Is autism affected by pollution?

 http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/27/autism-and-air-pollution-the-link-grows-stronger/ 

Autism and Air Pollution: The Link Grows Stronger

           

           Autism is a disorder that has confused people because it does not have a know cause. A scientist in California saw a correlation between a rise in autism and more pollution in the air. In the top 25% most polluted places people were more likely to be diagnosed than people in the bottom 25% of most polluted. Data collected today shows the biggest environmental factor in regards to autism is pollution in the air. The effects of pollution begin before children can even breathe on their on. Mothers are more likely to have a child born with this disorder if they live with in 1,000 feet off a freeway during pregnancy. Additionally, when studies took into account parents’ race, ethnicity, education and smoking status; the results where virtually unchanged.  The researchers believe that the way pollution contributes to the disorder of autism is that the pollution effects neurological functioning and inflammation of the brain. It is stressed throughout the article that this in not a singular contributor to autism. There are many other environmental and genetic factors that should be explored.

Reflection

My brother has autism. I would really like to know why he got autism and I did not if we were being exposed to the same amount of pollution at the same time. I think that this theory is something that should be explored more and people should always be looking for an explanation as to why there is increase in autism diagnose.

Question

1)      Do you believe that this study is showing accurate results?

2)      Do you agree with the statement that an increase in pollution has caused an increase in the number of people with autism?

3)      Do you think laws should be put in place to stop or decrease the pollution that may be causing the increase of autism?

 

Pulling Carbon Dioxide Out of Thin Air

Title: "Pulling Carbon Dioxide Out of Thin Air"

Author: Anne Eisenberg

Publication: The New York Times

Date: January 5, 2013

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/pilot-plant-in-the-works-for-carbon-dioxide-cleansing.html   

Summary:

Pulling carbon dioxide out of thin air? This sounds a little crazy, but not to some Canadian scientists who are part of the Carbon Engineering Company. Created with a $3.5 million grant from Bill Gates, the company is building a pilot plant to harness carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and use it for possible fuel. Hopefully, by 2014, this plant will be finished and up and running, reducing the carbon footprint of the world. If the cost of this carbon dioxide is used for fuel and lowers its price range of $20-$2,000 a ton to $20-$100 a ton, it would increase the carbon dioxide fuel popularity.  However, until the actual testing of the collection of the gas is performed, we will not know the risks of the process. The pilot plant needs to be up and running in the next few years. The hope is to collect 100,000 tons of gas each year. The average car driver exhausts about five tons a year. Wherever the plant is, it could collect emissions from everywhere on Earth. This is the beauty of the process.

The building of the pilot plant in Canada.

Opinion:

I think that this plan to harness carbon dioxide is great because there is so much of it in the atmosphere and it could be put to good use. It would also help lower the oil dependency in the United States, as the oil reserves, on average, have about 43 years left. We need to start looking at alternative ways to power our cars. If people are not sold on electric cars, this gives them a more natural fuel source, because it is almost the same as gasoline, only it is carbon dioxide.

Questions:

1. Would you purchase this carbon dioxide fuel if you were driving?

2. If you were the United States government, would you allow the building of these carbon dioxide processing plants if the pilot plant was a success? Why or why not?

3. What is your opinion on this type of fuel?

Title: Air pollution in notoriously polluted Beijing at dangerous levels that are expected to linger

Author: The Washington Post 

Date: Saturday, January 12th, 2013

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/air-pollution-in-beijing-reaches-dangerous-levels-and-is-expected-to-linger/2013/01/12/9a0cd9c4-5c9d-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

        Ever since Beijing, China started keeping records of their air quality a little over a year ago, recently, the air quality is the worst it has ever been. The highest level is color coded as Maroon, or Hazardous, and the particulate count for that level is between 301-500 micro grams per cubic meter. When The Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center measured the AQI on Friday, some monitoring systems were picking up readings upward of 700 micro grams per cubic meter, which is extremely hazardous to human health, due to the fact that it damages lungs. By Saturday at 8 PM, a reading of 886 was recorded, which is off the charts. The government is expecting  these conditions to continue into next week, and advising people to stay indoors. A major source of this pollution is due to the heavy reliance on burning coal for power. Many authorities are blaming foggy weather for the amount of build up of pollutants. 

I think the government should try to evacuate the area because of how dangerous surface level ozone can be for you, especially in very high amounts, like the ones that the citizens of Beijing are being exposed too.

Questions:

1.) What is a possible way to "clean the air" naturally?

2.) What would you do if you were in the government's position?

