about the harmful chemicals in our home furnishings. These chemicals are touted as "flame retardants" or chemicals that would slow fire growth and spread so that people would have extra time to get away from the fire. Yet, these chemicals are incredibly harmful and can and have caused cancer. There are many people, especially firemen, who have been diagnosed with types of cancer like Transitional Cell Carcinoma. These chemicals are showing up in nearly everyone, young and old. Mothers who are breastfeeding are practically feeding these chemicals to their children. These chemicals are extremely dangerous and yet, the chemical companies are still pushing for them to be necessary in home furnishings.
The spread of these chemicals in our furnishings began in the 1970s, when cigarettes were causing a large amount of fires in houses. To combat these fires, the tobacco companies developed a self-extinguishing cigarette that would be safer than their previous cigs. Yet, they complained that they could not create a cigarette that people would want to smoke that would have this added benefit. So, to combat this unwillingness to make the cigarettes safer, furnishing companies began to put chemicals into the foam that they used to make the furniture. After many tests, these companies began to use it more and more and finally a law was passed in California called Tb117, a law that required every new furnishing produced in California was required to have these chemicals in them. Because of this, the companies that made the furniture decided that, instead of making special foam just for California, they would simply make all their foam with this chemical in it.
One of the tests that was conducted to conclude the effectiveness of the chemicals was done by Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert in the subject of fire science and technology and the first to get a PhD in fire protection. He conducted tests by burning the foam from a non-Tb117 foam couch and the foam that contained the chemical. Yet, the foam that contained the chemical had been treated by a NASA regulated chemical that was never used in regular furniture. His tests showed that the chemicals did help retard the growth of the flame but only by very little. He was not a fan of the retardants because of the toxins. He said in the movie when asked about the chemicals that, "they provided a slight benefit but there were more toxins." When his research came into the hands of the people fighting for Tb117, however, the data was distorted. They used his research to further their goals and did not take into account the fact that these chemicals were very toxic to humans. Babrauskas was adamant about the fact that his research had been skewed to help the chemical companies and wanted to state that his intentions and the intentions of those in his profession did not want to cause harm.
After decades of these chemicals being in our furniture, we have started to see the affects. People are discovering them in their bodies and they have been found to cause cancer. Firemen, activists and politicians all banded together to fight the use of these chemicals in the late 2000s and early 2010s but mostly to no avail. The chemical companies even created a group to help further their claims that these chemicals were needed but after investigation by the Chicago Tribune, this group was found to only have 3 members, all of which were big chemical companies who supplied the flame retardants. After a long fight, these people have made significant headway in the fight against these flame retardants.
In conclusion, I believe that these chemicals are so harmful that they should have no place in our daily lives. They may provide the extra moments needed to escape a fire but they are not worth the risk of infecting our population with these terrible chemicals. It is simply deplorable that, even after they have been proven harmful, that people keep fighting for them to be put into all of our furniture. These chemicals need to be removed and replaced by something that would protect against fire but not hurt us in the process.
The spread of these chemicals in our furnishings began in the 1970s, when cigarettes were causing a large amount of fires in houses. To combat these fires, the tobacco companies developed a self-extinguishing cigarette that would be safer than their previous cigs. Yet, they complained that they could not create a cigarette that people would want to smoke that would have this added benefit. So, to combat this unwillingness to make the cigarettes safer, furnishing companies began to put chemicals into the foam that they used to make the furniture. After many tests, these companies began to use it more and more and finally a law was passed in California called Tb117, a law that required every new furnishing produced in California was required to have these chemicals in them. Because of this, the companies that made the furniture decided that, instead of making special foam just for California, they would simply make all their foam with this chemical in it.
One of the tests that was conducted to conclude the effectiveness of the chemicals was done by Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert in the subject of fire science and technology and the first to get a PhD in fire protection. He conducted tests by burning the foam from a non-Tb117 foam couch and the foam that contained the chemical. Yet, the foam that contained the chemical had been treated by a NASA regulated chemical that was never used in regular furniture. His tests showed that the chemicals did help retard the growth of the flame but only by very little. He was not a fan of the retardants because of the toxins. He said in the movie when asked about the chemicals that, "they provided a slight benefit but there were more toxins." When his research came into the hands of the people fighting for Tb117, however, the data was distorted. They used his research to further their goals and did not take into account the fact that these chemicals were very toxic to humans. Babrauskas was adamant about the fact that his research had been skewed to help the chemical companies and wanted to state that his intentions and the intentions of those in his profession did not want to cause harm.
