Biosolids!

So what are biosolids?

Biosolids are mostly organic solids resulting from the treatment of wastewater that have undergone additional treatment to kill pathogens and that have been approved by the EPA for land application as a fertilizer and soil amendment. It involves such nutrients as ni trogen and phosphorus and contain other micronutrients for plant growth. Opponents refer to this as treated sewage sludge or human waste.

Are biosolidssafe?

Answer: The National Academy of Sciences has reviewed current practices, public health concerns and regulator standards, and has concluded that "the use of these materials in the production of crops for human consumption when practiced in accordance with existing federal guidelines and regulations, presents negligible risk to the consumer, to crop production and to the environment. The Water Environment Association of Ontario produced a comprehensive report in 2001 which indicated that, at least in Ontario, the practices are sufficiently conservative and if followed properly show no significant risk to the environment or human health

Who regulates biosolids?

Answer: Biosolids are regulated at both the federal and state level. Biosolids must first meet several quality standards and regulations in order for them to be applied to land. These standards contain limits for metals that may exist in biosolids, site rules and regulations, pathogen standards, record keeping rules and soil monitoring requirements. 

Why do we have biosolids?

We have biosolids as a result of the wastewater treatment process. Wastewater treatment technology has made our fresh waters safer as sources of drinking water, for recreation and as fish habitats; it has also improved marine water quality for recreation and seafood harvesting. In the past, many hundreds of Canadian cities simply dumped their raw sewage directly into the nation's rivers, lakes, and bays - some still do, although this is being addressed through environmental and infrastructure programs. Through regulation of this dumping, municipalities are now required to treat wastewater and to make the decision whether to recycle biosolids as fertilizer, incinerate it, or bury it in a landfill.

Do biosolids affect water quality?

About 95% of the nitrogen in biosolids exists in an organic form that has a slow release rate, which makes it much less likely to run off into streams. 

Pros

•Creates jobs

• It is a cost effective method of

disposal

• Recycles versus filling landfills

• Promotes farming

• Reduces emissions from

transportation to landfills

• Good free fertilizer

•Land Reclamation

•It’s regulated according to EPA

law 503

Cons

• Potential health hazard

• Effects irreversible

• Contamination resulting from

accumulation of industrial waste

• Its true composition is unknown

• May contain hazardous

chemicals

• Possibly transferable to crops

• Decreases property value

•Not sufficiently regulated

•Odor

The stakeholders supporting the Biosolids Partnership believe in and seek the active participation by federal, provincial and territorial government departments and agencies since we have a common goal that residuals of wastewater services (whether municipal or industrial) represent an untapped environmental resource which can be managed to support our collective sustainable development objectives in a manner that protects public and environmental health and safety. The many potential uses for these biosolids residuals in current practice include: land application for agriculture and reforestation; mine tailing site reclamation, energy recovery, and compost production. Other uses such as cellulose-based ethanol production have not yet reached Canada or are at a bench scale stage, e.g. phosphorus recovery.

Among their benefits, the use of biosolids can:

• Improve crop production

• Reduce soil erosion and protect water quality

• Provide topsoil for recreational uses

• Reclaim strip-mined lands

• Enrich forestland

• Conserve landfill space

• Provide economic incentives 

What happens to Toronto Biosolids?
Toronto's biosolids are all treated at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (77%) and the Highland Creek Treatment Plant (the other 23%). Throughout the world, biosolids are returned to the environment in a variety of ways. Some methods require little or no processing, while others use sophisticated technology. Although the City continually pursues beneficial reuse options, we currently use a combination of methods to manage biosolids. The table below shows where our biosolids went in 2008:

2008 Biosolids Reuse/Disposal Methods

Management	Percentage
Landfill	41%
Incineration at Highland Creek	23%
Land Application	11%
Pelletization	16%
Alkaline Stabilization	5%
Site Remediation	4%

Students who are undecided or against biosolids are concerned about the long-term effects and want to see more research on the subject. Students who support biosolids believe that if it is applied properly, biosolids are a viable alternative for fertilizers and good way to recycle.

