What are biosolids?
Biosolids are treated domestic sewage that is nutrient rich organic materials. Basically, it is human waste that has been treated. This nutrient rich material can be used as fertilizer to improve and maintain soil, as well as stimulate plant growth.
Does biosolids act as an alternative to current agricultural practices or is it viewed as an unsanitary nuisance?
Pros
Biosolids are a cost effective way of disposal and can be used as a fertilizer for farmers. It’s better to recycle waster rather than burning it or dumping it in a landfill.The Ontario Ministry of the Environment concluded that "the MOE has approved the land application of sewage biosolids for more than 25 years with no documented adverse impacts on agricultural production, or human and animal health where Ministry Guidelines were followed". Environment Canada also stated, "There is little evidence to incriminate treated biosolids in disease outbreaks when treatment and application are performed in a careful and controlled manner”. Biosolids are also tested for any traces of metal and Ontario do not permit applications of biosolids that contain metal.
Cons
My main concern is the composition of the biosolids. We know it is basically human waste but what do humans eat? What can humans produce out of their system? It could contain a hazardous chemical. Another concern is the odour. If you were to use biosolids in your front garden, would you want to smell it every time you walk out of your house?
In Toronto, wastewater treatment allows solids in the sewage to settle. Microorganisms consume the solids as food. The digestion of this process produces carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane. The methane is collected and is used as boiler fuel to run the sewage plant. The biosolids are also reused and disposed in other ways. Below is a chart the methods Toronto used to dispose or reuse biosolids in 2008.
My Opinion
I think that Toronto is doing a fine job of using and disposing biosolids. They are planning to take action and use a future plan to efficiently use and dispose biosolids in an eco friendly way in 2025. I think it’s wonderful that people reuse biosolids as an efficient fertilizer. There were no documents of disease outbreaks and adverse impacts on agricultural production so what is the harm of using it? If there was a way to remove or lower the strength of the smell of biosolids, then a lot more people will choose to use it.
References
|
"Evaluate the importance of various technologies, including Canadian contributions, to our understanding of internal body systems (digestive, circulatory or respiratory)"
Various technologies benefit humans of our understanding of the internal body systems such as the digestive, circulatory, and respiratory system. It gives us an image of what our body looks like and what can be done to improve the health of humans.
The endoscope one of the many tools used to view the internal body system. It is a medical device of a long, thin tube that has a light and camera at the end. Images from the camera are shown on a screen to examine the internal surfaces of organs and tissues. It can be used to diagnose any illnesses such as stomach ulcers, chronic diarrhea, urinary tract infections, etc. There are even specialized endoscopes with different names for different purposes. Examples are bronchoscopes that examine the air passages of lungs, arthroscopes that examine the joints and colonoscopies that examine the colon. The endoscopes give humans a view of the internal system as well as a useful tool to diagnose some illnesses. 
Magnetic resonance imaging or MRI is a medical imaging technique used to provide a detailed imaging of the internal system. It can create 2D images and even 3D models. It can be used to diagnose many types of injuries as well as the details of body tissues. MRI systems can also provide an image of flowing blood of the circulatory system. The MRI gives us a huge advantage in viewing the body system and provides detailed imaging for a better understanding.
An external pacemaker was invented by a Canadian engineer John Hopps in 1950. This device used vacuum technology temporary external pacing. It was powered by an AC wall socket; it was painful to the patient and is a hazard of electrocution. There were many innovations to this invention that improved the external pacemaker. A pacemaker is used to maintain the regular beat of the heat. While inventing the pacemaker, it gave us a better understanding of the heart and how it beats. By using MRI it gave a better understanding of the human body to create the pacemaker.
Various technologies gave us a better view of our internal system. By using medical technology, the treatment can by improved and changed to better suit the patient gives us an expand of our knowledge about the human body, thus giving us new ideas and inventions to improve our health. Even though humans are creating a new strain of diseases and sicknesses, medical technology can help to improve the health of the world.
|
Topic
"Artificial selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster. One must wonder what will come next. Under what circumstances should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any?"
What is Artificial Selection?
Artificial selection is basically a process of changing features of plants or animals artificially. For example, animal breeders can change the characteristics of animals by choosing animals with the best qualities such as milk production. In other terms, a human can breed plants and animals for desirable traits, not necessary traits for survival in the wild.
Another example is plants. Humans use pesticides and fertilizers to increase the growth of plants to make it so that it grows with desirable results. Plants without the help of humans are less likely to survive.
Artificial selection saves time and we could get better results. We get more milk produced from cows, larger amount of crops, and superior qualities from animals. Look at the image to the left, do you see the difference? I would rather eat the corn on the right than on the left.
What’s so bad about it?
