Biosolids: The Eco-Friendly Choice

Biosolids are organic materials that are rich in nutrients and acquired from wastewater treatment. It is also referred to as "sewer sludge" and it can be used as fertilizer. In my opinion, biosolids are superior to other agricultural practices. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the land application of biosolids as a safe method of recycling. Furthermore, we can use biosolids as fertilizer for farms, forests and even our own backyards.
 
Prior to usage on land, biosolids must be filtered of their harmful compounds. They are processed through a sewage treatment which removes the solid segments, pathogens and other toxic elements. When complete, the newly cleansed and finished biosolids can be used. 

Among other nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen are present in biosolids. These elements are detrimental in aiding and increasing plant growth. Even though biosolids are helpful to the entire community, some people find them unsanitary. Many people find it difficult to eat produce if it was grown in biosolids. Another negative is the distinct odour of biosolids. Although I understand these points, I believe that the positive factors outweigh the negatives.
 


In short, I believe that biosolids are extremely important in determining the future of our environment. The use of biosolids is a cost effective way to dispose of human waste. EPA supports this process and I'm inclined to agree.


Sources:


http://www.cwwa.ca/faqbiosolids_e.asp
http://www.toronto.ca/water/biosolids/index.htm
http://www.nwbiosolids.org/index.php
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/biosolids/genqa.cfm
http://sewagetreatment.us/tertiary-treatment/waste-water-treatment-sewage-treatment/
http://www.biosolids.state.va.us/


Blogs I commented on:

• http://taylorbioblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/are-biosolids-good-use-as-agricultural.html?showComment=1306882070419#c8598688309240510734
• http://jessy3149.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-waste-as-fertilizer.html?showComment=1306881727976#c3508739075872282874

Sustainable Agriculture vs. Industrial Agriculture

What is the difference between sustainable agriculture and industrial agriculture? Which is morally correct? Is one better than the other? 

Sustainable agriculture produces food naturally. Although it is more costly, this type of agriculture utilizes natural resources and is better for the environment. This is due to the fact that no harmful emissions or chemicals are released into the atmosphere. In my opinion, this is better than industrial agriculture. Animals are treated justly and are not abused for their meat or byproducts. Consumers also receive benefits - the food is generally higher-quality, tastes better, and is healthy due to lack of unnatural substances in the products. Even though sustainable agriculture is not the main source of many people's food, I think that it would be able to meet demands if it was. An increase in the amount of farms would also provide more jobs, as more people are needed in sustainable agriculture as opposed to industrial agriculture (less machines and more workers involved). Most importantly, sustainable agriculture is an aspect of sustainable development - a way in which humans can expand without destroying the environment.  People in today's society have a responsibility to keep the earth in good condition for future generations and this responsibility is fulfilled when our focus is on sustainable agriculture. It is only morally right to choose sustainable agriculture over industrial agriculture for the following reasons: the treatment of the animals involved, the well-being of our planet, and the well-being of people in today's society.

This photo displays the degrading value at which animals are held in industrial agriculture. Animals are fattened up with chemicals and meat is sold at much cheaper values due to the mass slaughter of farm animals.

Industrial agriculture is a form of modern farming. Chemicals and machinery are heavily involved with the processing of food. This is not only much more cruel for the wildlife involved, but is also harmful to the humans. We consume the chemicals involved through the food we eat when buying industrial agriculture. These chemicals also harm the environment and other life surrounding the areas in which they are used. However, the chemicals are not the only factor affecting the health of the environment. Industrial agriculture is a form of modern family meant to quickly and efficiently meet the demands of consumers - meaning that is doesn't always keep in mind the environment's future and well-being. Resources are used up at an extremely fast rate - many of them non-renewable or taken in such large quantities that more is being taken than what can be renewed. This method is not realistic and will provide even greater problems in the future. Although it may provide answers to present problems, such as meeting demands and providing/producing food at cheap prices, it does not put long-term problems at the forefront of concerns. The beneficial aspects of industrial agriculture are greatly outweighed by its downfalls, in my opinion, as it fails to regard the long-term well-being of consumers, animals, and the planet.

Humans workers do not play a heavy role in industrial agriculture and are rather replaced by advanced machinery and technology.

  I think that sustainable agriculture is definitely the ethical and moral option for the reasons stated above.