Sources:

http://www.cwwa.ca/cbp-pcb/pdf%20files/EPPC%20Proposal1.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/water/biosolids/index.htm

http://www.biosolids.com/benefits.html

http://www.cwwa.ca/faqbiosolids_e.asp

Artificial Selection

What is Artificial Selection?

Artificial selection is the process of changing the characteristics of animals by artificial aspects. For example, animal breeders, are often able to change the characteristics of domestic animals for reproduction. These characteristics basically improve plants and animals in ways that not all could grow up to be like. For instance, plants are more disease-resistant, cows produce more milk, and racehorses run faster. Over the years, the plants with desirable characteristics are grown by man and their numbers increase. Meanwhile, plants without these characteristics are less likely to survive as they are not provided with the fertilisers and pesticides by man. Eventually, the species of the plant will evolve.

Supermarkets vs Fast Food

Normally people would say McDonald's or any other big fast food restaurant has fake ingredients, but vegetables and fruits we buy in our local supermarkets are just as artificial. Most farmers give the plants many products to make them grow larger, grow faster and probably grow tastier.

Artificial Selection vs God

God created the earth for us and made all the plants and animals so that we could use properly and nourish them in the right way. Artificial selection depicts all the aspects of why god created the the world. Most things should be done like it was done many centuries of years ago. We could use the modern technology that we have today but we should use it to our advantage in the short and long run, not just the short run. Artificial selection would be present but in the future it created plant and animal side effects that are mostly negative.

Artificial Selection in Plants

Fast plants is a good example of artificial selection in plants. Fast Plants is a large group of plants that includes mustard, radish, cabbage, and more, that have been bred and selected to have a uniform, short flowering time (14 days) and grow well under in a small indoor space, with little soil, under artificial lights.

Artificial selection in Animals

The results of artificial selection are easy to see. The domestication cycle of dogs (canines) being bred by their owners in order to emphasize less-aggressive traits has gone on for thousands of years, and has resulted in hundreds of different breeds that look almost nothing like their grey wolf ancestors. Dairy cattle are bred in hopes of producing more milk, but some lines now suffer from increased infections and fertility problems. Persian cats that are bred for extremely flat faces often develop respiratory problems and may have trouble eating. All of the listed traits that are bred for do not help the animals survive in the wild, but do make them more desirable to their owners.

Hybrid Plants and Artificial Selection

Plant breeders, too, commonly start with variable hybrid plants and then apply selection to produce new crops, trees, and flowers with desirable properties. In plants, a hybrid is a plant that is created by cross-pollinating specific plants. Hybrid breeders are looking to improve certain aspects of a plant. This could be to increase the yield, create disease-resistant varieties, better uniformity of plant and fruit size and even color. Although you can save seed from hybrid varieties, they don’t produce true copies of the original hybrid plant. For example, a rubber-producing plant from Mexico, guayule (Parthenium argentatum), was crossed with northern relatives to produce hybrid plants that could transfer cold tolerance to guayule (Asker and Jerling 1992: 249). A new variety of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) resistant to Yellow vein mosaic disease, the most serious disease of that plant, was developed by crossing A. esculentus with A. manihot (edible hibiscus). The modern strawberry is derived from hybridization of the Virginia strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) and the beach strawberry (F. chiloensis). Rockwell et al.

The Process

Artificial selection starts with the raw material found in nature. People find some animal, plant, or fungus that is in some way delicious or useful, and first simply use it as it is. Then if it is observed that some specimens are tastier or more useful they are kept and bred together (the key step is to figure out ways to breed them in captivity). Otherwise, the result of "natural" selection - as we keep eating the tastier ones or working to death the more useful ones - would be a selective pressure reducing the "delicious" gene in the wild population.

Contrast to Natural Selection

Natural selection is largely determined by environmental factors, for example, tigers developed stripes so that they could sneak up on their prey easier. The first stripy tigers caught more prey, and were healthier so produced more offspring.