Killer bees! Yes, killer bees, a perfect example of a negative consequence of artificial selection. A scientist by the name of Warwick Estevam Kerr crossbred African bees with European honeybees and poof! This gives you Africanized bees, also known as killer bees. Why did he breed two different kinds of bees? It’s because he wanted more honey! Killer bees have caused great fear to people because of its sting, which kills 1 to 2 people per year in America.
Another downside to artificial selection is variation. This process basically removes variation in a population, so selectively bred organisms are vulnerable to new diseases or changes in the environment.
The term selective breeding is equal with artificial selection, so let’s take a look at animal breeding. By breeding the best of the best, we can achieve the best of results and achieve a superior bloodline. For example, the selection of breeding for race horses different and particular performance traits.
Also, single trait breeding, breeding for only one trait over another, causes many problems. Temple Grandin, a doctor of animal science found out that roosters that are bred for better muscles lost their knowledge of typical rooster dances, which is used to attract a mate. This alienated the roosters from the hens, causing the roosters to “rape” the hens. Yes, the roosters would rape the hen, then kill it.
Should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals?
If there wasn’t anything artificially selected in our world, would we have the same life? Is it wrong to create a better product for people to eat and use? Artificial selection has indeed improved our quality of life with better products, better results, more food, and is cost efficient. It gave farmers cows that produced more milk, and more amount of crops which equals to more profit. But artificial selection has caused quite a number of problems, from killer bees to “raping” roosters. Everything has its good and bad, and we have to accept that. Humans are given the power of creation, which we are all capable of using. I just hope that humans don't come up with crazy selections and modifications to the natural, like flying bears.
Works Cited
Commented on
|
Topic
“Designer babies” is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children’s genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes?"
What are “designer babies”?
Basically, you can choose your child’s particular genes or characteristics. You can choose your child’s hair colour, eye colour, short or tall, gender, etc. It’s similar to those games such as those “dress up” games where you choose clothing, hair colour and other stuff you want your “doll” to look like. Do you want your child to be the perfect, doll or action figure, with no imperfections?
Designer babies. Doesn’t it just sound like a game? You check off the things you want your child to have, and just send this selection to the counter to start creating your child.
How can you make the perfect child?
With the minds of natural yet not so perfect people, they have created advance reproductive techniques using “InVitro Fertilization” or IVF. An egg would be taken from the mother and fertilized with the father’s sperm outside of the womb. Basically, it’s down in test tubes in a laboratory. Scientists were coming up with ways to alter the genes of the egg within the test tube to cure any genetic diseases by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA. With time passing on and new generations of scientists, designer babies might be able to come to life from the drawing board.
My Opinion
I feel like genetic modifications to a child seem unnatural. But, with the use of genetic modifications, I can increase the survival rate of my child and let him/her live a life with no medical conditions. So, therefore, I am in the middle of the situation. If you were to ask me “would I design my baby”, I wouldn’t immediately respond “no”.
Let’s make up a little situation:
A female four months pregnant with a child. Her doctor is asking her if she would like an amniocentesis. Amniocentesis is a medical procedure where a small amount of fluid from the sac of the fetus is taken for testing. Doesn’t amniocentesis sound unnatural, because of the ability to identify if your child will have any genetic abnormalities?
The female agrees with proceeding with the amniocentesis. Weeks later, a report was given to her stating that her child was positive for Down syndrome. Now knowing that her child has a genetic abnormality, she questions herself if she should bear the child or have an abortion.
Would you choose to raise a child of Down syndrome and love him/her with their imperfections, or choose to abort the child? Abortion rates are so high, especially if the mother knows if her child has a genetic abnormality. With “designer babies”, partners can make it for sure that their child will have no abnormalities and can be somewhat “normal”.
What are the goods and bad of designing your baby?
You can have a child the way you want your child to be. Imagine a world where children are born genetically resistant to any disease or genetic abnormalities without the pains and costs of childhood immunizations, medications, etc. A plus factor is that you can choose how your child will look and the type of personality. It’d be like the perfect Barbie doll or Ken. (you know, Barbie and Ken)
But, your child may be outcast from other people, more specifically the “naturals”. (Gundam Seed fans, anyone?) Even if your child is perfect, it is not natural. Your child will be different. There will be people who are against the idea of “Designer babies” and there are some who like the idea.
Let’s take a look at a section of an article:
“More recently, a January 2009 study by researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center found that an overwhelming 75% of parents would be in favor of trait selection using PGD – as long as that trait is the absence of mental retardation. A further 54% would screen their embryos for deafness, 56% for blindness, 52% for a propensity to heart disease, and 51% for a propensity to cancer. Only 10% would be willing to select embryos for better athletic ability, and 12.6% would select for greater intelligence.” (http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-%E2%80%9909)
A great number of people (75%) are in favour of selecting their child’s genetic material for any types of imperfections such as propensity to cancer. Currently, we are able to determine the sex of the embryo, with is quite helpful to determine any sex-link disorders such as colour blindness, hemophilia, etc.
