Why Government Is Important: Big Brother = Big Bother??

Note:  Although I'm a registered democrat, my viewpoints are more independent and progressive (and skeptical).  I am open to debate and intelligent discussion, but NO vulgar language or finger pointing!!

Let's face it:  It's election year and the politics are charged.  No one likes being told what to do, I know that.  That's the idea behind making smaller federal governments and less regulation. 

However, I urge my readers to remember about human nature and extremes:  remember Communism (without the bad connotations)?

The idea of Communism (coming from "community") was that everyone supports each other.  A great example is a college dorm's fridge: everyone puts food in the fridge (without labeling) and then everyone takes whatever they want out.  The idea is good if everyone supplied their own product (one person only got milk, the other only got veggies, etc).  However, as we know, it didn't work that way in practice because it's precarious and risky: people fend for themselves and rarely have the larger interests in mind (at least according to today's status quo), and if one person forgets, doesn't buy, or just plain doesn't want to put something in the fridge, no one has that specific good available.

The same thing happens in American politics:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the conservatism (possible correlation with republican parties?) ideal is small government complemented by neoclassical economics:  Capitalism is our blood.   Let the markets regulate themselves due to supply and demand and let the money filter through to the consumers.  Again, in theory, it's great.  However, as we can see today and in history, corporations are only out to make money.  Period.  This is not an ethics debate; we all need money to survive.  The income inequality and uneven distribution of wealth is ethically questionable, but I'm saying how the role of government is important:  Without legal regulation, I'm sure many companies would go to great lengths to get a short term profit even if it hurts in the long run because they need the money to continue functioning.  It's not easy.  I don't say that corporations are satanists because I can understand the hard decisions they have to make.  They need money today to function tomorrow.



As a result of these tendencies to make penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions, federal regulations are needed to set limits, regulations, and incentives to help corporations function efficiently to both profit, make long-term investments in projects that will make them last (like environmentally conscious protocols that will comply with future environmental regulations that will come due to public demand sooner or later), and properly contribute to our society as a whole.

Personally, I believe a hybridization of capitalism and socialism is the best way to go (this already seems to be happening in many European countries):  Long term public needs like education, medicine, public transportation, environmental regulations, and R&D should be nationwide (socialized) and covered EQUALLY with federal subsidies, taxes, and have national standards that are supported through non-biased scientific research.  The equal coverage is crucial so people understand the true costs of a product; if oil production wasn't subsidized, I'm sure renewable energies would look much more attractive.  We just installed solar panels on our roof yesterday because it will pay off in the long run (we did the calculations). 

I believe that political corruption through lobbying and money from corporations should be publicly shunned if not illegal.  Other products made to increase standard of living (in other words, "stuff" that isn't necessary for survival) like techno gadgets, entertainment, leisure, etc should be managed by MANY small, private firms to let supply and demand regulate their efficiency and competition so they don't have so much leverage against policy-makers.  

Consumers:  Remember that YOU control the prices.  The more of a product you demand (i.e. buy), the more the market will make of it.  The less you demand it, the producers (and eventually policy and regulation) will compensate (look at cigarettes as an example).

So when we go to vote in November, remember:  keep the long term goals in mind, be skeptical, and read both sides of the issue before casting your vote!

Followup on Fracking

After reading this post, I found out that the full list of chemicals used in the fracking process can be viewed in this federal report that came out in April of 2011. 

There is also a study plan published by the EPA in November 2011where the public can learn about the fracking procedure and the EPA's plan on investigating the possible connections between fracking and water contamination

Now the public can make an informed decision on whether to support fracking or not.  Better late than never (or uninformed)!

Seriously, North Carolina? Seriously?

I am outraged about a new proposed law in North Carolina (< link to actual legal text); I feel as if this proposed law is infringing on free speech. Ok, not quite, but it is very similar. Basically it wants to limit how scientists are going to calculate sea level rises. Here's an excerpt from the bill-

The part highlighted in blue is rather disturbing to me. This proposed law wants to define how sea level rise rates can be calculated (and by whom as well).

