bioblog: May 2011

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

BIOSOLIDS

Biosolids, more commonly, but inaccurately known as sewage sludge, are the remnants of the process of cleaning and filtering waste water. During the late 1980s, applying this material to agricultural land became popularized after new laws were passed, prohibiting dumping biosolids in water. This use of biosolids is quite controversial, but it seems to be the best choice in consideration of the economy, the environment, and the few choices we have in handling human waste.

Biosolids contain many substances (i.e. phosphorus, nitrogen) and nutrients (i.e. zinc, iron, copper) that are essential to plants and soil that they grow on. Biosolids are packed with organic materials that are a good alternative to expensive commercial fertilizer. Not only that, but it is free for farmers.

If not used as fertilizer, where else would biosolids go? They would be rid of and would harm the environment along the way. Incineration just creates more waste, deadlier and more harmful than before to humans and the earth. If the material is dumped in landfills they will just build up, but we are already running out of dump sites.

Those who oppose the use of biosolids may claim that it is dangerous and unsanitary. It is waste material, after all. But that shouldn’t be much of a concern; the material has, in fact, endured many of the same treatment processes as the tap water that you drink and crops are washed before prior to being shipped off. The biosolids and even the land that it will be put on must meet certain requirements. And just like commercial fertilizers, there are limitations for the safe amount of use of biosolids.

The governments continue to use biosolids and assure us of its safety. Some scientists say that the heavy metal content in biosolids may permanently destroy the farmers’ soil. However, they have no certainty as to how much of any metal is too much. The supposed adverse effects of biosolids have not been thoroughly and properly researched and the Environment Protection Agency says that any of the substances found in biosolids do not put humans’ health at risk. As long as the metal levels are closely monitored, this shouldn’t be much of a problem.

Since there are, admittedly, hazards of using biosolids, humans must be careful in what we do. Make sure to rid of hazardous wastes properly. Don’t assume that when you are pouring household chemicals down the drain, it will vanish forever. It will come back and affect you, and negatively. Rather, use natural and organic products. And if you must use materials such as chemicals, cooking oil, and paint dispose of them via Household Hazardous Waste Depots.

As long as we responsibly dispose of our wastes and stop thinking of them as ‘gross’ and futile material, biosolids are a great sustainable alternative for agriculture. We are ultimately the ones responsible for the quality of the biosolids, which, in turn, affect the crops we consume.

Works Cited

Renner, Rebecca. "Sewage Sludge, Pros & Cons." Mindfully.org. Mindfully, 1 Oct. 2000. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Sewage-Sludge-Pros-Cons.htm>.
"Sewage Biosolids: A Valuable Nutrient Source."omafra.gov.on.ca. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm/sewbiobroch.htm>.
Ferguson, Kevin. "'Biosolids' and Human Health." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 16 Apr. 2009. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/biosolids-and-human-health/>.
"The Problem." GreenPeace.org. Greenpeace International, 30 Nov. 2004. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/incineration/the-problem/>.
"Biosolids - Frequently Asked Questions."www.ecy.wa.gov. Department of Ecology - State of Washington. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/biosolids/faq.html>.

Images from:

Blogs I commented on:

Monday, May 9, 2011

INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE & SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Why is it that we often find it harder to do what is right? Perhaps it's laziness or indifference, but it isn't our intent to do wrong. Just one example of this is our support of industrial agriculture, as opposed to sustainable agriculture.

In short, industrial agriculture aims to produce as much crops for as little time, space, and cost as possible. However, there are other (non-monetary) costs that come with this. It has the potential to erode, contaminate, and/or damage the soil it grows on since it uses chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Animals (i.e. pigs, cows, and chickens) are factory farmed, where they are confined in a small, unkempt space, fed with growth hormones, abused, and very prone to infection of other animals’ illnesses. Plants are subject to artificial fertilizer and are genetically enhanced. Corn, rice, and wheat are called high-yielding varieties, which have been altered to grow faster, produce more usable content, and resist diseases. Also, many conflicts have risen from seed patenting, particularly from the company Monsanto. They create many genetically modified seeds and growth hormones, among other things. They sell seeds that can only be used for one season and can contaminate other non-Monsanto plants, which the farmers will have to pay for, or else they receive one of Monsanto's infamous lawsuits.

Moreover, biodiversity will decrease, traditional family farms will be rendered useless, the quality of crops and livestock will decrease, and the overall condition of the Earth will worsen. Industrial agriculture promotes selfishness, ‘superiority’, and dominance among humans. Those who support this type of agriculture claim that it is efficient, convenient, cheaply priced, healthy, and necessary to feed a rapidly growing population. It uses monoculture (where only one kind of productive crop or animal is farmed) and has caused the extinction of some species. What once consisted of a simple life on a modest farm has now become a corporate-fuelled, vapid business.

