What Do You Think? Disgusting or Innovating?

BIOSOLIDS. It’s just a decent way of saying human waste, which is just a decent way of saying something not quite as nice. Ever heard the saying, “One man’s garbage is another man’s gold?” How about, “One man’s waste is another farmer’s fertilizer?” In some places in the world this saying is true. People’s waste is processed and turned into biosolids, which is then used as an agricultural fertilizer, believe it or not. You know that carrot you ate the other day? The one that tasted pretty good? Well, just think, that carrot could have been fermenting in your processed poop.

Processed poop is probably too harsh a term for this situation. The human waste travels to a sewage treatment plant where all hazardous contaminants are removed. The domestic sewage is then sent on to a waste water treatment plant where it undergoes numerous processes which clean it and remove the solids. These solids that are removed from the domestic waste are the actual fertilizer. Once separated, the solids can be treated with lime, which raises the pH and removes any odours. Now, we have our biosolids, which can be separated into two classes, Class A and Class B. Class A biosolids are higher quality and contain less pathogens, while Class B biosolids contain some contaminants as well as pathogens. The use of biosolids has been debated over constantly. Here, we will explore the pros and cons of using biosolids as a sustainable agricultural fertilizer.

PROS:

• Biosolids are a renewable resource. There will never be an end to our supply of domestic sewage, therefore we will not have to worry about overusing our reservoir.

• The use of biosolids as agricultural fertilizers will reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. This can save farmers money and increase the overall health of the plants being fertilized because chemical fertilizers can have negative results on the plants’ and the environment’s health.

• When we use biosolids we are also recycling. Everyone knows that recycling is good. If we didn’t recycle our waste then it would just fill up a landfill instead, or get dumped in a lake, so if using biosolids means that we’re recycling (even if its our own waste) it’s a good thing, right?

• The use of biosolids as agricultural fertilizers is cheaper than filling up landfills and buying chemical fertilizer since they are not synthesized.

• Crop production can be improved with the application of biosolids as agricultural fertilizer. Biosolids contain essential nutrients that greatly enhance a plant’s growth, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. These nutrients also improve the quality of the soil, and can allow them to hold more water.

• Sites that were used for mining can sustain vegetation with the help of biosolids. The nutrients in the biosolids reduce the levels of toxic substances found in these mining sites and create a soil layer.

• Both the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the National Academy of Sciences, after considering current practices, health concerns, and regulator standards, have deemed the use of biosolids as agricultural fertilizers safe. The National Academy of Sciences stated that, “The use of these materials in the production of crops for human consumption when practiced in accordance with existing federal guidelines and regulations, presents negligible risk to the consumer, to crop production and to the environment.”

CONS:

• Many countries have been hesitant to implement the use of biosolids as agricultural fertilizers because biosolids can contain an excess of metals. Though human waste is comparable to animal waste, human waste has higher concentrations of zinc, copper, lead, and molybdenum, all of which are metal. By using biosolids as an agricultural fertilizer there is the danger of metal accumulation in the land, which can lead to health problems of the plants and animals.

• Since biosolids contain many toxins such as dioxins and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), if there was any contact between the biosolids and water, the water could be contaminated.

• There is also a chance that the air and food can be contaminated by the bacteria as well, leading to hazards for public health.

• Biosolids can also contain pathogens. A pathogen is any organism or substance that is capable of causing disease, such as a bacteria or virus.

• Some biosolids can still have a strong odour even after treatment. The smell can range from a slight ammonia smell to the distinctive smell of human waste.

• Though biosolids themselves are not costly, removing the toxins and the contaminants from human waste can be.

Looking back at the pros and cons of using biosolids as agricultural fertilizers, is it a realistic alternative to our current agricultural practices? The logic points to a yes but I think most of us will say no. The potential stakeholders in this issue are farmers, the government, and the companies who are producing biosolids.

Western view has influenced us to view human waste as an unsanitary and disgusting nuisance. We think that there can be no use for something as revolting as our own waste. Even when a viable option is at hand we tend to let it slide because our waste is just that… waste. Of course it looks gross and smells gross but so does animal waste. If we can use animal manure as fertilizer why can’t we use our own? If we can just get over the idea that our waste is unsanitary and disgusting then we can start to use it to benefit our world. I think the use biosolids as agricultural fertilizers is certainly a good alternative, and as long as I don’t think about what my carrot was fermenting in before I ate it then I’ll be fine.

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/genqa.htm

http://www.biosolids.com/benefits.html

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

http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/proceedings/2000/00-107.pdf

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/qa/105-1focus/focusbeauty.html

If society wants it, then we'll make it...

