Badlands Landfill Second Class Fieldtrip *Extra Credit*

Photographs by yours truly. (The blonde woman is my professor!)

So on May 9th we had our second fieldtrip for my Environmental Science Class. I was looking

 forward to visiting the landfill because waste and its disposal is something that I am becoming more concerned about.

First of all, let me just say that MapQuest cannot be trusted 100%. My professor gave us directions on her website for students, but like a FOOL, I used MapQuest. It sent me in the complete opposite direction before I started to get a feeling that I was heading the wrong way so I stopped at a liquor store to get directions and sure enough my gut feeling was right. I hightailed it back the right way and I started seeing landfill signs and knew I was on the right track. I saw cars parked on a dirt strip next to the road and I assumed I was in the right place because the professor had mentioned something about parking a little off from the location. I looked at the cars next to me if they had the RCC parking sticker but they did not.(I do not recommend wearing old converse if anyone should choose to go there after reading this. You will certainly slip as I did when I walked down dirt strip and around the Landfill). I proceeded warily up the road and it looked like a construction site at first. I went up to the post where they let cars into the main parking lot and knocked on the window but no one was there. I was going to head back to my car when I saw a small group in bright orange vests  in the short distance. I jogged up and out of breath  and sweaty and hoped I had made enough of a graceful inconspicuous  entrance so that I did not distract the tour guide and group. That is the background story to how I found my Fieldtrip group and why I was late.

Any who, I got handed one of the orange vests, and tried to get caught up on the tour. One thing I want to point out is, that it did not smell! I thought their was going to be that unbearable stench of garbage but there wasn't; they got things under control there! Maybe the tour group had the opportunity of visiting the stinky area-if they did I missed it. They are very diligent about not taking hazardous materials and monitoring everything that is discharged from the landfill site. The trash is covered by tarps so rodents do not get in. Would it be that bad if rodents did get in and eat the trash though? Wouldn't that make for less trash? (I did not ask these questions as they are just coming to my mind as I write this.) That specific landfill has 10 years left. What I thought was smart was that there is a "litter fence" I'm guessing around the perimeter of the landfill, so that on windy days it can trap the loose trash. They have a recycling area! I was really glad to see that there. It is generally for electrical appliances like fridges and TV and whatnot. They break the appliances apart and ship designated parts to their specific recycling locations. Before this program (which I asked how long had been running-apparently for a good deal of time) appliances used to get thrown in the dump as well. 72% of the waste has to be diverted from the landfill by 2020 the tour guide said into recycling etc. She (tour guide)  told us about the liner system and many layers underneath the actual waste. The Landfill site is a as big as 7 Disneylands! If we changed out disposal method to incineration it would be 150$ per household! We were told about a new waste management technique called gasification but it's exceedingly more expensive than incineration. Also I thought it was interesting that Los Angeles has to ship their trash to Orange County, I'm guessing because their sites are filled already and because their is so many people there. The second thing I was surprised about as you can see in the photos is that the site is like a v-shaped canyon, here I thought we were going to see mountains of trash! They are running a tip-top shape landfill site if you ask me and makes me feel a little bit better about landfills and how they work.

Do you know what's in your food?

This weeks assignment is investigating a food of our choice, it could be something like an orange, or something artificially made like cereal for example. We were asked to find out a lot of information that is not readily available on most food packaging; things like, is it organic, were pesticides used? How did it get to the place where you purchased it? What are the environmental impacts and so on. I will try to address as many of them as I can.

To begin, I chose to investigate Mother's Cookies Chocolate Chip Flavor.

imagesource:http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Chocolate-Chip-Cookies-14-Ounce/dp/B002EDIJL8

First off, my dad had bought them and I hadn't ate them in  years. They have the taste of actual homemade cookies even if the texture has that dry artificial brittle feeling. He bought two bags of them the day before the blog assignment was explained and I thought it would be interesting to find out more about them.