Any data collected prior to 1900? Throw it out the window, according to this. Apparently it's not relevant. Who the heck came up with that idea? Certainly not a competent scientist. It's always in the best interest of gaining an accurate understanding of the dynamics to increase your sample size. If the data are there, why not use it?

Also notice the part about extrapolating data linearly. What if the line of best fit is exponential?

Why are lawmakers making making decisions about how to perform the scientific process? Leave the science magic to the expert scientists in the field. They know what they are doing, and the best way to do it.

Memorial Day/Birthday Camping Trip

David and I went camping this past weekend to celebrate my birthday, and it was amazing.

My first stop was to the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Driving through, I encountered a snapping turtle crossing the road. I also saw water snakes, a garter snake, painted turtles, frogs and probably the most amazing thing was this:

I think this is a crab spider....and it's trying to eat an inchworm. Pure awesome-ness.

After that I met up with David and we drove up to the School of Conservation at Stoke State Forest, in Sandyston, NJ. It's a field resource station owned by Montclair State University, and a lot of professors do research there. I've done a few small scale research projects myself there for some different classes. I ran into a doctoral student at Montclair that I know, Paola, and she was there to collect treefrogs, so David and I accompanied her that night. She caught two northern grey treefrogs.

The next day we went to High Point State Park. On the way there I encountered another snapping turtle crossing the road. I was super excited to discover once we got to the High Point Monument that the obelisk was not closed for renovation anymore, and we could climb 291 steps to the top of the obelisk. The view was breath taking!

Our next stop was to the Mountaintop Road Fossil Beds to go fossil hunting. We had trouble finding the described "outcrops of shale and light colored rocks on the ground" that were supposed to have fossils. I managed to find a large chunk of shale sticking out of the ground, and David was able to hit it against another rock to cleave it along a seam, and WE FOUND FOSSILS!!!

Later that afternoon we were exploring around the School of Conservation, and we stumbled upon two turtles who appeared to had just finished laying eggs.

And then I stumbled upon THIS:

The skeleton of some sort of canine... AWESOME!

The next day (my birthday!) we went to Tillman Ravine Nature Preserve and hiked along the stream, and then went to see Buttermilk Falls.

Buttermilk Falls

All of this in the good ol' state of New Jersey- it's not just smelly factories and guidos at the boardwalk!

An Ecological Dilemma: A New York Times Editorial Review

I came across an editorial in the New York Times this morning about deer overpopulation.  I can really see the dilemma here:  Many people love deer, yet they (the deer...and humans as well in other cases) pose a threat to forest shrubbery, which in turn has a ripple effect on the entire habitat.  In this case, the ripple is affecting birds (Warblers in this case).  As an ecologist, I agree with the author: deer overpopulation is detrimental to ecosystems and is costing the welfare of other flora and fauna in their vicinity. 

While at Rutgers, I went to Duke Farms for a Plant Ecology class and observed the barrier (fencing) method that was brought up in the editorial, which was quite effective there.  It was also interesting at how there are plants springing up at the Great Swamp that my fellow staff members thought could be invasive since they haven't seen them in a long time, but were actually native shrubbery that was growing due to lower deer populations due to hunting.  Plus I heard gunshots yesterday there as well, although very off in the distance.

Lyme Disease is supposed to be a major problem this year, and I believe that less dear leads to less deer ticks, which in turn leads to fewer cases of Lyme Disease.  Only time will tell whether that is a true hypothesis or not. 

Yes, it may be painful to see Bambi die (kudos to the author), but the same thing would happen in nature:  Overpopulation leads to depleted resources (like food), which in turn leads to starvation until the population drops below Carrying Capacity and the plants recover as well.  Since we took wolves and other natural predators out of the picture, humans are one of the few remaining biotic pressures on the deer.  Mother Nature has no concept of ethics; that's a human thing.

A Review of Aboutnaturalgas.com

Chances are, you've heard of Hydraulic Fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking".  It's a political, environmental, and social buzzword.  I read an advertisement in the New York Times that was a letter to Michelle Obama from mothers across the United States who were opposed to fracking. 