In the past few decades, the media has portrayed the ideal body type as skinny and 'in-shape'. To fit in, we feel like we must all have this ideal body image so society has now shaped to accompany this image. Nutrition and a healthy lifestyle has become more important, and many people have opted for a more active one as well. This change of social needs has led to many scientific and technological developments. These developments have aided our complex body structures such as the circulatory system, the digestive system, and the respiratory system.

A healthy died is a large part of being fit. The idea of nutrition is taking over everywhere, especially in magazines. There are articles, pictures, recipes and more that were designed to promote healthy eating. With this increase, nutrition is being analyzed scientifically as well as technologically for ways in which it can be better.

For example, scientists and manufacturers have created vitamin tablets as an additional or supplementary source of vitamins. The following picture is an example of vitamin C tablets.

The production of these large vitamins changed societal needs so that smaller vitamins were desired. Scientists then developed tablets that were smaller and easier to swallow, yet with that there came a problem: the vitamins in the tablet are tightly packed to create their small size, yet they are so tightly packed that the body cannot disintegrate and absorb the vitamins before it passes through the digestive tract. This chain reaction of the change in societal needs will create more and more openings for scientific advances.

Scientific developments involving health concerns often need a closer look at the human digestive tract. This leads to developments in technology that will allow us to discover more about our digestive system. One such technological development is a swallowable sensor. A swallowable sensor is a wireless capsule that a patient ingests that transmits information to a receiver, and aids in diagnosing digestive disorders. An example of one of these swallowable sensors is the SmartPill:

The SmartPill is swallowed by the patient the same way that a large pill would be, as it is around the same size and shape. It contains a radio transmitter and devices that measure the acidity and pressure. The time, acidity levels, and pressure levels are transmitted from the pill to a receiver as it passes through the gastrointestinal tract.

Again, a chain reaction is created where more and more technological advances develop that can help with our bodies’ systems.

In our quest to become thin, humans have turned to exercising as a way to lose the extra calories and relieve some stress as well. I think this is a great idea, after exercising I always feel great. Exercising lowers blood pressure, helps you lose weight, helps prevent breakouts, relieves stress, and can just put you in a better mood. With the increase in active lifestyles, a pair of running shoes and some workout clothes is no longer enough for many people’s exercise routines. Though some haven’t, many people have chosen the high-tech machines over just plain running on the track or outside. In today’s society, people want to burn more calories and work more muscles at the same time. So manufacturers were forced to create machines that could do just that, such as rowing machines or the elliptical. By working out on machines with a higher efficiency, humans can increase the performance of his or her respiratory system by strengthening it.

Other technological and scientific developments that affect our respiratory system are asthmatic inhalers, or a metered-dose inhalers. Today’s health and fitness craze has led to the discovery of an abundance of people and children with asthma. Since we always feel like we need to fit in, people with asthma demand a cure, or at least some medicine that will allow them to live ‘normal’ lives. The creation of the inhaler was inspirational and could effectively treat thisrespiratory disease.

So far I have discussed the societal needs that relate to healthy living, but what about the societal needs that are purely for our entertainment and our laziness? What about our “quick-fix” attitude? Or our idea that easier is always better? For many of us, our laziness far outweighs our resolve to be active. We can access so much with just a few clicks on a remote control; music, television, video games, internet, shopping, physical labour, you name it! Scientists have created more and more ways for us to exert our laziness and technology has advanced them to such a point where we expect everything to be done for us. Science can even digest our food for us to a certain extent, though the reason behind our failing digestive system may not be laziness.

Think about how much money is spent on enhancing technology such as ipods, laptops, and things such as automatic car and garage doors. Now think about how much is spent on scientific and technological developments related to internal systems. I’m sure that they are both enormous amounts but the money spent on technology for amusement is probably higher. Now take away the money spent on technology for amusement and add it to the amount that we spend on these developments related to internal systems. Imagine how much funding they would have! Of course society would still demand some funding for entertainment advances, yet think of what scientists could develop that could increase our health. Any of our societal needs are directly connected to scientific and technological developments. Therefore if our societal needs are nutrition and a healthy and active lifestyle then any of these developments would be related to our internal systems and ways in which we could improve them. If we keep heading in the direction of health rather than laziness, our world will soon be filled with amazing technology and ideas that will benefit us indescribably instead of items that will become useless to us the second a newer and ‘better’ version comes out.

