Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found In Drinking Water

Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found in Drinking Water

Christine Dell'Amore

for National Geographic News

Published February 26, 2010

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091112-drinking-water-cocaine/

This image shows how we can not be completely certain that our water is completely safe because of the bad things they have found in drinking water. 

Summary: Scientists have been finding unwanted contaminants in people’s drinking water. They have been finding cooking spices, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and other unwanted materials in the drinking waters. During holiday seasons testers have found holiday related remnants in the water, such as sage, cinnamon, chocolate, and many other treats! One spice they are finding a lot is vanilla. They found about 6 milligrams per liter of water! As for illegal drugs, they are mostly found in the waters of European countries. Drugs get in the water through from the waste of the users and can enter groundwater sources. In Spain, one testing showed that 22 of 24 samples contained cocaine byproducts. A pharmaceutical drug that affects life in the waters is birth control, or other hormone drugs. These drugs have caused some male fish to mimic female fish. People often flush prescription drugs down the toilet if they are done with them or if they are expired, and scientists want more towns to avoid this. They suggest having days where people can bring their drugs to the police or pharmacy where they can be properly disposed of. Some other contaminants in the water can cause major health problems later on.

Opinion: A lot of this really surprised me! I did not know that so many cooking spices ended up in our drinking water. I also thought it as funny how the water, depending on what spices were being used in abundance, represented what holiday it was! I think I kind of expected there to be some illegal drugs in the water but the amount of cocaine was really shocking. It is not safe to have that much cocaine in the drinking water in Europe and it really worries me. I think creating days to return your drugs is a good idea. It is a coincidence because my family recently received an email that the Horsham Police Department was sponsoring one of these days in our community. It is good to know that the authority in our community is trying to solve the problem of unwanted drugs in our water.

Questions:

1. Do you think our water is tested for illegal drugs specifically? Or do you think they would show up in the purity tests?

2. If people don’t watch what they put down the drain do you think these contaminants could cause major problems for us?

3. After hearing about the cocaine problem in Spain, do you think you would be comfortable drinking the water in Spain? Why or why not?

-Natalie 

Coastal California City Turns to Desalination to Quench its Thirst

Coastal California City Turns to Desalination to Quench its Thirst

Larry Greenemeier

Scientific American

April 7, 2010

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-desalination-reverse-osmosis&page=2

Summary:

A new desalination plant was installed a few years ago in California to open the Pacific Ocean as a new source of water for them to drink. Thankfully, the water that it draws from is only “brackish” which means it is not quite as salty as sea water. The plant uses four wells (but only two at a time) and first runs the water through a sand aquifer to purify it. Then, the water is boiled so that the water evaporates and leaves the salt behind. This process is called reverse osmosis. Although parts of this process are controversial, it is generally helping the people of California attain their fresh water needs.

(Graphic shows reverse osmosis)

Opinion:

I think this news is great, but at the same time, rather startling. It’s wonderful that we know how to convert salt water to fresh water, because this process could save lives, but at the same time, it’s actually really scary that as Americans (who are usually so focused on saving money), we need to put so much of our time and money into finding clean water. If this is such a big priority, it could mean that our fresh water levels are decreasing rapidly. In class, we tried to desalinate water in a lab, and although I know it was relatively easy for most people, my partner and I were having some trouble with it. I could never imagine using that process as the only way to obtain fresh water, since every other source is unusable.

Questions:

1.      If the situation ever became bad enough, do you think desalination could produce enough water for the entire population of the earth?

2.      Instead of the entire planet, do you think desalination is a good choice for smaller areas, such as towns or states? Why?

3.      Thinking back to the fresh water lab we did in class, do you think desalination is a very effective way to obtain fresh water? Why or why not? Would it be more effective if you were using a greater volume of water?

Polluting Plastic Particles Invade the Great Lakes

ScienceDaily

Apr. 8, 2013

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130409095410.htm

Summary: "Plastic production has increased 500 percent since 1980, and plastics now account for 80 to 90 percent of ocean pollution..." Right now, our waters are being harshly polluted by one main thing: plastic. This is a problem all over the world in many lakes, oceans, and rivers, and specifically the Great Lakes in this article. Fish and marine life are harshly being affected by this plastic pollution and many are dying. Although this problem has been widely recognized, not much has been done to further prevent it. Since plastic is used in most everyday items in our lives, it is hard to stop this constant pollution. Scientists have seen many pieces of plastic in fish stomachs, and these plastic pieces are being passed up the food chain as well, affecting more. A lot of these plastic pieces are so small that it is hard for just any regular human to clean the waters without things like special technology. Some scientists even found as much as 1.7 million pieces per square mile! Overall, this problem is continually expanding and will not decrease unless humans decrease their use of plastic.

This picture shows an ocean floor covered in plastic pollution.

Opinion: I hope that technology starts to develop that is able to detect small pieces of plastic in the water because it is hurting the water animals, and can eventually hurt us. I found it so surprising that up to about 2 million pieces of plastic per square mile were found. As much as I do not enjoy lugging around a non-disposable water bottle or other non-disposable items, I think it may be time to trade in plastic disposable items such as plastic water bottles. These items are harshly affecting our environment and I do not think fish and water creatures should have to suffer because humans are too lazy to throw plastic items out. Hopefully, scientists will quickly be able to develop an advanced system to scan and clean the waters.

Questions:

Do you think this plastic pollution will possibly be harmful to those higher in the food chain?

Would you start using less plastic if this plastic pollution in water highly affected your area?

What kind of technology do you think the scientists will use to get the plastic particles out of the water?

Using Heat to Trace Groundwater Pollution

Using Heat to Trace Groundwater Pollution

National Science Foundation                                                                                     April 20, 2011

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/04/20/using-heat-to-trace-groundwater-pollution

Max Griffith

Summary

This article is about a way to find pollution in groundwater using only heat. Laura Lautz and her team are finding groundwater pollutions the way only a few teams are, by using heat. The National Science Foundation gave them more than $500,000 funding money for the team's efforts and work. Lautz claims that many people are very excited about this new technology. The way they find the pollution is by using fiber optic cable around a stream channel. Her team can measure short heat changes and find out where sources of groundwater inflow is, and that is where the pollution will be if there is pollution. Currently the team is working on two different projects. The projects are in New York and Wyoming. 

Opinion

I think this is cool technology. It is a different way to find a problem, and only a very limited amount of groups are doing it this way. It's important that we can find out where pollution is in the water we are drinking so that we can solve that problem. 

Questions

1. Do you think this is a good idea? Why?

2. Would you want more people doing this?

3. Would you want this kind of thing done around our area?

'Huge' water resource exists under Africa

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17775211

 Kelsy Hopkins

Summary

This is a diagram that shows the amount of water
discovered under the surface of Africa.

Many people know that throughout certain parts of Africa, there is a severe lack of water, let alone clean drinking water. But recently, scientists have discovered that Africa is actually sitting on a large reservoir of water. There may be tons of ground water

under the surface of Africa. When it rains, most water enters rivers, lakes or streams. But, the water that does not seeps through the ground and is stored in little crevices between rocks and stones. This water is called ground water. This ground water flows through things called aquifers, which purify the water, making it extremely clean. This purified water is found mostly in northern Africa, and it was stored there before the Sahara Desert was formed, from about 5,000 years ago. Although this water is old, it is perfectly safe to drink. This is a great thing for Africa, and it may make some places livable there, but the problem is how to get it. Scientists suggest that drilling large holes in the ground may not be suitable. They say that the best solution to getting this water could be hand pumps or developed boreholes. The slower the extraction, the better and easier it will be to get the clean water and possibly help Africa significantly.

My Opinion

I find this news quite astounding! This is great for Africa, and has the potential to help them greatly. It is really amazing on how scientists have figured this out, and I hope it will help Africa greatly. If this falls through and Africa can get more purified water, they can use it not only for drinking but for irrigation or agriculture as well.