Artificial selection is controlled by humans, for example, pug dogs have pug faces because people bred male dogs with pug-ish faces and female dogs with pug-ish faces to produce offspring with totally pug faces.

Obvious Examples

Bananas - these reproduce asexually only with the help of humans.

Broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, kohlrabi, and collard greens - are all variations of the species Brassica oleracea and have been bred for their different appearances and flavours. In recent years, sprouts have been bred to have a much sweeter flavour in order to make them appeal more to children.

Corn - as bred for food, the plant cannot even produce viable seeds, and "seed corn" has to be specifically raised to produce "food corn".

Dogs - Dog breeds exhibit everything that artificial selection can achieve, taken to extremes in some cases. Most ancestored dogs have some genetic abnormality from in-breeding, and most breeds couldn't survive in the wild.

Cows - These are usually too stupid to live. They were bred from much less punishment.

Pros

• Produces uniform or predictable off spring.
  
• Hidden (recessive) genes show up and can be eliminated.
  
• Individuals will "breed true" and are "pure."
  
• Doubles up good genes.Eliminates unwanted traits.
  

Cons

• Doubles up on faults and weaknesses.
  
• Progressive loss of vigor and immune response.
  
• Increased reproductive failures, fewer offspring.
  
• Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes.
  
• Genetically impoverished individuals.
  

Personal Opinion

In my perspective, humans should only use artificial selection on animals but only to a certain point-personal animals. I think that we are taking away what God has created for us on earth and our misusing it if we move forward with artificial selection. Dog breeders should only breed their dogs for characteristics that they want. I say this because using artificial selection on plants is worldwide and affects everyone. For example, if a farmer used artificial selection on a crop of vegetables, then sold a bulk amount of vegetables to a super market, customers at the supermarket will buy the artificially selected vegetables and will probably wonder why the vegetable is larger or more colourful than an ordinary one. Many people might not like this and using artificial selection will not satisfy the whole population, natural selection will keep everything normal so people will not complain. Animals, on the other hand, is different due to the fact that people will breed their own personal dogs. This will not affect the whole population therefore it will satisfy everyone. Thus, people should use artificial selection only with their personal living things.

Watch this insightful artificial selection video! : http://www.blogger.com/goog_1232028289

List of Works Cited

http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-plants.html

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_30

http://www.fastplants.org/intro.php

Designer Babies

What is Designer Babies?

"Designer babies" is a term used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). If you still are unsure of what this means, it's basically parents that decide what type of baby they want this includes physical (cosmetic) and medically. For example, if one parent wants to have a baby with medium blue eyes, and no allergies. In my opinion, this type of research shouldn't be taken place at all due to the fact its taking away uniqueness from humans. A man and a woman are suppose to have a baby(ies) and not have to modify how they look. Modifying one's life is taking away the process of having a baby. People are not suppose to be perfect, and by modifying one's life to be a perfect baby breaks the whole chain of human life that God has created for us. "Recently scientists have made rapid advances in our knowledge of the human genome and in our ability to modify and change genes. In the future we may be able to "cure" genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA." (Bionet). Even if scientists could make a healthy DNA for babies, it is still taking away human life.

Can we choose a baby's sex?

Today it is possible to choose the sex of the embryo using advanced reproductive techniques during IVF. Doctors can do this using one of two methods. The first method is to sort out a sample of the father's sperm and only fertilise the egg with either 'male' sperm or 'female' sperm. The second method is Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), which is used to screen-out embryos likely to have a genetic disease. PGD takes place

during IVF where the sperm fertilises the egg in a "test-tube" in a laboratory. The fertilised egg grows for a few days before a single cell is removed and tested to find out either the sex of the embryo or if abnormal genes are present.

Design-a-baby?

