Erin+Russell

PLASTIC POLLUTION SOLUTION (Week 1)

Earlier in the week, Mrs. Lil talked about how truly important recycling to the maintenance of a healthy environment. The earth has a finite amount of natural resources, and humans are quickly depleting them. In the year 2005, America alone generated 246 million tons of solid waste, while only recycling approximately 58 million tons of materials. The effects of the recycled products, however, are rather significant. By recycling 5 million tons of steel in 2005, Americans saved more than 6 million tons of iron ore, 2.5 million tons of coal, and 62,500 tons of limestone. By recycling 42 million tons of newsprint, office paper etc., Americans saved 714 million trees and 292,026 million gallons of water ([]).

Recycling can help to hasten the depletion of natural resources, as well as keep the environment clean and save energy. The more recycling that occurs, the less trees will be cut down. In addition, less energy is needed to create new products from recycled material as opposed to virgin material. By saving energy in industrial production through recycling, the greenhouse gases emitted from factories and industrial plants are lessened, and the use of fuels that emit harmful gasses during production is minimized as well. Recycling non-biodegradable waste (as opposed to burning it) will contribute to the reduction of air pollution/greenhouse gasses that destroy the ozone layer. Recycling will also reduce the amount of "stuff" in our landfills; plastics take much longer to break down than "garbage", so recycling will minimize the buildup of landfill material.

Though recycling seems easy, statistics show that many people disagree. According to greenwaste.com, the EPA states that although 75% of solid waste is recyclable, only about 30% is actually recycled. I have heard several times that our very own Upper Dublin High School does not actually recycle; if it does, it's not very much (rumor or not, this should not be in question). Go cards. [Not trying to completely bash on the school's eco-friendliness! We do have some very nice energy-efficient technologies-- motion sensor lights, sinks, etc.].

The plastic that sits in our environment/landfills can be extremely harmful to the earth as a whole. It disrupts ecosystems and releases toxins as it breaks down, resulting in harm to a variety of different organisms, including humans. Today, NPS (nonpoint source pollution) is the main reason approximately 40 percent of the rivers, lakes, and estuaries surveyed are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming.



media type="custom" key="26023402" Luckily, there are curious minds out there such as Mike Biddle. As a garbage man, he became appalled with the amount of plastic that goes to waste each year by sitting in landfills and polluting the environment. Mike has developed a form of "plastic currency"; instead of breaking down recyclable plastics (especially leftovers from recycled metals) into chemicals, he breaks them down into reusable "pellets" that can be transformed into brand new materials. This method saves 80-90% more energy, as also saves 1-3 tons of carbon dioxide/ton of plastic.

media type="custom" key="26023414" These young women noticed the outrageous amounts of plastic in local rivers, and were well aware off the harmful effects of plastic as it is broken down. Through experimentation, they have discovered a bacteria that is able to break down phthalates (a part of plastics that is toxic to the environment when released).

$$$ RECYCLING CAN ALSO SAVE MONEY! $$$
By reducing the amount of waste, disposal and hauling costs will decline! []



America can learn from Europe. The EU has administered the Waste Reduction Directive (2008), which essentially acts to turn Europe into a recycling society. The European waste hierarchy refers to the 5 steps included The Waste Framework Directive: 1) Prevention - preventing and reducing waste generation. 2) Reuse and preparation for reuse - giving the products a second life before becoming waste. 3) Recycle - any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes (including composting; excluding incineration). 4) Recovery - some waste incineration based on a political non-scientific formula that upgrades the less inefficient incinerators. 5) Disposal - processes to dispose of waste be it landfilling, incineration, pyrolisis, gasification and other finalist solutions. The European Waste Hierarchy is legally binding except in cases that may require specific waste streams to depart from the hierarchy.

Some of our natural resources may even run out in this century. Recycling can help to slow this process.