Sources:

Humphries, Courtney. "Swallowable Sensor." Technology Review, MIT. September 7, 2006.

http://technologyreview.com/biomedicine/17470/?a=f

Mark, Steve. "The Truth about Vitamin Tablets." Hubpages. May 10, 2010.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Truth-about-VItamin-Tablets

ThinkQuest. “Respiratory System.” May 10, 2010.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/02090/TQEnglish/respiratorysystem.htm

BioTopics. “The Human Respiratory System.” May 10, 2010.

http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/resyst.html

Artificial Selection: Bringing humans one step closer to controlling everything.

Natural selection - A process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution,only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations, while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Artificial selection - Modification of a species by human intervention so that certain desirable traits are represented in successive generations.

Clearly, natural selection is the earth's way of deciding which genetic traits are passed on or not and so far it seems to have worked out well. So how come humans have decided that they have to be in control of this process rather than letting the earth figure it out for itself, thus creating artificial selection? Which of these two options is the best option for the success of our world? Are humans overexerting their power by implementing artificial selection? Do we even need artificial selection to survive?

Artificial selection is a process that is used for many different reasons which has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, racehorses that run faster and dogs that look cuter, to name a few.

Lets look at some pros and cons of artificial selection:

Pros:

Artificial selection has existed in dog and horse breeding for centuries to create pure bred that are faster, stronger and better looking than other animals of their species.

For example, artificial selection has given humans the ability to create dogs that vary in size from the Great Dane to Chihuahuas, though they both are a variation of the same species; a wolf-like canid.

Artificial selection has allowed agricultural workers to pick out the genetic traits in plants that make them bigger and more disease-resistant.

Farmers can also raise larger animals (pigs, cows, etc.) through artificial selection to produce the largest amount of meat.

Artificial selection has created vegetables that would have never existed such as cauliflower and broccoli, all from one parent vegetable, the wild mustard.

Artificial selection creates a world in which we can decide the genetic outcome of the next generation of animals and plants.

Artificial selection can also be applied to medicine. Specifically in stem cell research, artificial selection can be used by picking only the best stem cells to become cells of another part of the body. Genetically modified bacteria can also be produced through this human-controlled process that can benefit drug production.

Cons:

Artificial selection goes against nature. By deciding which genes we want to be passed on to future generations we are denying the earth's process of natural selection. Natural selection selects the genes that allow the generation to survive and withstand the demands of their environment, while artificial selection does not care about survival in nature; just that the organism is the way they want it to look, or is as big as they want it to be.

Many of the changes that artificial selection has made against animals and plants have not been positive.

For example, when artificial selection is used in dog breeding, the resulting dog is genetically weak, a characteristic that would normally have been 'weeded out' by natural selection. Also, farmers create chickens that are so large, they can barely walk, which is very unfair to the chicken.

Artificial selection is an exploitation of our power as humans and it is ethically wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all this in mind, I think that artificial selection should be used only for medicinal and agricultural purposes to a certain extent because they benefit our society in ways which can move our world in a positive direction. However I do not support the enlargement of chickens to the point where they cannot walk, or any use of this process which causes pain to animals. Artificial selection used in dog and horse breeding and other recreational purposes with reasons only for entertainment is not really necessary because it has no real value to our world.

Bibliography

AAAS News. "Scientists Discover Sequence of Canine DNA Key to Diversity in Dog Body Size." April 5, 2007.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0405dogs.shtml

The free dictionary. "Natural Selection".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+selection

The free dictionary. "Artificial Selection".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificial+selection

Pie, Jengy. "Artificial Selection and its Application to Medicine." Helium.

http://www.helium.com/items/804222-artificial-selection-and-its-application-to-medicine

Port, Tami. "Natural and Artificial Selection." Suite101. December 6, 2007.

http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/natural_and_artificial_selection

Port, Tami. "The Role of Natural Selection in Evolution." Associated Content Technology. October 5, 2009. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2250971/the_role_of_natural_selection_in_evolution.html?cat=58

Designing our Future with Babies: It's All About the Control.

Every parent wants their child to grow up to be strong, smart, and good-looking, to say the least, but how far are they willing to go for it?

The Human Genome Project, which began in 1990, has given scientists an abundance of information on the genes of the human genome and a completed gene map. This information about or DNA allows us to predict and genetically modify our children’s features.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is the first step towards designer babies. PGD determines which embryos carry defects and gene mutations, such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and Huntington's chorea. These tests are offered at fertility clinics all over Canada and are the first step in creating designer babies. This first step is, in my opinion, purely ethical because the parents are only doing what is best for the child by making sure that their baby will be healthy. If the embryos are found to have defects then gene therapy comes into play. Using gene therapy, the defective genes can be replaced by normal genes to cure a genetic disorder; of which there are currently over 3500. Once you get these first two steps down, taking a PGD test and going through gene therapy to cure genetic disorders, you are still acting in your child’s best interests and only thinking of their safety and health.