Scientists are learning more and more about how genes work and interact with each other. Using PGD it will soon be possible to screen and select for many more diseases. In the future it may be possible to really create 'designer babies' and to move from testing for medical conditions to the selection of designer features such as height, eye colour, facial appearance and perhaps even intelligence and personality. Like come on, this is just wrong. Parents choosing intelligence and personality of their new born baby is just like making a robot that comes out of the female :)

The Pros

Basically, the pros is the curing of diseases. For example, in 2000, in the United States, the Nash family made medical history by having a baby boy who had been selected using PGD to be a perfect tissue match for his very ill older sister. His sister suffered from a rare genetic disease so tissue from her new-born brother's placenta was used to restore her to health. Thus, the only pro in my opinion is the curing of diseases, or if scientists predict that the baby will come out abnormal, then its fine to modify that aspect of the human body.

The Cons

The cons are everything else except for the diseases. It is taking away the process of a male and female having sexual intercourse and eventually the female producing a baby, and raising the baby until he or she is ready to explore the world. These babies should not be modify to already be smart because then there will be no jobs for teachers. Adolf Hitler was on a quest to create a race of Aryan Blond (blue eyed and tall people). Creating designer babies in my perspective is on the same lines. The question I ask is Which skin color and physical features are to be chosen? The process of designer babies will effect biodiversity in ways that are not even imaginable. Also, traits decided by parents, eliminates the say of the child in his or her life. For example parents passionate about sports would have the athletic ability engineered into the child, however, the child may not want the same. he or she might not like sports. This reduces the child's freedom to choose.

Gene Therapy

The successes of gene therapy are modest, but its boundaries are extended almost daily. the attempt to cure disease and reduce suffering has found few opponents. But, there are worries that gene therapy will be abused. Also, some people believe that tampering with DNA is socially, morally, and ethically wrong.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, if accepted, will have a negative impact on the society. People with genetic defects will be socially rejected. They will be called 'gene poor' and will be separated from the society too. Today, people who have genetic defects are already treated differently and cast out from society in several parts across the world. Designer babies concept, will lead to discrimination on the basis of certain qualities or traits. Kids of rich families will receive genetic enhancement, leading to more power . This gives them an unfair advantage over the other children. People unable to afford genetic engineering will be looked down upon.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Designer babies or basic genetic modifying is not something to play with. Its complex, and any mistake can alter the lives of many generations. Using designer babies, is just like designing clothes, designing toys, and so forth. We don't consider ourselves as objects, so we shouldn't be treating babies as objects to meet our needs. Technology is getting way out of hand and should draw the line before we get to far. Sooner or later, we would prob have an extinction of the human race, and everyone will be robots. Plus, we never know if designer babies will be fitting the needs of parents, there could there is a side effect on certain chromosomes or genes from certain generations. We as humans did not choose to enter this world! There are alot of things we do not understand about ourselves as well as the world around us. It is time to realize, that we cannot control everything in this world, although we desire to.

Sources

http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html

http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/parenting/story.html?id=af85fffa-81df-4c47-b389-d7eefc2faccf&k=7781

http://www.mindmagazine.com/story/designbaby.htm

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/

Are we Stewards of The World?

Humans on earth have been living on Earth for about 100,000 to 200,000 years. Before all the technology that has been recently introduced for the past few decades, out earth used to be full with many species. These species use to range from the American Cheetah, the American Bison, the American Lion, the Giant Beaver, and many more that you may have not have a understanding of, due to the fact that they use to live many years ago and are now extinct. It is said from many scientists that 99.9% out of all the species that used to live on earth are now extinct. Therefore this states that only 0.1% of species are living presently on earth. The 0.1% that is living on earth presently, can easily be extinct just as the 99.9% that has already been extinct.

With all the negative impacts we have on the environment most species cannot cope with our needs and wants on Earth. For instance, most people are using an extremely high amount of carbon dioxide everyday for transportation, therefore trees have to absorb all the carbon dioxide so that we could have a clean air. The trees have to absorb a high amount of carbon dioxide, but then they are getting cut down, this makes us humans have a negative affect on the biodiversity of our ecosystems. Ask yourself this, wouldn't you want to have a Jurassic Park, because scientists have the ability to get DNA from species that have been extinct and bring them back, the same ability to use another formula than gasoline for transportation, but humans just want to make more money. But think about it, whats the use of a piece of a coloured piece of paper (that were made from cutting down trees) when our world is endangered environmentally? I know many people will say who cares about old species, because new species will be formed, but in reality it would be better for more species to be on earth. It will improve and increase our resources. For instance, if there was more species of bees, we would have an increase in honey.