Bioengineering: Bad or Beneficial? (Week 2)

This Friday, Mrs. Lil discussed the topic of GMO's (genetically modified organisms) as far as food sources: corn with DNA that kills pests, tomatoes with DNA that gives it a longer shelf life, etc. Genetic modification goes much farther than food sources. It can also be used on animals: cloning endangered species, creating goats that produce a certain drug in their milk. This may seem beneficial on the surface, but when is the line drawn? media type="custom" key="26109922" In this video, Michael Root discusses the different uses of bioengineering. Modern science has advanced so far that we can now create DNA from a computer (PCR). Insects and rats can be controlled with a joystick. The neurons of a mouse can be used to create a computer chip that is advanced enough to run a flight simulation, while the brain of an eel can control a cart after being isolated from the body. A computer can read a monkey's brain waves to move a prosthetic arm in a different room, allowing the monkey to eventually control three arms independently. Mammals can now grow human ears and glow in the dark. But where is the line drawn? Is it ethical to completely strip an organism of its autonomy? Though there are some apparent benefits to bioengineering, it also appears to be interfering with evolution. For thousands and thousands of years, mother nature has been in control of the traits we posses through natural selection; species are shaped by their environments. Now that we have the ability to pick and choose our own DNA/traits just from a computer, human beings are the ones in control of evolution. We have the power to dictate not just our own evolutionary paths, but also the organisms around us. Mother nature has been doing a fine job for as long as she's been around, so what will happen when we disrupt the balance? Is it okay that we may be able to hand-pick the traits of our offspring? If we can genetically modify monkeys, we will likely be able to modify apes, and thus humans.

Right now, it's also unclear if genetically modified food impacts humans or not. Though genetically modified corn may crystalize the stomach of a weevil, we are unsure if it has any effects on the human stomach. Hopefully, we find out before it is too late, especially since about 80% of foods on the market contain GMOs. It is important that our generation can grow up to find a balance between creating beneficial modifications and potentially unethical/threatening disruptions of nature's intended path.

** HIGH SCHOOLER CURES CANCER?! (WEEK 3) ** After visiting Johnson & Johnson, I gained a new appreciation for the process of creating/testing drugs. Though it seems to be a fairly simple process, it often takes up to fifteen years to develop a drug, and costs companies an average of $359 million. Needless to say, it is relatively flawed. Many drugs that are tested in clinical trials do not even progress any further. Not to mention the fact that healthy volunteers must be willing to try new drugs, accepting the chance that the drug may be fatal or have serious side effects.

media type="custom" key="26172848" In this video, high school student Jack Andraka was sitting in his high school biology class, when he discovered a new way to detect early signs of pancreatic cancer: a cancer that is usually not detected until the later, more severe stages in which there is only close to a 5.5% survival rate (85% diagnosed late). Every test costs $800 and is extremely inaccurate, missing 30% of cancers.

After doing some research, Jack figured out that he could isolate a protein that is found in the blood of people with early stages of pancreatic cancer, during the time when there is close to 100% chance of survival. Using a small pipe of carbon (carbon nanotube), Jack attached antibodies that would react only with the protein found in the blood of pancreatic cancer patients. Since the nanotube is flimsy, he dipped paper in a solution with nanotubes with the antibodies and was then able to detect pancreatic cancer with this paper. This costs 3 cents and five minutes to make, which is 168x faster, 26,000x less expensive, and 400x more sensitive than a regular pancreatic cancer test. The antibodies can essentially be switched out for any other antibody/protein combination, thus allowing for the detection of many other cancers and disorders.

NO BIG DEAL!! Though Jack did not have a fancy lab or billions of dollars, this only comes to show that there appears to be a flaw in the world of drug development. Many potential drugs do not even get tested because there is not enough money to go through with the phases of drug development. AND, out of all the drugs that //are// tested, only a small percentage actually make it to large scale production, after billions of dollars are put forth toward the successes and failures. If a HS student can do it for 3 cents, imagine how many INCREDIBLE drugs could be made in a professional lab if there was more funding?

How can scientists accumulate more money to put toward research?