The main idea of fracking is to access natural gas deposits in the US, the spotlight is on the Marcellus Shale in the Northeastern US.  As with any action, there are unintended consequences.  I also recently saw "Gasland", the documentary that was an eye opener for me about the potential hazards of fracking.  I decided to go to the other end to see an industry's take on fracking.  Here is the main website that I accessed through ExxonMobil's website.


I know that not all industries are the same.  I know that what ExxonMobil (or at least whoever manages their website) believes may not encompass what every single person involved in natural gas drilling and extraction thinks.  As a result, I am not reviewing people, I am reviewing viewpoints, opinions, and the sources from which they are created.

After looking over the above website and a scientific paper--which is a draft dated December 2011--cited by the letter to Michelle Obama (see first link), I decided to give my feedback as well:

PLEASE NOTE:  The following is my personal review.  I have no affiliation with either side of the issue, just my informed opinion.  If you don't agree (or even if you do) with me, I'm willing (and would really like to) compare and contrast our opinions.  However, I will only tolerate civil, educated conversations and debates. 


A Review of ABOUTNATURALGAS.COM

Before review:  Slightly Skeptical, but Open
After review:  Skeptical, but Open

Things to note: I accessed this site directly through the ExxonMobil website by clicking on their "about natural gas" link.


As a scientist, I want both sides of the story.  I have the environmentalist side from the documentary "Gasland" and the letter above (plus one of the scientific papers cited in the letter:  decided to go straight to the source and get opinions from the ExxonMobil website, which led me to the site listed above.  The site begins to give a background on Natural Gas and fracking, and this is the second sentence (accessed on 5/14/2012):

"Several studies have shown that recent innovations, particularly combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling, have unlocked vast new supplies of domestic natural gas that are plentiful enough to provide 100 years of supply at current demand levels."

Where are my citations?  Where are these studies?  I'd really love to see them.

Then I went to the Technology and Process Tab and selected the hydraulic fracturing fluid link.  This is the first paragraph (accessed on 5/14/2012) on that page:

"Hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically comprised of approximately 98 to 99.5 percent water and sand and 0.5 to 2 percent chemical additives. Most of the chemical constituents that make up fracturing fluid additives can be found in common household items or in the food and drinks we consume. The chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluid are used to reduce friction and protect the rock formation, thereby making the hydraulic fracturing process safer and more efficient."

Finally, we're getting some numbers.  Notice what they are:  Percentages.  Red flag!  Percent of what?
I read on: 

"The water used in the hydraulic fracturing process typically comes from surface or groundwater sources. Water is only required for a short period during the drilling process and does not represent a long-term commitment. Local geology, geography, hydrology and other factors shape water requirements for hydraulic fracturing, but the amount of freshwater required for drilling and fracking a typical horizontal well is usually equivalent to about three to six Olympic-size (50 meters by 25 meters) swimming pools. Thousands of horizontal gas wells have been drilled and completed in and near municipalities and the water use has not been found to impact water available for residential, municipal, agricultural or industrial users."

I noticed was that they gave an analogy rather than a number to describe how much freshwater is required:  3 to 6 "Olympic-size (50 meters by 25 meters) swimming pools."

This is high school geometry:  they're giving area there, not volume.  We need volume (3 dimensions)!  So, I googled how big an olympic sized swimming pool is (50 meters by 25 meters by 2 meters (3 recommended), according to FINA, one of the associations in charge of aquatic Olympic sports.

If we do the math, that's 2500 cubic meters minimum in an Olympic sized swimming pool.  Times 3 for the minimum amount of freshwater used in fracking that is listed in the above paragraph, which is 7500 cubic meters.  0.5 percent (as cited from the previous paragraph) of 7500 cubic meters is 37.5 cubic meters of these chemicals (1 cubic meter is about 264 US gallons, so that means that there are about 9,906 US gallons of these chemicals in the fracking process, minimum, with the numbers they gave).

Also, when compared to "Gasland", these are very conservative numbers.
 


Would that be so hard to put on the website? Oh, by the way, I'd like a citation for the last sentence of that paragraph as well.