Genetically Modified Apples

Title: “That Fresh Look, Genetically Buffed”

Author: Andrew Pollack

Publication: The New York Times

Date: July 12, 2012

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business/growers-fret-over-a-new-apple-that-wont-turn-brown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Summary:

A relatively small company named Okanagan Specialty Fruits is working on a compelling breakthrough in the world of food. Their fruit of choice is apples. They have genetically modified an apple to eliminate bruising on its shipping and travels and to eliminate the browning of apple slices. The problem is getting this amazing feat approved by the people of the United States, government organizations, and other fruit companies. Most Americans have been eating genetically modified foods since the 1990’s, but this was mainly processed foods. If this apple is approved, it would be the first fruit on the market to be genetically modified. Okanagan is holding a 60-day comment period for the people of the United States on what they would do if the apples hit the market. Known as Arctic Apples, these apples would be controversial to the exportation of this fruit to other countries. Countries could be confused on what apples are genetically modified or not, and refuse to buy the product from the United States. Even though the apple gene is just an added gene from another apple, people are still questioning the safety of the fruit. Okanagan sent the fruit to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which is not necessary for the genetically modified foods. With these new forms of apples comes the environmental factor; will other apple farms receive the unwanted gene? A company in Washington State has started the production of these new Arctic Apple farms, under a permit of course, so the food will be ready by the time the apples are approved, hopefully. But, once this gets approved and a lot of money is made, those companies who were against the apples will not be against them anymore.

This shows an exagerrated image for a genetically modified organism. 

http://www.sweettaterblog.com/2010/12/03/gm-apples-up-for-approval/ 

Opinion:

                I believe that we should allow the use of these apples, but more research needs to be done. We need to know that the apples will cause no harm to the human population or the ecosystem around them. Also, we must make sure that dependent organisms are not affected by this change in apples, whether it would be directly from the trees, or from the wasted apples that are bruised. America needs this apple because many people like me do not eat an apple if it is brown or bruised badly. Many Americans think this way, and that is why America should approve this apple, for the good of the human population.

Questions:

1. Would you approve the production and selling of these Arctic Apples? Why or why not?

2. Do you eat apples that are brown or bruised? Why or why not?

3. Would you buy these apples if they were approved?

4. Would you buy these apples from the U.S. if you were an international country? Why or why not?

Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Title: Exploring the future of sustainable and renewable energy

Author: Greener Ideal

Date: December 14th, 2012

Link: http://www.greenerideal.com/alternative-energy/1214-exploring-the-future-of-sustainable-and-renewable-energy/

               The article that I read was on renewable and sustainable energy, and how that could easily be the main source of  this countries energy in the next 10 years. The sources of energy that we are using now, such as oil, is not a sustainable resource and the earth will eventually run dry and not produce it anymore, and this is a major crisis because of the United States' dependency on foreign oil. We need a way to power our houses, and cars and offices, so there needs to be a "back-up plan" for when this actually happens. Some ways this country is making "greener" energy choices is by harnessing power from hydroelectric dams, geothermic, solar and wind energy. These are much cleaner, more environmentally, and safer options then oil, coal or nuclear power. We are hoping that eventually these greener options become our sustainable energy source since they reduce our environmental impact and are renewable.

Above is two photos showing how Hydroelectric Dams and Geothermal Power is harnessed and used.

Opinion:

     I believe that we really need to start using energy sources that can be renewed and can sustain us in the long run, because Earth's resources are very limited, and we are burning through the supply very quickly. We need something that will quench the world's need for energy and using Earth's renewable sources instead of non-renewable sources is a great way to do it. 

Questions:

1.) What renewable energy source do you believe will power the United States in the future?

2.) What are your personal thoughts on renewable / sustainable energy?

3.) Have you ever seen solar panel, a hydroelectric dam, or a wind turbine?

Is a Family Farm Better

Lauver: Family farming -- an American tradition that must be preserved

By Andrew Lauver,

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1a9d0ffc-3ffa-11e2-80ac-0019bb2963f4.html

This Article talks about the importance of keeping the family farm. One of the great things about working in a place like this is that it makes the family so much stronger. There are siblings working right next to each other as a team... long ago most people use to live on a farm. Now only about 2% of Americans live on a farm. Soon that number will drop again because the average age of a farmer is 57, not many more years for them to keep the businesses open.  When it come to the new generation replacing their parent there are many things that make this very difficult. One thing is that is making it hard when the children try to plan a future for the land is they often do not agree about what to do with the land. They can sometimes make $20,000 an acre if they sell it. If the family keeps the land, the taxes are a huge burden on the children. To help the family out there are some organizations that will help but not many. To operate a farm it can cost up to one million dollars to set it up and that will make it just reach industry level. A way to help this cause is to education people on this matter. In addition, the government needs to help the family farms. Hopefully, if both of these things are done the agriculture lifestyle can become more popular.

     

  Then                                                       Now

Opinion
I think that it would be great to have a family farm but it is just not practical for the size of our nation’s population for family farms to be the only option. The small family farm is good to serve a family, a community and local manufactures but it is not a good way to feed the country. I also do not agree with factory farming. I think that animals should not be treated as they are in factory farms. It would be good if we could mix the two and have a farm where animals get great care and make enough food to feed a nation as big as America. The use of GMOs on factory farms makes them suitable for producing the majority of the nation’s agriculture but small farms offer safe and humane ways for livestock to live. Perhaps a blending of these two ideas would allow both institutions to succeed.

Questions
What is a benefit of Factory farm?
Should the government be helping in your option?
Which farming is the best to be the major was to farm?