Sources:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/whatis/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions#MassiveExtinctionsFromHumanActivity
http://www.ecocentricblog.org/
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1175526032952&lang=eng
http://www.alternet.org/story/13900/

My comments:

http://michelleflynnbioblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/feeding-growing-population-vs.html?showComment=1299622778311#c2705639068527691655

http://graceelkhechen.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_20.html?showComment=1299626517332#c4093474138439093129

Designer Babies

If everyone could choose what their baby would look like, would the world end up having a majority population of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people? Everyone could be tall, fair and very intelligent. But is this a valid goal? Should we be allowed to create the "perfect" baby? 

Recently, a procedure allowing just this has been brought forth.  Designer babies are babies whose genetic makeup has been preselected through in vitro fertilization and genetic engineering. Parents have access to new genetic testing methods which allow them to accurately predetermine their baby's gender, as well as any birth defects or disorders. With the new technique of PGD, (Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis) it is possible to discover any harmful or fatal diseases that an embryo may be carrying. Through PGD and DNA analysis, embryos with genetic defects such as Down's Syndrome or hemophilia can be detected. Embryos without these genes can then be selected and the others will be discarded.

I agree with the use of PGD for older parents and people with a history of inheritable diseases, where a process like this could be extremely beneficial for both the parents and the child. However, I completely disagree with parents who are using this procedure for purely cosmetic reasons. If someone wants to have a child, they should be willing to accept them and love them no matter what they look like.

 While it may be tempting to be able to spare a child from the horrors of disease, we must think of how this course of action might affect society. Could genetic enhancement lead to a biased and prejudicial society? There is also the possibility of a gender imbalance to consider. Since countries like India and China value boys more than girls, wouldn't a process like genetic engineering worsen this issue?


Overall, I do not think that people should be able to decide how their baby turns out. I believe that we should allow nature to take its course and accept the child no matter what they are like.

Sources:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6978400.ece
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml

My comments on other blogs can be found here:


http://jessy3149.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-asked-for-blue-eyed-baby.html?showComment=1291411230704#c3176441126472783667




http://biologyislyfe.blogspot.com/2010/11/bio-engineered-kids.html?showComment=1291412419466#c6320318391060227074

World Wide Fund for Nature

WWF is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) that is involved with protecting the environment. It has offices all over the world, including Canada. The organization was created in 1961 as a charitable trust in Switzerland. It later spread all over the world.

Mission: "Stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature." It plans to do this by:

•  conserving the world's biological diversity
• ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable
• promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

In the early 2000's, WWF scientists undertook a worldwide biodiversity study that was the first of its kind. They thoroughly analyzed 238 ecoregions. They looked at the risks that these regions were facing including toxic chemicals, pollution and endangered species. Subsequent to this major study, conservation measures were proposed to preserve forest, freshwater and marine habitats.

Major WWF Achievements

1. Cuba

Jardines de la Reina

In 1999, WWF was instrumental in getting Fidel Castro to sign the Ramsas global wetlands treaty. This identified Jardines de la Reina as a national park. This resulted in preserving this beautiful region of Cuba, rich in biodiversity and natural beauty. Furthermore, it identified the marine turtle as an endangered species hence banning its harvesting.

2. Canada

Nunavut

Niginganiq is a large area in Nunavut that WWF has identified as a National Wildlife Area. In doing so, endangered species such as the bowhead whale and the polar bear are protected.

Largest Land Withdrawal for Protection Ever in Canada

WWF helped the local First Nations people to pressure the government of Canada to identify the Mackenzie River Basin in the North West Territories as a protected area. This prevents industrialization and deforestation of the area.

Protection for Seabirds

WWF efforts and lobbying led to the government's passing Bill C-15. This prevents ship owners from dumping oil and other toxic chemicals in our lakes. This results in saving thousands of seabirds yearly.

Banning the Hunting of Wolves

WWF was able to persuade the Ontario government to pass a bill permanently banning the hunting of wolves Algonquin Park.

My Opinion

I think that all of WWF's achievements are amazing. By accomplishing all of these projects, they have saved countless animals and plants from destruction or extinction. The efforts of WWF are definitely an example of a positive human influence on the environment. Hopefully, these tasks will raise awareness and encourage more people to be careful of their effect on the environment. 

References

• "Conservation Successes." WWF.ca. World Wide Fund for Nature. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. 
• ec.gc.ca.  Environment Canada. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
• greenpeace.org. Greenpeace International. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
• iucn.org. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
• cbc.ca/news. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.

Blogs I Commented On

http://jessy3149.blogspot.com/2010/09/david-suzuki-foundation_26.html#comments

http://michelleflynnbioblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/international-barcode-of-life-and-its.html#comments