A solid (pun intended) idea.

We know that our food helps create our waste.   But did you know that our waste also helps create our food?   

Wait.  What? 

The first thought that comes to mind is ‘How disgusting.’

And, that’s perfectly understandable.  In our westernized perspective, human waste is filthy and unsanitary and an absolute nuisance.  It’s disgusting and it should stay in the sewages.  

 

However, our human waste is actually a great sustainable agricultural fertilizer. 

Wait.  What?  

We’re talking about biosolids.  Now, however similar the two are, it is critical to remember that our sewage sludge is NOT THE SAME as biosolids.  Biosolids are sludge that has undergone numerous treatments and filtering to significantly reduce and destroy diseases and/or bacteria.  The result is a stabilized and fairly safe product that helps enhance our agricultural practices.  Biosolids are rich in nutrients and organic, and always have to meet a high quality standard. 

So why are people so hesitant about biosolids?  Because they're poop?   One of the main worries is that biosolids can become a potential health hazard, with contamination from the accumulation of the waste.  Their true composition is unknown and therefore they may be dangerous and unhealthy.  As mentioned before, this is true for untreated human waste and sewage sludge.  

But biosolids are different!

Biosolids have gone through treatments for the reduction of pathogens. (Pathogens are any kind of bacteria or virus that can cause diseases.)  These processes include digestion, drying, temperature elevation, addition of lime, composting to kill any remaining pathogenic organisms.   Also, it is important to note that biosolids must always meet a certain standard and are routinely tested to make sure it complies with state and national guidelines.  They must always contain a very low concentration of heavy metals and pesticides.  

Studies have shown that what little risks associated with biosolids, are to be completely negligible.  Using biosolids and recycling sewage wastes is not a new idea; it’s been around and in use for centuries.  To date, it has been concluded that the application of biosolids  to land has no adverse effects on the environment or on our health.  

Basically, biosolids are clean.

 In fact, because biosolids contain such large amounts of the required nutrients that crops and plants need to grow (such as nitrogen and phosphorus); they enable farmers to reduce the usage of unnatural and chemical fertilizers.  So, they're probably even healthier for us!

As for the environment, biosolids are again better than commercial fertilizers, because the nitrogen in biosolids is released slowly in an organic form.  Therefore, they're less likely to cause water pollution from the release of nitrates and phosphates.  

So, now they’re clean and healthy and environmentally-friendly!  Biosolids just keep getting better and better.  

That’s not all.  Among their many benefits, biosolids also provide many more advantages.  They create jobs, they are cost-effective, they promote recycling instead of filling landfills, and they also promote farming and reduce emissions for transportation to landfills. 

Most importantly, biosolids are a good, effective and free fertilizer.

They also improve crop production, reduce soil erosion and water pollution, enrich and provide economic returns (due to its improvement of productivity and generation of income).  

The list goes on and on.

Farmers, gardeners, environmental scientists and governments all agree… biosolids are beneficial and is a fantastic current agricultural practice.   

The only people left to decide is...

Us.  The consumers.  

We cannot let the fact that it’s poop overshadow all of the benefits that biosolids give us.   However hard it is to digest (pun intended), using biosolids is the healthier, cost-efficent, economy-improving, environmentally-safe method. 

 

I commented on Dora’s blog  and Taylor’s blog.

 

References:

Government Engineering by Marc Roehl

Getting the Most Out of Your Biosolids

http://www.govengr.com/ArticlesSep09/wastewater_solids.pdf

Virginia Biosolids Council

Composting a growing option for biosolids recycling

http://www.hrsd.state.va.us/pdf/Biosolids%20News%204.09.r.pdf

Lynchburg College Principles of Science 102A

BIOSOLIDS: Fertilizer or Pollution?

http://www.sencer.net/Outreach/pdfs/DCSymposium08/Posters/LUbiosolids.pdf

Water Corporation

Biosolids, Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/B/biosolids_faq.cfm

Biosolids.com

Fact Sheet 3 – Land Application of Biosolids

http://www.biosolids.com.au/forms/FactSheetThree-Land-Application-of-Biosolids.pdf

Bombs and Robots, perfectly safe technologies

Our human body is as fascinating as it is complex.  With our intricate internal body systems (like the digestive, circulatory or respiratory), we rely on discoveries and new technologies to help us understand, analyze and heal.  

When it comes to technologies, novel concepts, and ideas, Canada is creative and innovative.  From inventions of splitting knives to revolutionary methods like music therapy for the physically disabled and hypothermia during heart surgery to slow down body processes, there are plenty of Canadian contributions to talk about.

First off, the cobalt bomb.  While it sounds dangerous, it is actually considered as the grandfather of radiation technology since cobalt bombs are one of the most effective and best ways to combat cancer.