Species are getting extinct and most humans don't care. I rarley see any mammals at school or at home, and thats because they all live in one certain area, because humans have destroyed their habitat and environment. If you ever go to a tropical rain forest, there are millions of species living there, because they have their freedom, and rarley any humans go there, and if they do it is just to enjoy the view.

Man has dominion over the earth, but that dominion cannot exceed the boundaries of God's laws, meaning that we are stewards of God's creation.
Responsible stewardship includes the following:

• Responsible environmental management that includes consideration for the preservation of the ecosystem and provides for basic human needs.


• Not engaging in reproductive technologies that intentionally destroy human life or create human life for experimentation.

The "are" that I have enlarged should have been "should" due to the fact that we should be stewards of God's creation, in my perspective I don't think we have been stewards of God's creation, and I don't believe we will ever be stewards of God's creation as a whole. There might be a couple million people out of the 6.6 billion that will try and help species live as much as they can before they could be extinct but the rest would not care due to the fact that it has been going out for quite a while now. The main reason is the technology that we have influences most people to not see what we have outside of the box, which is are precious nature.





Thus, I hope that we all can try and make a change to prevent any further extinction of animals, and to make are planet Earth a place to be worth living in.

Sources

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w41/Species.jpg

http://www.nhm.ku.edu/woodpecker/dodo.shtml

http://www.treehugger.com/cheetah-profile-jj.jpg

http://www.icr.org/Gods-creation/

Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

There are many people in the world today that are ungrateful of the technology that is presented in the 21st century. Many people today are unsatisfied of how an eletronic device, automobile, aircraft, and so forth is not stable enough to their standard. For instance, a certain laptop may be too slow for them. In my opinion, all the technology that my family has is grateful and we dont take anything for granted. Technology is very important in my life, because without it I may barley know anything about the old life of non-technology. I was born when technology was already improving at such a fast rate. My parents told me that the "good old days" were more on self-labour that relying on technology. For instance, instead of an electric powered vaccum, my mom use to use a manual vaccum that you pull foward and back without no electric power. Humanity could build a faster airplane for people to reach their destination quicker, due to the fact that they have a funeral to attend backhome, or they have to visit someone important to them that is very ill. Thus, technology has affected my life completely and technology will improve everyday as people will think of new ways to improve everything in life.

Cell Phones Manners Matter

Cell Phones are a massaive necesity in today's economic invovlment. Many teens today want a cell phone though it is not necessity for them, they want to have one to look cool. For me, I need a cellphone at my age because incase of an emergency I could call my parents to pick me up from school and so forth. I remember one day when my freind's sister, who was in grade 4, asked her mother if she can get a cell phone, and in my mind im thinking to myself I'm in grade 8 and I don't even have a cell phone. Her mom then replied to her and said "No, your too young to have a cell phone". Then my friend's sister replied "But Mom, Jessica has one". I assumed that Jessica was my freind's sister's friend. I then noticed that are world is changing and all these luxury items or goods in our lives are taking over and we get so use to them, eventually we depend on them on our everyday lives.

I see many people in their car while driving their car, teens texing their freinds during class, people in the hallway talking on their cellphone, leaving their cellphone on during a movie, leaving their cellphone on during an important meeting or assembly. Their are many ways to fix this for instance, when driving your car, you can simply buy a bluetooth headset which is handsfree therefore, you dont have to hold the cell phone in your hand and risk an accident.

The five rules that I came up with are: 1. Do not hold your phone while driving. 2. Do not leave your phone on during a movie. 3. Do not leave your phone on during an important meeting or assembly. 4. Do not talk on your cellphone during class or in the hallway. 5. Do not text during class.

Thus, we should all make up rules for ourselves that leads us to the right way of using a cellphone, because we all have the wisdom to use one.