Then they list (all?) the chemicals they put into this cocktail at the bottom of the page.  If you notice, one of the columns in the chart lists "Common use of chemical ingredient".  Just because something is used in the house doesn't mean it's safe to come into contact with.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to drink any bleach or laundry detergent.  I'll pass on the rat poison too.  There are reasons for a Poison Control Center.


The site then said to visit FracFocus.org for more details on the chemicals, which I did.  This is the introductory paragraph to the list of chemicals used (accessed 5/14/12):

"As previously noted, chemicals perform many functions in a hydraulic fracturing job.  Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing.  The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.  This chart is sorted alphabetically by the Product Function to make it easier for you to compare to the fracturing records."

Notice how is written:  "The following is a list of the chemicals used most often."    I want ALL the chemicals used!  Okay, fine, I'll use other sources to find that then.  Very fishy....

This paragraph is under the Chemicals and Public Disclosure Tab (accessed 5/14/12):

"Section 313 of EPCRA authorizes EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ‡, which is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. EPA issues a list of industries that must report releases for the database. To date, EPA has not included oil and gas extraction as an industry that must report under TRI. This is not an exemption in the law. Rather it is a decision by EPA that this industry is not a high priority for reporting under TRI. Part of the rationale for this decision is based on the fact that most of the information required under TRI is already reported by producers to state agencies that make it publicly available. Also, TRI reporting from the hundreds of thousands of oil and gas sites would overwhelm the existing EPA reporting system and make it difficult to extract meaningful data from the massive amount of information submitted."

"It is a decision by EPA that this industry is not a high priority for reporting under TRI"?   What?  Citation please!  Also, the fact that the information "is already reported by producers to state agencies" is no excuse why not to publish what chemicals, let alone all of them, they use in Fracking Fluid. There are a lot of links popped onto this page.  If there are public access sites, those should be included as well in the disclosure. 

In summary, I believe that this website (aboutnaturalgas.com) is very vague and is not a good source of information for the general public to learn about fracking due to an almost bias presentation.  The site should include more details and give full disclosures and cite many of their statements.


***

You don't need to be an expert to become an expert:  Think.  Research.  Above all, be skeptical.

New author coming to Musings of a Scientist!

I am really excited to announce that we have a new author joining the ranks on Musings of a Scientist!

My friend David is a graduate of Rutgers University with a degree in Ecology. He is very passionate about educating people on environmental issues, which is why I've asked him to join me in my mission here on Musings of a Scientist.

He's already got a draft article about fracking in the works and it should be up soon.

Welcome to Musings of a Scientist, David!

The Clean Water Act- Forty Years Later

In my opinion, heavy, detrimental polluting of our waterways started with the Industrial Revolution. The dumping of industrial waste was unregulated, and lead to some severe pollution in many areas. One of the things that helped spark a revolution with water laws was in 1969, when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Yes, you read that right. The river was so polluted with oil and God knows what else that it actually caught on fire. And I was surprised to learn, from my research for this article, that the river didn't catch on fire just once. The Cuyahoga River had caught on fire nine times since 1868. I wonder why it was the fire in 1969 that broke the camel's back. Perhaps that fire came at a time when the environmental revolution was starting to pick up. After a lot of regulation and clean up, the river's water quality has improved, and the Cuyahoga river is now one of the American Heritage Rivers. And of course, there are no more fires on the river.


One of the laws inspired from the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire was the Clean Water Act. The original statute was passed in 1948, but there have been many amendments and additions (another thing I learned!); a major one and the one most people people refer to is the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Clean Water Act set quality standards for surface water and set down regulation for discharging pollutants.


So how much of an impact has the Clean Water Act had, at least here in New Jersey? 


The state's waterways are definitely better than they were, as there is no more widespread and rampant pollution, but are New Jersey's waterways clean at all? 


According to a report by the Asbury Park Press, no. Except for one that is. The Big  Flat Brook, located in Stokes State Forest in Sussex County (Funnily enough, the School of Conservation, the field station owned by my school, is also located in Stokes State Forest and really close to the Big Flat Brook) is the only waterway in New Jersey to pass all of the water quality tests. Apparently is is safe to drink after basic treatment (which I assume is to filter out the suspended solids). You can also swim in it and eat the fish with no restrictions.


I'm not saying that the Clean Water Act has been useless. It just isn't having a big enough impact. There are too many variables when it comes to things that affect water quality. All of those variables need to align correctly to ensure good water quality. And as we all probably know, Murphy's Law usually prevails. 


So what should be done to allow the maximum benefits of the Clean Water Act? First of all we need better enforcement. That proves to be tricky however, because that requires more manpower, time, and money. Perhaps we need to create incentives for offending companies to follow regulations closely?


Another thing is to stop passing stupid laws like the one that allows waivers to be granted for homeowners or businesses to pollute on a case by case basis. The law is the law, so why are we creating exceptions?


And lastly, we need more public education. Getting the masses to cooperate with environmental regulation and become aware of problems is the key to making lasting changes, in my opinion.


Sources:  Ohio History Central, Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Summary of the Clean Water Act, 

I know, I know, I'm not posting enough lately....

So sorry for the lack of posts! I just started a new job working almost full time and then with school on top of that.... I barely have time to breathe! Hopefully I can squeeze out some time to devote to writing blog posts!

Sediment Analysis of Long Swamp Creek

For my Environmental Forensics class, we have to complete a mini research project. I choose to analyze sediment from the brook behind my house, Long Swamp Creek. Long Swamp Creek is a tributary of the Toms River, and is, according to the EPA, "moderately biologically impaired." There are a number of commercial properties and housing developments. Long Swamp Creek has looked pretty yucky from time to time, and I've seen a lot of garbage in it, so I am really excited to see what fun chemicals are lurking in the sediment.

So far only a few samples have been analyzed. I can preliminarily report that there are petroleum biomarkers, or as my colleague, Kevin, put it, "it looks like you had an oil spill back there."

I'll be sure to have an update with the full details of what was found as soon as they come in!

A possible discovery?

On the left is the turtle in question, and on the right is a painted turtle.

Last week while walking my sisters home from school, a group of boys ahead of us pointed out some turtles sunning themselves on a log in the creek that flows behind my house.  I took some pictures, and was able to identify one of the turtles as an Eastern Painted Turtle, but the other turtle I was not familiar with. I consulted some websites from the NJDEP and a field guide, and had an idea of what the turtle might be, but I wasn't 100% sure. I tried not to get too excited, because I had a possible awesome discovery if I was right.

I went to my former professor who studies herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians), Dr. Lisa Hazard, and asked for her opinion. She came to the same thought as me. I also asked a doctoral student who is very familiar with turtles, and she agreed with my idea of the species.I then asked another doctoral student who did her master's thesis on the species of turtle I thought I had seen, and she also agreed. So I came to the conclusion, with about 99% certainty, that I had, in fact, seen a very old and worn Wood Turtle.

Wood Turtles are listed as threatened in the state of New Jersey, so it would be really awesome if this is actually a wood turtle.

Two days after my first sighting, I saw the turtle again, and this time, I was about to get pictures that showed some orange on the underside of the turtle, which is a characteristic of Wood Turtles. Now I was really excited. I am filling out a form for rare wildlife sightings to send to the DEP, and we'll see what they have to say.

The other cool thing is that this log is apparently a favorite place for turtles to bask in the sun, as I have seen them now a few days in a row. This is one of my favorite pictures:

I invite you all to take a look at the blog of my fellow Aquatic and Coastal Sciences major (and friend)- "An Aquatard's Misadventures and Ramblings in Hawaii." AJ, a native of New Jersey, got an awesome job as a fishery observer in Hawaii, and is blogging about his experiences there, and he's taken got lots of cool pictures, like this one:

Hiding in Plain Sight

It seems that news articles come in with regularity about new species that are discovered in places such as the remote jungles of Indonesia, or the little explored dark abyss of the ocean. It's not often that you hear of a new species being discovered in an urban area. But that is precisely what has recently happened.