After decades of these chemicals being in our furniture, we have started to see the affects. People are discovering them in their bodies and they have been found to cause cancer. Firemen, activists and politicians all banded together to fight the use of these chemicals in the late 2000s and early 2010s but mostly to no avail. The chemical companies even created a group to help further their claims that these chemicals were needed but after investigation by the Chicago Tribune, this group was found to only have 3 members, all of which were big chemical companies who supplied the flame retardants. After a long fight, these people have made significant headway in the fight against these flame retardants.
In conclusion, I believe that these chemicals are so harmful that they should have no place in our daily lives. They may provide the extra moments needed to escape a fire but they are not worth the risk of infecting our population with these terrible chemicals. It is simply deplorable that, even after they have been proven harmful, that people keep fighting for them to be put into all of our furniture. These chemicals need to be removed and replaced by something that would protect against fire but not hurt us in the process.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Two Mountains Farm
On the cold and very windy afternoon of October 24th, our APES class visited Kat Darlin, a Proctor Alumni who was running the Two Mountains Farm, who agreed to show us around and teach us about her style of farming. She is an organic farmer but her system is not permaculture (not a closed circle) and she grew crops, had 8 lambs (only 3 now) and about 150 chickens. The property the farm is on is 55 acres and, although she does not own it, Kat has been living and working there for 8 years.
On our tour of the farm, Kat pointed out many things to us and told us about the ways she ran her farm. When she brought us by the farmhouse, she described it as the "gateway of the farm." She uses it to bring produce and animals in and out of the farm. She uses the animals as partners in the farm, for example the sheep were like lawn mowers for her. She would let them loose and they would eat all the grass that was covering her planting areas. She didn't use petroleum machinery because as an organic farmer, she believed in using the land and the animals on it to maintain the land. She also grew rhubarb, spinach and oats, all of which do not take too much away from the ground.
The hill that the farm is on is a very challenging area in which to farm. The land is in conservation easement. She mows free every crop 1 time a year so that wildlife (insects, birds) to keep the pressure down on her crops. A huge threat to the crops are the flea beetles who chew up crops, destroying the buds. To fight them off, Kat uses remay, a fabric barrier, to cover it instead of using chemicals. But a few years she did not lay down the remay fast enough and this made it so the beetles were able to get to the crops.
Like many organic farms, Kat has to manage both the wildlife and the crops that she wants to cultivate. It was very difficult and Kat never had anyone working with her full time. This caused her to burn out and she is now moving.
The hoop houses on the lot are unheated and used for seedlings. The houses keep the area inside warmer as it keeps the weather out. Apart from this, Kat has a green house and covers her crops so that they are protected from the frost, which will kill the crops if left without protection. She also has to keep a tab on all abiotic factors, like the seasons, and know the seasons that the crops grow in and how long they take to grow. In this harsh New Hampshire climate, there are only really 5 months of growing weather.
To maintain soil health, Kat makes sure not to use crops that take too many nutrients out of the ground. By using drip tape, water can be delivered consistently to the plants. The animals' droppings make the soil more fertile and reuses organic matter and tills it back into the soil. She also uses cover crops to give nitrogen back to the land.
The wind is another factor Kat has to take into account. She has to preserve her covers with weights and keep the trash away from the plants. Wind is also not good because it carries germs and bugs that could cause a blight on the crops. It can also carry seeds, which form seed banks, and spores, which create weeds. All of the abiotic challenges pose the biggest threat to a grower, especially weeds. Weeds take the nutrients and space from the crops.
On our tour of the farm, Kat pointed out many things to us and told us about the ways she ran her farm. When she brought us by the farmhouse, she described it as the "gateway of the farm." She uses it to bring produce and animals in and out of the farm. She uses the animals as partners in the farm, for example the sheep were like lawn mowers for her. She would let them loose and they would eat all the grass that was covering her planting areas. She didn't use petroleum machinery because as an organic farmer, she believed in using the land and the animals on it to maintain the land. She also grew rhubarb, spinach and oats, all of which do not take too much away from the ground.
The hill that the farm is on is a very challenging area in which to farm. The land is in conservation easement. She mows free every crop 1 time a year so that wildlife (insects, birds) to keep the pressure down on her crops. A huge threat to the crops are the flea beetles who chew up crops, destroying the buds. To fight them off, Kat uses remay, a fabric barrier, to cover it instead of using chemicals. But a few years she did not lay down the remay fast enough and this made it so the beetles were able to get to the crops.
Like many organic farms, Kat has to manage both the wildlife and the crops that she wants to cultivate. It was very difficult and Kat never had anyone working with her full time. This caused her to burn out and she is now moving.