On the other hand, sustainable agriculture works to have a somewhat symbiotic relationship between nature and humans. Through sustainable agriculture, farmers are paid fairly, animals are treated properly, food quality is better, and soil is healthier (due to planting different crops on it, livestock grazing, and natural crop-protecting organisms).

Going back to the issue of the need to provide for a rapidly growing world, some people predict that there will be a food shortage in the near future if we don’t use industrial agriculture. This is false because there is a way to maintain sustainable farmlands so they gradually become as productive as those of the industrial kind.

All this being said the majority of us continue to support industrial agriculture when we buy food from grocery stores and supermarkets. Until corporations and politicians make a change, things will continue going downhill. We can start supporting sustainable agriculture by purchasing responsibly (i.e. from health food stores, farmer's market, etc.). The food may cost slightly higher, but what’s a few more dollars when it’s for the sake of our planet and well-being?

Works Cited

"Sustainable Agriculture." NationalGeographic.com. National Geographic. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/sustainable-agriculture/>.
Cohen, Benjamin. "Industrial Agriculture v. Sustainable Agriculture : The World's Fair." ScienceBlogs.com. Science Blogs, 12 May 2009. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2009/05/industrial_agriculture_v_susta.php>.
"The Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture: Myth One | | AlterNet." AlterNet.com. AlterNet, 22 Aug. 2002. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://www.alternet.org/story/13900/>.
"Industrial Agriculture: Features and Policy." UCSUSA.org. Union of Concerned Scientists, 17 May 2007. Web. 9 May 2011. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/industrial-agriculture-features.html>.
Grover, Sami. "Diversity Is Key to Sustainable Farming, So Why's It So Damn Hard?" TreeHugger.com. Tree Hugger, 6 May 2011. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/diversity-key-sustainable-farming.php>.
Broder, John M. "Prince Charles Speaks Out Against Factory Farming - NYTimes.com." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 4 May 2011. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/the-sustainable-prince/?partner=rss>.

Images from:

Blogs I commented on:

Thursday, May 5, 2011

DESIGNER BABIES

In theory, genetically modifying babies would seem to be a great advancement for humankind. We could have a near-Utopian world. People would be perfect; they would all be healthy and no one ‘ugly’. Preexisting health complications could be cured by ‘designer babies’. However, the definition of ‘perfect’ is differs from person to person. And not only that, but becoming so would be quite expensive. The course of humankind would change, disrupting our natural way of adapting and evolving.

This topic has stirred up much controversy, and no one seems to agree with anything. People worry that the value of humans will descend to existing merely as resources. Others worry about the misuse of this powerful technology. Even those who are for genetic modification have differences of opinions. Some disagree with modifying embryos to choose its physical appearance, while others think it should be acceptable.

To create what is called a ‘designer baby’, in-vitro fertilization is used. Each one ranges from $7,750 to $12,250 in Canadian dollars. Some parents want to diagnose any possible disorders, so they must also pay for a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis at $4,000 each. The total could go up to $30,000. Clearly, only the wealthy will be able to genetically modify their children, furthering the divide that separates the ideal, beautiful, rich of people from the middle- and lower-class people.

Parents who have a baby and use it to save another child will always be questioned for their true intentions. Most likely, the ‘designed’ person will have emotional and existential problems. It shouldn’t be legal to take parts from a someone’s body without his or her matured, thought-out consent.

Then there are parents who want to control the physical outcome of their children, for cosmetic and aesthetic purposes. I see this as something along the lines of plastic surgery for your unborn baby (an exaggeration, I know). Preference of appearance, and most other things, is subjective. You may want your child to feel beautiful, so you give it blond hair and blue eyes. But what if he or she grows up wanting brown hair and green eyes? In any case, no one will ever be fully satisfied with themselves.

To those who have the resources/cash, genetic modification will probably be tempting. I hope they take the aforementioned issues into consideration. I do, however, think it would be helpful in removing fatal disorders in embryos. In other cases I believe that this just promotes inequality, and do we really need any more of that in this society?

References:

Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired.com. Wired Magazine, 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/>.
"Designer Babies - for Love or Science?" MindMagazine.com. Mind Magazine. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.mindmagazine.com/story/designbaby.htm>.
"Screening Could Create 'designer Babies'" CTV. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101108/bc_ctv_investigates_making_babies_5_101108/20101116?hub=BritishColumbiaHome>.
Keim, Brandon. "The First Genetically Modified Human Embryo: Advance or Abomination?"Wired.com. Wired Magazine, 12 May 2008. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/the-first-genet/>.
"The Costs of Fertility Treatments in Canada." BabyCenter Canada. Baby Center. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.babycenter.ca/baby/familyfinance/cost-of-fertility-treatments/>.

Images from:

Blogs I commented on: