Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Ten Years of the Chernobyl Era Questions

1) Why was the effected area of land "patchy"?
2) Could the substantial amount of involvement of the Kiev Institute of Endocrinology be considered suspicious? Could they have unintentionally contributed to the psychological disorders that the public experienced?
3) With what resource that we have treat the psychological disorders that the people suffered?
4) What can replace the reactor that generates 40% of Ukraine's power that is politically, religiously, and ecologically correct, while also costing the least amount as well as taking the slightest amount of time to produce?
5) Did the creators/scientists of Chernobyl use the politicians as their "dummies" in order to generate funds for the plant? If so, how could the government have a preparation plan if something were to go wrong if the scientists only disclosed fragments of their plan?

Monday, August 30, 2010

Town meeting questions

1) Would you live in the Love Canal area based on the facts given and not having a biased against the oil company?
2) Do you think that the publicity has the strongest effect on the Love Canal residents, considering that the many of the diseases were caused because of the media?
3) Since the media has moved on to other stories in the world, do you think that the residents that move into the Love Canal community would be effected as much.
4) Due to the fact that people who dwelled in Love Canal had knowledge of the contaminants in the landfill, do you think that it was just the chemicals that drew them out of their homes, or the Niagra Falls School Board that lied to them, committed fraudulence, and put people at risk of diseases?
5) Because scientists have developed their technology so much in the past decade, that they could create vaccines for the diseases that used to effect the residents in the Love Canal?

Catalyst 8/30/10

The blizzard and heavy rainfall in 1977 was the start of the leakage in Love Canal. The clay cap that was originally implanted on top of the landfill was extremely problematic and allowed the water to seep through, allowing the chemicals to resurface. This caused major health defects such as cancers, birth defects, genetic mutation, miscarriagesM liver diseases, and burns. Even though Love Canal was evacuated aside from a few residents who refused to move, the effects the chemicals had on the environment and specific ecosystems left a permanent mark. The contaminated water on the land created acidic rain. Also, it takes approximately "one shovel full of pure dioxin to annihilate all marine life in Lake Ontario. Any minute amount of the toxin is severely dangerous to all biotic forms." Due to the fact that 20,000 tons of chemicals are still buried, the toxic waste can resurface at any time, as well as seeping deeper into the earth.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Hazards of Oil Disperants

As a modern politician, their job (according to the public) is to provide obscure answers that are meant to reassure the citizens of the country without actually giving a satisfying report with solid evidence. When there is a loophole, they find it; it's their specialty. But when the White House can't deny that all of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is not cleared up, a streak of panic arises throughout the people. Along with the BP coverups, there is a lack of knowledge in the rate that the oil is degrading. Therefore, we cannot estimate the amount of time it will take to completely clean up the mess or how much goes unseen from the surface. Along with the oil is dispersants that cause cancer, mutations, respiratory issues, organ complications, and more. The combination makes for an unadaptable habitat. Additionally, the oil companies insist on spraying the dispersants in absurd amounts. Cognitively, this makes for the more dangerous factor because it is being used out or proportion, wasting money, and is poisoning the society's mind with their incorrect addresses as well as killing wildlife. No matter which is more toxic, there are now two deadly chemicals lurking under water and it is predicted that they could rise up to the surface again in the future. Unlike the spill, we are just grazing the surface of our potential by letting companies like BP control the dispersants and not supplying dedicated scientists like Susan Shaw with the proper amount of equipment to investigate the issue at hand.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

8th Grade DLC Reflection

Chemical dispersant questions:

What is the least toxic chemical dispersants?

Are there other, more Earth-friendly ways to do the job of dispersants without actually using them while still doing minimum labor?

Is there a way to create a dispersant that completely consumes the oil in the Gulf without clumping it together and creating tar balls?