The hoop houses on the lot are unheated and used for seedlings. The houses keep the area inside warmer as it keeps the weather out. Apart from this, Kat has a green house and covers her crops so that they are protected from the frost, which will kill the crops if left without protection. She also has to keep a tab on all abiotic factors, like the seasons, and know the seasons that the crops grow in and how long they take to grow. In this harsh New Hampshire climate, there are only really 5 months of growing weather.
To maintain soil health, Kat makes sure not to use crops that take too many nutrients out of the ground. By using drip tape, water can be delivered consistently to the plants. The animals' droppings make the soil more fertile and reuses organic matter and tills it back into the soil. She also uses cover crops to give nitrogen back to the land.
The wind is another factor Kat has to take into account. She has to preserve her covers with weights and keep the trash away from the plants. Wind is also not good because it carries germs and bugs that could cause a blight on the crops. It can also carry seeds, which form seed banks, and spores, which create weeds. All of the abiotic challenges pose the biggest threat to a grower, especially weeds. Weeds take the nutrients and space from the crops.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Our Pond's Health
1. General purpose:
Our pond, which is located in middle of our campus, is an important part of the overall health of our local ecosystem and the river watershed. The General Purpose of the Campus Pond Water Quality Assessment is to understand its current water quality. By comparing the Diversity Index and data collected this year to those from previous year, both chemical and biological data, we can inspect the trend of our water’s health and find evidences for changes in the pond, therefore, we can conclude answers and have solution for negative transformations of our pond and the outflow of it, the swamp.
- Check if the pond is clean and clear by
+ chemical test
+ observation
+ biotic ( animal lives in the system )
- Hypothesis: If the abiotic and biotic factors change in a negative fashion, then the changing landscape surrounding the pond has caused the changes.
2. Material used:
- Camera (from iPhone and iPad)
- Net
- Bucket and Tray
- Sampling Tubes
- Spoons
- Magnifying Lens
- Pipette
- Physical Test:
- Temperature ( “ name ” )
- Turbidity
- Chemical Test:
- pH
- Phosphate
- Nitrogen
- Dissolved oxygen
3. Method ( picture )
First, we did observation of the sites for a few minutes and did our chemical test right away before stirring the site. We followed the procedure of chemical test from the LaMotte water test
which is included on the pictures we had.
We poured some pond water into the bucket. Next, we used the net and tried to dig and stir the dirt at the bottom of the pond. Then, we reused the net to get the water, which was already mixed with dirt. Then, took the dirt we had into the bucket of water. Leave it until everything in the bucket settle down, then observe closely to animals inside there. Use pipette to take small animals such as fishfly, caddisfly to sampling tube for more details. Then record number of individuals of each animals had found. repeat the procedure again in the next classes.
4. Clips + Photos
We tested the water at Site 1, which was an inflow. The water that was coming into our area was from the parking lot and much of the drainage throughout campus. The area was surrounded by trees and there was grass growing in the water. It was muddy and there were many rocks, varying in size and were of a sandy color. The water itself was very clear and we could see many organisms living there. Each day, the temperature of the air varied but the water stayed at a consistent temperature. It was only windy and cold on Saturday and the other days were relatively warm.
5. Chemical data:
- Saturday
- Temperature:
- Air: 9.5 C
- Water: 12 C
- pH: 7
- Phosphates: 1
- Nitrates: 0, 0
- Organisms found: none
- Monday
- Temperature:
- Air: 17 C
- Water: 12C
- Nitrates: 0,0
- Turbidity: 10
- Dissolved Oxygen: 0
- Organisms found:
- Frog (x3)
- Hellgrammite (x1)
- Fishfly (x1)
- Mayfly Nymph (x1)
- Tuesday
- Temperature
- Nitrates: 0,0
- Turbidity: close to 0
- Dissolved Oxygen: 0
- Organisms:
- Dragonfly nymph (x2)
- Caddisfly (x1)
- Mosquito Larva (x1)
- Aquatic Worm (x1)
Map of the pond from google maps with Adam’s hand writing :D
Diversity Index
|
Total number of species
| |
2007
|
19.309
|
168
|
2008
|
15.4
|
122
|
2010
|
11.76
|
193
|
2012
|
7.26
|
134
|
2013
|
10.184
|
279
|
Table 1: The campus pond’s Diversity Index and Total Number of Species from 2007 to 2013.
Calculation about the Pollution Tolerance Index: Our Water Quality Score is 52.2 which is higher than 40 which prove that the diversity of animals in our pond is high and the pond is a good environment for different animals to live in, especially to those which sensitive to polluted water.