Inauguration of Barack Obama

This day was the most important day of change and a new era of the United States and also the world. I even stayed home just to watch the inauguration, not knowing that Media Arts/Comm Tech. would be showing it. It all started when Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama went to the church to pray before meeting the Bushes (George W. Bush and Laura Bush) to have a cup of coffee. At that time, people were coming in U.S. Capitol and a group of people that actually had silver tickets (tickets that get closer seats) were not accepted because of security reasons therefore they were really upset. After all the ex-presidents such as Bill Clinton and James Carter were introduced and seated. Obama's Daughters, Wife and Mother-In-Law were also seated. Joe Biden (vice president) was introduced and seated with his wife Jill Biden. Around 11:30 Obama was introduced and seated while people were shouting "Obama!" while he looked anticipated. The Inauguration opened up with Senator Dianne Feinstein, followed up by a Innvocation said by Pastor Rick Warren, to me had a great say in this Inauguration and everything that he said came from his heart. After this, Aretha Franklin at the age of 66 still had the amazing vocals, singing My Country, Tis Thee. Biden was sworn into office by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. A Musical selection of "Air and Simple Gifts," by John Williams, composer/arranger with Itzhak Perlman, (violin), Yo-Yo Ma (cello), Gabriela Montero (piano), and Anthony McGill (clarinet) was taken placed. Then, as Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts recited the Oath of Office, Obama interrupted Roberts halfway through the opening line.Roberts then incorrectly recited the Oath of office, stating, "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully" (rather than "that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"). Obama began to recite I will execute and paused, whereupon Roberts attempted to correct his mistake by saying "faithfully the Office of President of the United States".Obama repeated Roberts' first mistaken phrase. The rest of the oath was completed without trouble. Then the time we been all waiting for Obama's Inauguration speech, here he talked about how he is going to change America, "though there are non-believers, they have short memory, they have forgetten what America has done, and what America is capeable of doing", but his main point in his Inauguration to me, was the fact that it is not only the governments responsiblity to make America a better place, it's the citizens of America to actually make the change, and the government will help to fix that. Obama ended off by saying "God bless all of you, and God bless the United States of America". Following this a poem was read by Elizabeth Alexander. Then there was a Benediction by Rev. Joseph E. Lowery. Following this, there was a National Anthem by The United States Navy Band "Sea Chanters". Follwing this President Obama escorted former President George W. Bush to a departure ceremony before attending a luncheon in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol.

U.S. Capitol A luncheon at the Capitol has been part of the inaugural program since 1953 (before that, the luncheon was usually held at the White House and hosted by the outgoing President and First Lady). The menu often includes dishes representative of the home states of the new President and Vice President, and in 2009 included seafood stew, a pheasant and duck dish, and apple cinnamon sponge cake with sweet cream glacé for dessert. Since 1985, a painting has been chosen to serve as a backdrop for the head table. In 2009, it was Thomas Hill's 1865 View of the Yosemite Valley, chosen to commemorate Abraham Lincoln's 1864 signing of the Yosemite Grant, which was the first time the federal government protected park lands for public use. During the inaugural luncheon, Senator Ted Kennedy collapsed. He suffered a seizure and was taken to a hospital to recover. Early reports suggested that Senator Robert Byrd also fell ill during the luncheon. The inaugural parade traveled along Pennsylvania Avenue northwestward from Capitol and ended at the north face of the White House. During the parade, Barack and Michelle Obama twice exited their limousine on Pennsylvania Avenue and walked a portion of the parade route, to the cheers of the crowds in attendance. Their second walk ended just before the gate to the White House. It has been traditional for the new President to walk instead of being driven, but the new armored limousine was used because of potential threats. Obama's daughters, Malia and Sasha, traveled in his limousine and remained inside during the parade. Overall, this Inauguration was the first and best one I have ever watched, and I look forward to see Barack Obama's actions that he stated he will do for the United States which will affect worldwide also.


Barack Obama taking the Oath

Source of Blog: Wikipedia