Cancer was originally treated by radiation from x-ray machines and radium, both of which were expensive, complicated and weak.    After some extensive research, Canadian scientists discovered that when Cobalt-59 (cobalt in its natural stable state) attracted another neutron and became Cobalt-60, it becomes extremely unstable.   Thanks to Ms. Chaput-Ross, I now understand that when Cobalt-60 decays, it emits a beta particle of radiation… one that has 100x more radioactive power than radium.  

KABOOM.   

Not only do cobalt bombs kill cancerous cells in patients, but because of its intensive and concentrated dose – it is especially effective for deeper tumours (in the cervix, bladder and lungs).   And it was much cheaper than radium.  

“It was futuristic, it worked miracles, and it was made in Canada." – The Beaver, a Canadian history magazine on their summarizing thought on the cobalt bomb.

Now, for another, but no less futuristic sounding technology… robot surgeons.   

Basically, robot surgeons are machines that help improve surgery techniques.  It’s not as invasive as and infinitely more precise than that of a human hand that can tremble or tire easily.    It maximizes healing and has many benefits such as less post-operative pains, shorter hospital stays and less blood loss – all resulting in a faster recovery.  

Of course, it’s not replacing surgeons in any way, but instead, making it safer and more convenient for both the patient and the surgeon.  The only issue is that these robotic surgeons have no sense of touch.  That loss of connection is extremely important in surgeries since you want to be able to assess and feel the tissue as accurately as possible.   There are still improvements to be made with better receptors and more sensitive vibrations.

However, the above benefits still remain, as well as lower costs and more efficient surgery time and post-operative time.   

Check our this video, revealing all the secrets about a robot surgeon here. 

 

These medical breakthroughs are just two of many technologies that help heal us.  Modern and ground-breaking, technological advancements as innovative as these are being developed every day, improving our knowledge and abilities for healing the complex human body.

I commented on: Inggrid’s blog and Taylor’s blog 

My references are:

Canadian’s Greatest Medical Research

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.html

Cobalt Bombs

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/natural_science/clips/1855/

http://archives.cbc.ca/health/medical_research/topics/1616-11113/

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/arts_life/story.html?id=53b167d1-4e79-4a2e-98c1-88856f4b0e6a

Robot Surgeons:

http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/stories/can_robots_become_eyes_and_hands_of_surgeons?_20081120443268/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12583203

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_northamerica/2011-04-06/-da-vinci-robot-assists-surgeons-.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/robotic-surgery1.htm

MacNaturebreeds

MacDonald is a mass production of food.  Technology has been used in order to aide this mass production, with little attention to the health and safety of the people and the environment.   It’s cheaper, feeds more people, easier and faster.

Industrial agriculture is very much the same.  It’s MacNaturebreeds!   We’re relying on a few highly productive livestock breeds and crops for the same reason many fast food restaurants do: the money-making, profitable business of it all. 

With industrial agriculture, humans dominate instead of balance.  We control and modify crops and breeds with chemicals and impose unnatural technology.  

For those who are like me, and are unaware of the difference between ‘industrial’ agriculture and ‘sustainable’ agriculture, I googled and paraphrased it for you.  

Industrial agriculture is basically a kind of modern farming to the ‘industrialized’ production of livestock and crops.  Political and economical influences are prevalent in this industry.

Sustainable agriculture is simply agriculture that is socially fair to the environment and to farming communities.  It is also humane.

Clearly, the latter is the better choice.  Naturally (no pun intended), we should practice the kind of agriculture that is beneficial to all – in terms of farmers, consumer’s health and the environment.

To be fair, industrial agriculture does have its benefits.  It’s a cheap way to produce abundant amounts of food – making it more available and frees farm labouring.  With the number of humans on this planet… it’s certainly appealing.  Not to mention profitable as well.   A child dies every five seconds due to hunger related issues, and industrial agriculture is perceived to be a way to lift those out of hunger and poverty. 

BUT IT’S NOT SUSTAINABLE!!  This is only a short term solution, and one that provides many more long term problems.  Small-scale farmers, rural communities and the environment are being bullied.  With the manipulation and the force of food companies, farmers have no choice: either surrender and use synthetic seeds, pesticides and fertilizers or starve. 

And while we may not be too concerned about farmers – now countries must also spend money to sustain them (even though, really, it was their fault to begin with) and drives thousands of farmers to their death.  The soil eventually becomes unusable and infertile, due to chemical overdose. 

After watching Food Inc., it’s easy to see that industrial agriculture is a global crisis.  We’re being lied about our food and how it’s made, hiding the unethical and unsanitary ways about our livestock and crops.  It creates/promotes

-         diabetes and obesity

-         factory farming with inhumane conditions – also polluting communities

-         pesticides (associated with cancers, autism and other neurological disorders)

-         denying farmers their rights

-         disgusting, artificial food 

The agricultural industry can most certainly keep up with the rapid growth of human population WITHOUT resorting to these tactics! 

“There are many arguments against organic and sustainable agriculture, namely that they can’t produce an economy of scale to feed our rapidly growing world population. Another criticism is that there isn’t enough natural fertilizer to maintain current yields and chemicals must be used. 

There is also a concern that the low prices we’ve become accustomed to won’t be there with organic agriculture. From the evidence that I’ve found, none of these arguments stand up to scrutiny and organic farming practices can indeed maximize the benefits and minimize the downsides.” (Allan Warren, Life More Natural)


Huh.  So it seems as if industrial agriculture really doesn’t have a leg to stand on at all.

The topic of this bioblog is "feeding a growing population" versus "conserving biodiversity".  But, we don't have to choose, with sustainable agriculture - BOTH are possible! 

So tell me what you think. You want to buy food that’s been genetically modified to grow faster, greater, bigger and cheaper?  Or you want to eat food that’s nutritionally healthy, good and wholesome? 

I commented on Dora's blog and Inggrid's blog.

My references are:

Chowdhury, Debasish Roy. "The Hungry Won't Live If Farms Die." China Daily Website - Connecting China Connecting the World. China Daily, 23 May 2008. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-05/23/content_6728427.htm>.

Horrigan, Leo. "What's Wrong with Industrial Agriculture." Organic Consumers Association. Organic Consumers Association, 20 Mar. 2002. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/IndustrialAg502.cfm>.

"Industrial Agriculture | Economy Watch." World, US, China, India Economy, Investment, Finance, Credit Cards | Economy Watch. Ed. Stanley StLab. Economy Watch. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://www.economywatch.com/agriculture/types/industrial.html>.

Rae, Jenna. "Effects of Industrial Agriculture of Crops on Water and Soil - a Knol by Jenna Rae." Knol - a Unit of Knowledge: Share What You Know, Publish Your Expertise. Knol Beta, 28 Apr. 2009. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://knol.google.com/k/effects-of-industrial-agriculture-of-crops-on-water-and-soil#>.

Warren, Allan. "Organic vs Industrial Agriculture: Can We Have the Best of Both?" Life More Natural. Life More Natural, 7 May 2009. Web. 28 Dec. 2010. <http://lifemorenatural.com/?p=1155>.

Designer babies!!!

Designer babies.   

The thought that comes to my mind is the image of these robotic children, all with flawless, glowing skin, red lips, almond-shaped eyes and adorable smiles.  Destined to build an army a race of ‘super-people’, it’s truly something out of a creepy sci-fi novel!

However, scientists have confirmed that the technology is nowhere near that level, and it is indisputable: as our technology evolves – so will we.  Examples could include the choice to procreate or not to (abortion, condoms) and for previously determined infertile women to have children.  There is no doubt that every time genetic engineering progresses, social and ethical implications will also develop.

Modifying a child’s genes whether for cosmetic or for medical reasons will change the way we think about children, the women who bear them, the human body and the meaning of human reproduction.

With genetic manipulation, it has the potential to relieve a child’s suffering, and it could also improve treatment for certain illnesses.  In fact, after a few generations in the future, it’s entirely plausible that the gene may be out of the gene pool completely.

 

There’s a possibility of having a human race that has no more illnesses, no more disabilities and no more imperfections. 

That makes me worry.  We’ll be limiting our diversity if designer babies continue and eventually populate the world.  We’ll be “breeding out” our differences.  Also, even if these procedures of manipulation of genes and chromosomes are performed originally for medical reasons, it’s a slippery slope. 

It is my belief that parental expectations will shoot through the roof.  Children will be objects of parental whims, and parents will be able to mould the appearance of their babies and instead of being their own person, children will be now viewed as objects of ownership.   It does seem drastic and maybe I’m being overtly dramatic, but there are some parents in this world who already do this.  Designer babies are only fuelling perfectionist attitudes towards children!

Also, being able to pre-select the sex of a person also poses a huge problem.   In our communities, why would you pre-select a gender?  It’s sexist and it encourages gender stereotypes.  To add to that, in countries like India and China, there’s a preference for sons, and it is researched that people in the United States and Western Europe prefer their first-born to be male as well.  (J. Egozcue, “Sex selection: Why Not?)  

If indeed, there’s a partiality towards men, then that harms women physically and psychologically.  It accentuates class differences and greater distinctions between sexes. 

Personally, I don’t feel comfortable with the idea of genetic engineering of this extent.  Do I wish that my genes were reconstructed to lengthen my horrible memory?  Without a doubt!  I’ve always hoped to possess photographic memory (especially before tests and exams), but if I had known that my parents had ‘planned’ for me to turn out this way… that changes my mindset so much, that I can hardly fathom it. 

How much of myself is my choice?  How much of myself are my parents’? 

I mean, I know that my family’s love for me is unconditional.   But for designer children, will they feel the same love from their family?  Or will it be a message of “I will only love you if you’re like this, or if you possess these certain qualities”?  

It’s ironic.  Parents will now possess more control, but children will suffer a loss of it. 

What do you think?    

References (click here)

Blogs I commented on:  here and here

Go check them out!

Works Cited

Agar, Nicholas. "Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience - Promoting Bioscience Literacy. Apr. 2006. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html>.

Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose? | Wired Science | Wired.com." Wired News. 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/>.

Peterson-Iyer, Karen. Designer Children: Reconciling Genetic Technology, Feminism, and Christian Faith. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2004. Print.

Pollack, Gladys. "Designer Babies." Reader's Digest Magazine Canada Online | Reader's Digest Canada. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/09/designer_babies.html>.

"What Is a Designer Baby?" Bionet - New Discoveries in Life Sciences - Explore the Science and Debate the Issues. Bionet, 2002. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont1.htm>.

Crikey!!

“G’day, I’m Steve Irwin.”

And with that phrase, a television program airing from 1997 to 2004 had begun.  The Crocodile Hunter.

The Crocodile Hunter Logo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crocodile_Hunter_Logo.png

This television show showcased the best of our reptiles in the world.  It gave positive and equal attention to animals that would normally be viewed as unappealing.

However, teaching about nature and its biodiversity is not new.  Many scientists and activists have always done that. 

Except, Steve Irwin managed to make it fun.  He was interesting and funny and outrageously brave that his zeal and love for our natural wildlife was effective.  Steve Irwin was not a preacher, because he didn’t lecture.  He was an enthusiast when teaching. 

Steve didn’t communicate simply through words, he did through it actions as well.  He crept behind lions, interacted with untamed dangerous and usually poisonous animals.  He leapt on crocodile backs and grabbed snakes by the tail!

 One of my favorite 'Crocodile Hunter' episodes: (Super Croc!) 

Steve Irwin in action, http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/08/Xpress/On_the_wild_side_with.shtml

In his khaki shorts, Steve was energetic in promoting environmentalism, always drawing attention to endangered animals and conserving habitats and lands.  He encouraged people to considerate practices.

One thing is clear in his work, is that conservation is key. 

“…an environmental Tarzan, a larger-than-life superhero guy.” –Terri Bindi

His television audience is speculated to be about 200 million and counting, with reruns and DVDs and broadcasts. 

Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray in 2006, but yet, his influence continues. 

Now, a once family-run park from the Irwin family, it is now the Australia Zoo, with hundreds of passionate conservationists and counting.  This zoo is funding and participating in countless national and international projects to protect the world’s environment and humanity.

He founded a charity, now called Wildlife Warriors Worldwide, which has helped preserve and conserve, and still continues to do so.

His daughter, Bindi Irwin, has been in movies and shows - using the media to teach and communicate with her television series, “Bindi, the Jungle Girl.”  She’s earning a respectable title of being an environmentalist herself.  His wife Terri and his 3 year old son, Bob, will also make sure his message is passed on.

The Irwin family, http://www.lookoutnoosa.com.au/blog/australia-zoo/

And every year, November 15^th is Steve Irwin Day, a day to commemorate this great hero.

Steve’s knowledge sparked curiosity, and his passion inspired change.  With his charismatic personality and his big gestures, he’s become a wildlife icon.

Because of The Crocodile Hunter, people all around the world are taking actions to sustain the biodiversity of our ecosystems.  We’re appreciating the wildlife that is in jungles and forests and the unique animals that nature has given us.

"I consider myself a wild-life warrior. My mission is to save the world's endangered species." – Steve Irwin

Alrighty mate, leave a comment? 

 References (click here)

I commented on Angeli's post about Sea Lampreys and Alex's post about primate protection (BBPP).

 

References

"About Steve Irwin." Australia Zoo - Home of the Crocodile Hunter - “Conservation through Exciting Education”. The Australia Zoo. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.crocodilehunter.com/crocodile_hunter/about_steve_terri/index.html>.

"Animal Planet :: The Crocodile Hunter." Animal Planet : Pets, Wild Animals, Dog Breeds, Cat Breeds. Discovery Communications, LLC. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/crochunter/crochunter.html>.

"Australia Zoo - Conservation - Projects." Australia Zoo - Home of the Crocodile Hunter - “Conservation through Exciting Education”. The Australia Zoo. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.crocodilehunter.com/conservation/projects/>.

"Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin Dies - World News - Msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- Msnbc.com. Associated Press, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14663786/>.

Powell, Rich. "Steve Irwin Memorial." Steve Irwin Memorial - Online Steve Irwin the Crocodile Hunter Tribute. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.ripsteve.com/>.