With the ability of designing your baby, there will be miscalculations and human errors. We are humans, we are not perfect. The first batch of “designed babies” will not be the best compared to the next batch. It sounds like an awful process for these babies because they have to live their life labeled as “designed”. It’s like an assembly line of robots or a "product". One awful factor is that this child was not given the ability to choose to be labeled as “designed”. The child has no choice, no say to this sort of decision made by their parents.
Conclusion
Before I conclude, let’s take a look at this video:
If the choice of being able to “design” you ability became an actually option, would people become pressured by it? Would people choose to design their own baby to give them the best life, even if the parents are against it?
The ethical and legal questions of “designer babies” are still unknown. We do not know if this actually process will be become real. Parents want best for their own child to live a full life of happiness with no medical obstacles in the way. “Designer babies” could be an obsessive way to create the perfect child rather than to actually guide them through life with your own teachings.
Works Cited:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-%E2%80%9909
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont3.htm
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm
|
Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.
Steward means someone who manages property or other affairs for someone else. Are we being stewards of the world? Before I get into that question, let’s first talk about how scientists consider us humans as the most invasive species.
Humans- The Invasive Species
A species becomes invasive if it becomes some sort of pest or disrupts the local ecology. An invasive species can endanger the survival of other species through competition for shelter, food, etc. It could also change the environment to suit their own needs and make it become less suitable for native species.
(The picture shows an invasive species in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a Japanese vine called Kudzu. It is said to grow out of control with no natural predators. The Kudzu can grow up to 30 centimeters a day. This plant covers other plants, though which no sunlight can penetrate. It can take over road signs, fences, houses, etc. )
Humans are in fact the most invasive species of the world because we disrupt the environment and endanger the survival of other species. We make life more suitable for our own needs by building buildings, houses, malls, and so on that take up land of other species. For example, the area of Pacific Mall and Market Village used to be a land for growing crops such as corn. This land has been reduced by the building of the malls. You can still find crops along Steeles (Past Steeles and Markham Road, in the area of Pickering) but it is much less since 1990 (that was when Market Village was built.) What used to live in these crop fields are now gone with the destruction of their home.
Human Impacts on Water
Humans have greatly changed the environment and have impacted living things residing there. Water is the most important thing needed for survival. It is something we humans are polluting thus affecting the life of every living species. The earth is covered with two thirds of water. Our human body consists of 60% of water. It is clear that water is the prime element for survival. Water now on earth is far from being pure, containing many deadly chemicals. It not only has chemicals but also bacteria, viruses, and inorganic minerals. This mixture with water becomes a chemical cocktail unsuitable for any species to consume.
Let’s take a look at Lake Ontario. The lake is currently heavily polluted with various chemicals, fertilizers, and untreated sewage water. Take a look at this video clip broadcasted on June 24, 1959. (Pretty old video clip, right?)
The video explains how runoff from meat packaging plants in the Humber River flowed into Lake Ontario. The waters of the lake were declared polluted and signs said “swim at your own risk”. As you can see, Lake Ontario was dying. Humans were causing damage to Lake Ontario and the life of species in the water. However, through human intervention of sewage disposal plants and water treatments, the lake has recovered. It is said that walleye, a fish that indicates clean water are found in Lake Ontario.
Humans are causing huge negative impacts on the environment, from pollution to deforestation. We are creating three forms of impacts on the environment; physical (e.g. destruction of habitats), chemical (e.g. manmade substances released to the environment), and biological (affects of species). Humans are the invasive species that endanger the lives of other species. But there are human interventions that help the environment and the destruction caused by ourselves.
Are We Being Stewards of the World?
In my opinion we are stewards of the world, some are helping the environment and some are just destroying it to suit their own needs. We are creators seeking to make the goods of earth available. We are also destroyers, eliminating something to fulfill a goal.
From sewage waste to water treatment or deforestation to tree planting, there are positive and negative effects to the environment. We are trying to balance out the current destruction and create but we cannot really balance out the negative actions from the past. Humans in the past did not look much into the future but now we know what will happen at the current situation.
Sources:
http://www.great-lakes.net/humanhealth/lake/ontario.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-do-humans-affect-the-environment.html
http://www.abheritage.ca/abnature/environmental/humans_enviro.htm
http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/pollution/topics/1390/
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/kudzu.htm
Commented on:
Marvin's Blog - http://marvinsbioblog.blogspot.com/
Yulenka's Blog - http://bluegreenteal.blogspot.com/
|