2007
|
2008
|
2010
|
2012
|
2013
| |
Aquatic worms
|
6
|
5
|
12
|
3
|
14
|
Leeches
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
17
|
Midge Larvae
|
10
|
10
|
5
|
4
|
7
|
Snails
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
Table 2: Number of some tolerant species from 2007 to 2013
6. While looking at the data we collected, we had to scrutinize and discuss our results and compare our data the years before to find trends, figure out any errors we made and possible variables that affected the trends. The diversity index of this year, 2013, was 10.184. To figure this out, we calculated the total number of individuals, divided the number of each organism we found by the total number, square that number and then add up all of our results to find the diversity index. Looking at past numbers, we can see that our year was not in accordance to the declining trend in the diversity index from 2007 to 2012. The results of our data collection may have been affected by the fact that we had 6 sites whereas there had been fewer in the past.
The area around the pond has also changed with the addition of two turf fields. This addition may cause a spike the levels of nitrates and phosphates which may cause the diversity in the pond to drop. This can mean that indicator species populations, like mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, etc., could drop as a result, allowing the more pollution tolerant species to thrive.
7. Although there have been findings that would suggest a decline in the diversity of the pond, this years results paint a picture that the pond is in good health. The chemical tests all came back within the healthy levels that are expected in any water system, the pH was 7, the Nitrates were 0,0 and the Phosphates were under 3 every time. The water seemed clean and there was an abundance of life in the pond, ranging from lilypads to Hellgrammites. Seeing that there were a large amount of indicator species in the water, this further helps the belief that the water is healthy.
I believe that the pond is healthy, not only because of its chemical wellbeing but because it has a lot of life. Our class saw a large amount of indicator species, and even though frogs are not the greatest indicator, the fact that they are there means that they have tadpoles in the pond which are pretty good indicators of water health. I do believe that we made some mistakes in our testing of the dissolved oxygen in the water as it always came up negative but seeing as there was life inside of the area that we were testing.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
DAT WATERSHED SHTUFF
Materials:
-Net
-Camera
-Phone
-Thermometer
-Chemical tests
SITE 1
Getting off the bus by the covered bridge and the rail trail, we gathered our gear and walked to site one, which is part of the Blackwater River. As we walked, Alan, our teacher, was telling us about the observations we should be making (following the ABCDEEs). While we walked, we looked for things that should not be there and hypothesized about what their effect on the water would be. When we got to the site, Alan told us, "you can only tell upstream health from the area you are at, not the down stream" We took air temperature (19 C) and then water temperature (15 C). The pH was neutral at 7 and turbidity, nitrates and phosphates were all at 0. In conclusion, the water at Site 1 is healthy.
SITE 2
Once we were done with our tests at Site 1, it was back to the bus for us to head to Site 2. As we drove, we noticed that there were many houses and a construction site near Site 2. They all could possibly affect the health of the water because there could be waste and debris from the houses and the construction that could get into the water. After disembarking from the bus, we headed to a little beach area with many stones to collect our next set of data. The air temp. was 20.2 C and the water was 15.8 C, and since water does not change temperatures quickly, this .8 of a degree was a big change. Grabbing the chemical tests, we proceeded to test the pH(7), Nitrates(0), Turbidity(0) and finally Phosphates(0). Like the water at Site 1, this was healthy. After running these tests, we looked around the area for wildlife. Some walked into the water while others took to picking up rocks and flipping them over. Alan, who had been showing us the life that was under the rocks, picked up a rock and underneath found one of the biggest Stoneflies he had ever seen. By the end of our venture at site 2, we had found some angry, but cute, crawfish and we found these green orbs that we could not identify. This place was healthy.
SITE 3
Site 3 was situated at a dam at the edge of a lake. The water was coming out from a large pipe in the middle of the dam and the area that it flowed into was very rocky. The air temperature here was 21.9 C, and the water was 18.4 C. The temperature of the water, which was 3.4 degrees higher than our first site, was most likely due to the fact that water changes temperature very slowly and the water on the top of the lake was warmer due to being exposed to the sun more fully. The pH at this site was 6.5, slightly acidic but is the most ideal pH. The Turbidity was a 0, the Phosphates were at a 1(which is within the healthy limit) and the Nitrates were 0. We found frogs, stoneflies in this area.
SITE 4
Site 4 was the lake itself. The air temperature was 22.6 C and the water was 18.8 C. The pH, Turbidity, Phosphates and Nitrates were all the same as Site 3. After we conducted all of our tests, it was swim time!!!!
Conclusion: The watershed that we observed today is healthy and seems to be thriving. Our expert group was very adept and there was very little if any error made while we tested each site.
Videos!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)