This is the part where it gets tricky. While you’re already altering your child’s genes, you might as well alter their appearance too, right? Boy or girl? Tall or short? Brown haired or blonde?

Wrong.

This is when parents take genetic modification a step too far. The purpose of procreation is to create a child that is uniquely yours, with bits of you and your partner in it. As soon as PGD is used for non-therapeutic use it purely for the parents, not the child. Sure, some people will argue that the parents still only have the child’s best interests in mind because they just want their child to be attractive and have a better life. Well, looks won’t get you a better life, but the way your parents raise you will. Parents that do “design” their babies and under the illusion that being pretty will help their baby, but really “ugly” babies and people do fine in life as well. I mean look at Taylor Lautner, his face isn’t the prettiest but he sure is doing well in life so far. But seriously, the way your baby looks will only take them so far, if the parents really care about their baby then they won’t care what they look like and will raise them to be successful in life.

We were all made the way we are for a reason; whether you believe that God is the reason behind that or not.

The executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Richard Hayes, stated, “We support the use of that [embryo screening] to allow couples at risk to have healthy children. But for non-medical, cosmetic purposes, we believe this would undermine humanity and create a techno-eugenic rat race.”

Eugenics - the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

In many countries, particularly China, the gene altering technology is used to avoid the birth of female children. Also, if the technology continues and the designing aspect develops, babies will be objectified as commodities.

The idea of babies as commodities will only happen if we accept the idea of ‘designer babies’ into our society and allow it to be seen as ‘normal’ and acceptable. Once society accepts this then babies won’t be treated as special when you can just go to the clinic and ‘order’ the one you want.

Parents need to get over their ‘I just want what’s best for my child’ attitude, because usually they don’t actually see what is best for them, they just think they do. How many times has your parent tried that on you? The line, “We just want what is best for you” is commonly used by your parents when they force you into doing something you don’t want to do, such as going to a certain university, or just taking piano lessons.

After the safety of the child is certain then we must leave gene therapy at that, and not go any further to alter them in other ways. In a way, humans are all about control. We love the feeling of being in control and feel that we have to control everything around us. Even the birth of our babies.

Humans need to relinquish control and let nature take its course.

Sources:

Kiem, Brandon. “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” Wired Science. Condé Nast Digital. Mar. 2009. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/.

National Post. “Will screening for birth defects lead to ‘designer babies’?” Canada.com. October 5, 2005. http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/parenting/story.html?id=af85fffa-81df-4c47- b389-d7eefc2faccf&k=7781

Steere, Mike. “Designer babies: Creating the perfect child” Center for Genetics and Society. October 30, 2008. http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4349

Endangered Species Reserves Help to Sustain Biodiversity in our Ecosystems

If the Lion is considered King of the jungle then humans should be considered as Kings of the world. The decisions and actions that we make so casually impact the world daily no matter how small we feel that decision or action is. In a way, we control the fate of the Earth and have the power to lengthen or shorten it's life span. The majority of our interventions impact the biodiversity of our ecosystems negatively,

such as poaching/hunting, trapping, pollution, depletion, genetic engineering, global warming, and many, many other harmful actions. However, despite the overload of damaging human interventions, we are still capable of helping our ecosystems. An example of human intervention that has positively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems is endangered species reserves. There are multiple endangered species reserves located in Canada, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia. By creating these reserves, humans have the ability and opportunity to save many species from extinction. The results of this human intervention are proven to be positive because there have been many encouraging examples of recovery activities. Species such as the White-top aster, Massasauga, and North Atlantic Right Whale have all been recovered from the brink of extinction and are examples of the positive results of endangered species reserves. Since many species are being saved, humans can maintain the biodiversity of our ecosystems through their efforts in reserves. As environmental stewards we have the responsibility of environmental quality shared by all those whose actions affect the environment (United States Environmental Protection Agency 1). As a result of the strong effects that our actions have, I would say that we are definitely being stewards of the world and should take on that responsibility even more so. We manage our planet’s species and our space (both negatively and positively), however we need to accept even more responsibility so that our human interventions only affect the biodiversity of our ecosystems in a positive way.

Sources:

United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Stewardship." April 30, 2009

http://www.epa.gov/stewardship/

Hinterland Who's Who. "Species at Risk in Canada." Canadian Wildlife Federation. 2009

http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=232

Images from: http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=232

Commented on:

Demijel Junio - Wong

http://bioblogbydemi.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-going-on.html

Jed's Blog

http://dejedj.blogspot.com/2009/09/unit-2-wellat-least-humanity-got-what.html