A doctoral student from Rutgers University, Jeremy Feinberg, heard a frog call that he was unfamiliar with back in 2009, in Staten Island. It was similar to the well known southern leopard frog, which has a repetitive nature to its call, yet the call that the doctoral student heard was not repetitive. After lab tests and field work, Feinberg and his team of other scientists have made the conclusion that there is a new species of leopard frog among us here in the tri-state area. Genetic analysis shows that the new frog is indeed a different species, despite looking so similar to the northern and southern leopard frogs that are known to inhabit the area.

The new species, which has yet to receive a name, has a range that is believed to be within the "commuting distance to mid town Manhattan."

Picture from the NYT

Original article from the New York Times

Pufferfish Chases Laser

My fellow Aquatic and Coastal Sciences major, Christie, deserves a big thank you for originally showing me this video!

Cool Place of the Week #9- Lake Vostok, Antartica

Picture from this article.

Lake Vostok is one of about 150  subglacial lakes located in Antarctica. It is covered by over 2 miles of ice. Scientists have been trying to drill through the ice to the lake since 1998- the project has been plagued by funding shortages, equipment failures and harsh environmental condtitions (we're talking temperatures hitting -128 degrees Fahrenheit). Another big issue that slowed the project was the possibility of contaminating Lake Vostok with drilling fluids (kerosene and Freon), which has been isolated for millions of years (between 15 and 34 million years).  It is quite possible that the lake contains new life forms unknown to science. On the other hand, it's possible that the lake is devoid of life, due to its super high oxygen levels. Even if that were the case, that would make Lake Vostok the first water body on Earth to contain no life.

Russian scientists have confirmed a few days ago that they have successfully reached the lake, just before being forced to pack up for the harsh Antarctic winter.

I am really excited to see what is found. This is ground breaking science here, having possible implications for extraterrestrial life It goes without saying that I will be sure to keep you posted on any developments!


Contributing articles from: The New York Times and The Week.

Cool Animal of the Week #9- The Cane Toad

A cane toad. Picture by Tim Laman.

The Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) is native to South America, however it is most well known for the havoc they have caused in Australia. Cane toads were introduced into Australia in the 1930s as biological control for the cane beetles that were destroying the sugar cane crops. It turned out that cane toads didn't like the cane beetles and were a poor choice biological control. On the other hand, cane toads are very successful breeders and have now become a pest and nuisance in their own right. Part of their success is due to the fact that cane toads will eat anything, alive or dead. In addition, cane toads produce poison, which the predators in Australia are not adapted to, and thus are not able to keep the cane toad population in check, unlike in the cane toads' native territory. 

Here is a video that goes into much more detail about cane toads, split into 5 parts. It's actually quite entertaining (otherwise it wouldn't make it onto this blog!). My favorite part is where the little girl has a pet cane toad- that is in part 4.

Oh, The Irony....

I read an article in the newspaper the other day that I wanted to write about, and while looking for the online article to link to, I found out about a cool new tool from the Environmental Protection Agency- the 

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool. You can search for information about water pollution sources, such as what companies are polluting waterways, and the contaminants. I did a broad search for the pollution in my EPA Region (#2, which includes New York, New Jersey, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and got a list of the top ten facilities discharging contaminants (by weight), and the top 10 facilities discharging toxic contaminants. I was really surprised by who made the list:

A list of the top ten facility discharges of toxic compounds by TWPE (toxic weighted pound equivalent)
which is calculated by multiplying the compounds mass by its toxic weighting factor (each compound has a different TWF to indicate its toxicity).

Dupont is a chemical company, so I'm not surprised it made the list; Sugar Bay Plantation Resort is a hotel; AES Somerset is a coal fired power station; the rest of the entries are either waste water or sewage treatment plants. What the heck?

I went through the first ten pages of the 459 total pages that listed all of the facilities and found the following entries that I would have intuitively though would outrank a wastewater treatment plant: the General Motors Plant in Syracuse, NY; a nuclear power plant in Ontario, NY; Barceloneta Chemical Lab in Puerto Rico; and  a Bacardi Rum facility in Puerto Rico. Some of the facilities that made the top 10 are listed more than once with in the first few pages for having a top TWPE (see picture caption for an explanation) for more than one chemical.