            Questions

1. How do you think this will help Africa develop better as a country?

2. What do you think is the best was to extract this water?

3. Do you think this water is actually pure, and clean to drink?

4. If it was your decision, would you extract this water?

Global Warming: Are oceans headed for a dead zone?

Author: Bob Berwyn
Publication: February 25, 2013
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2013/02/25/global-warming-are-oceans-headed-for-a-dead-zone/

Picture: Recently, some scientists have been discovering more about our oceans and marine life using ancient fossils. They can use these to predict what can happen with our marine life today.










Summary: This article is about scientists using ancient marine fossils and what happened in the Jurassic age to predict what could happen to our marine life today. Through extensive observations, studies have suggested that what happened then could be the same today. Global temperatures on the rise and oxygen levels falling could lead to a close extinction of marine life. Researcher Richard Twitchett and colleagues performed an experiment where they laid sedimentary rocks with marine fossils inside on the sea floor. They recorded the conditions at that time, in the ocean and in the rock. They compared these records to current publications on ocean sea level, temperature, and concentrations. Twitchett and colleagues performed an ecological analysis to find out how the sea floor changed over time. Later, they found a dead zone within the rock, with nothing living inside of it. There was a return of life eventually, but it was completely new species. This pattern discovered shows extreme similarity between what happened in the Jurassic age with marine life.Rising sea levels and declining oxygen levels will not be good for our marine life in the future.

Opinion: I find this article to be very interesting. Who knew that fossils from millions of years ago could help us predict what could happen in the future? The outcomes of the experiment performed are very interesting. Extinction of our marine life will not be good for the world. We depend on our sea life for multiple things, including food, and even jobs. If what happened in the Jurassic ages happened today, it would be a complete disaster. But, it is a good thing we found this information out, because then we could prevent it in the future, by trying to prevent global warming.

Questions: 
1. What are some ways that we could stop this from happening?
2. Do you believe the experiment performed along with fossils from Jurassic times could help predict the future of marine life?
3. What do you think would happen if marine life became extinct?

Biodiversity Richness

From: Andy Soos, ENN
Published February 14, 2013 04:16 PM

Biodiversity Richness

http://www.enn.com/enn_original_news/article/45597

Picture: This is an ecosystem very rich in biodiversity with many different species. They all work together and depend on each other. Their individual survival depends on their neighbor.

Summary: This article was about the major causes of biodiversity. Biodiversity does rely a lot on climate. An example they used in the article was the tropics and the Polar Regions. The tropics generally have a higher biodiversity because they can support more species, while the Polar Regions can support few. Many of these scientists thought and theories have come from their work in Australia. In Australia, people have shown that its rich plant life was long ago destroyed by the ice ages. A common thought is evolution impacts a change in biodiversity, while they proved that extinction causes more changes. It is because of “five major mass extinctions and several minor events that have led to large and sudden drops in biodiversity.” A quote used in the article, “Traditionally scientists believed some places have more species than others because species evolved more rapidly in these places”, is proved wrong because scientists are figuring out that extinction causes more change than evolution. In Australia, scientists found out that any plant species that survived the ice age is now stronger and can stand a bigger climate change then many people would believe. On the other hand, the plants in other regions with more diversity may not hold up as well to dramatic climate changes.

Opinion: I found this article very interesting. When I always thought about different species in an area, I believed it was because each species had evolved, causing the difference in richness. Now I know that it was probably due to extinction of other species. I believe scientists should really pay a lot of attention to biodiversity because if we can figure out how a climate change would affect an ecosystem, before it happens, we could help. Also, if extinction is causing a change in biodiversity, we should do whatever we can to help endangered species, before it is too late.

Questions:

1. What do you think would be the best way for scientists to see how strong an ecosystem is?

2. Do you think extinction is a bigger factor in biodiversity change than evolution? Why or why not?

3. Other than try to reduce climate change, how might people be able to help with biodiversity?

-Natalie Laurito