I am so surprised to see the very facilities working towards cleaner waterways are beating out facilities like a nuclear power plant. However, looking at the top pollutant for the water treatment plants you notice that 6 of the 7 listed are discharging chlorine, which is used for disinfection.

But then why is the Tallman Island WPCP (water pollution control plant) listed on page 10 of 459 for a top pollutant of cyanide? And why is the Niagara Falls Waste Water Treatment Plant listed on page 8 for mercury? Also on page 8 is a water pollution control plant in Jamaica, NY for cyanide. The Ward's Island WPCP is on page 3 of 459 for discharging ammonia as NH3.

 But before I go on a tirade about it, I need to remember that I'm no expert in waste water treatment, and do not understand the nuances of the process. So I did some research  to double check myself and found that it is indeed possible to remove heavy metals from water, and there are a variety of methods to do so (here's a link to one way).

I know that waste water treatment can not remove all of the contaminants..... but I am flabbergasted that waste water treatment plants are among the top polluters for heavy metals and nasty chemicals. I'd like to know where the water originates from after contamination but before treatment. That may give some insight as to why these waste water treatment plants are discharging pollution. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is the size of the water body that is receiving the discharge- perhaps the actual concentrations of these contaminants in the water and sediment are not all that high.

If there is anyone out there with more knowledge on this subject, feel free to comment or email me with an explanation to this oddity, and I'll follow up on my blog with it.

An Update on "An Unusual Bacteria"

Last week I wrote an article ("An Unusual Bacteria") about a potentially ground breaking finding that a bacterium had been found to be using arsenic in its DNA structure. A few days ago I came across an article in Scientific American about a follow up study that was performed.

The follow up study grew the bacteria , GFAJ-1, in arsenic and very little phosphorus, like the methods used in the original paper. The DNA of the grown bacteria was then purified and sent off for analysis using a caesium chloride gradient and then a mass spectrometer. The results showed that no arsenic was found in the DNA.

However, these results have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, so this new finding must be taken with a grain of salt. The author of the original paper about GFAJ-1, Felisa Wolfe-Simon, countered that perhaps the caesium chloride gradient made any arsenic-containing DNA too fragile, and broke apart, and not appearing in a significant way in the results. Also, it could be argued that the follow up study did not starve the bacteria of enough phosphorus so that it would start using arsenic.

Cool Place of the Week #8- Valdez, Alaska

Valdez, Alaska, is considered to be the snowiest place in Alaska, and one of the snowiest places in the world. But even the residents of Valdez aren't used to the amount of snow they have received this winter. This winter has dumped an astonishing 322 inches of snow, or about 27 feet. This is about on par for the amount of snowfall for an entire season- and there are still many weeks left to go this winter- putting Valdez on track to break its seasonal snowfall record. This record snowfall is posing a big problem for the structures in town, as roofs are collapsing under the weight of the snow (which is reported to weigh about 112 pounds per square foot). Outside help has been brought in to help with snow removal.

- From the Anchorage Daily News

Pictures From My Research Trip To St. John

I didn't want to clutter my post describing the trip with pictures, and some pictures didn't fit well into the post without my going into a LOT of detail, so here are some of the great pictures as an addendum.

While out hiking we checked out some ruins of a house. There were tons of bats inside!

I was out snorkeling with Dr. B when I happened to look down and find myself swimming over a turtle, who was extremely photogenic. Photo credit: Dr. B.

These are the black spined sea urchins that we were doing research on. Dr. B took this picture.

On the way to camp we passed by some donkeys on the road. Other animals we came across on the road include pigs, cows and chickens.

I got my first jelly fish sting!

The iguanas were very elusive, but we were able to get up close and personal with this one, who had an injured foot and therefore couldn't run away. We fed him some lettuce and set him free.

The frogs really like hanging out in the girl's showers! This set of pictures follows the frog as he crawled up the stall!

This is another of Dr. B's pictures, of some coral and sea urchins.