1. It IS a multi-ingredient food. Here are the ingredients. they are available on the bag and product website.

imagesource:http://www.motherscookies.com/cookies.aspx#

As for the ingredients I can tell right off the bat that TBHQ is a preservative, but they try to make it sound fancy by saying "For Freshness", basically to extend the shelf life by preventing it from going bad but doesn't "for freshness" just sound better? When I looked it up, I was not surprised to find that is can be harmful to the body and the amount used in food is regulated. It is Butane based and large amounts of it have been shown to "TBHQ cannot exceed 0.02% of the oil and fat content in a food. "

 high doses (between 1 and 4 grams) of TBHQ can cause nausea, delirium, collapse, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and vomiting. There are also suggestions that it may lead to hyperactivity in children as well as asthma, rhinitis and dermatitis. It may also further aggravate ADHD symptoms and cause restlessness. Long term, high doses of TBHQ in laboratory animals have shown a tendency for them to develop cancerous precursors in their stomachs, as well as cause DNA damage to them. It is also suggested that it may be responsible for affecting estrogen levels in women."

There are three coloring agents in these cookies, caramel, turmeric, and annatto. Is it any surprise that these are harmful as well?"Industrial caramel coloring is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. The chemical reactions create 4-methylimidazole, which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats. This is why California recently required foods containing caramel color to be labeled as potential cancer-causing agents.  But you won't see this warning label any time soon - manufacturers simply reduced the use of caramel color enough that the labeling requirements no longer applied."
So my takeaway is, if you are trying to avoid cancer.. maybe avoid these cookies??!

As for the "natural flavors" there is nothing natural about them, they are produced in a lab  and might as well be called artificial flavors, but that name is already taken by other manmade ingredients. I found some interesting information for people that do not eat meat and have serious allergies"sensitive to MSG, vegans, vegetarians and those with allergies should pay special attention to the phrase "natural flavorings" since glutamates, animal products or allergens may be the source of natural flavors. You can always contact the manufacturer for more information." I learned Soy Lecithin is an oily substance natural occurring in plants like soybeans and animals like in egg yolks. so this would NOT be considered Vegan in case anyone was wondering. Lastly I learned Vanillin is fake vanilla.

Sources:  http://www.naturalnews.com/031318_TBHQ_food_preservatives.html#ixzz31r0eJguM

http://www.fooducate.com/app#page=product&id=5DD20D66-576C-11E2-A40C-1231381A0463

2.As for where does it come from, It was hard to find out, the Oakland factory was shut down in California and had to be relocated to Canada and Ohio due to financial problems.

3.As for how the ingredients were grown and raised, I cannot tell you if ingredients in it are organic or factory farmed, BUT because on the website it says KOSHER DAIRY was used, that means, "All kosher milk products must derive from kosher animals. In addition, the milk of impure cattle and game (e.g. donkey milk) is prohibited. Dairy products, of course, also may not contain non-kosher additives, and they may not include meat products or derivatives (for example, many types of cheese are manufactured with animal fats). Additionally, a number of pre-processed foods contain small portions of milk products, such as whey. According to food product regulations, such tiny additives do not have to be declared on the packaging but may nevertheless render the product non-kosher. This applies especially to bread." SO even thought kosher dairy is used for the cookies, it is not entirely Kosher because of the use of whey in the cookies. That explains why Kosher Dairy usage is not advertised on the packaging because it might give false advertisement perhaps.

source:http://www.koshercertification.org.uk/whatdoe.html

4.as of right now, the Kellogs corporation

is in charge of Mothers cookies, they bought Mothers cookies shortly after they had closed.

Here is a photo of the Oakland factory. It kinda has a willy wonka look.

imagesource:http://www.motherscookies.com/history.aspx

                           

imagesources:http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mother-s-Cookies-abruptly-shut-down-3266029.php#photo-2415523

5. For it's environmental factors, what I could deduce is that it's packaging CANNOT be recycled and it sys it right on the bag in a small square on the back. It shows the recycle symbol with a diagonal line in front of it, implying it cannot be recycled The packaging material is "composite". But by having the symbol it is participating in a new initiative to inform  consumers about recyclability. You can find out more at http://www.how2recycle.info/it is distributed by Kellog Sales Co. and I would have to bet on it being transported by trucks.

Imagesource:http://www.how2recycle.info/

6.There is no question that the cookies are tasty, why else would Kellog buy the recipes and company. They came back by popular demand! They are at their 100th anniversary this year. I already mentioned some of the health risks that can be caused by some of the ingredients. Here is some of the dietary information that can be found on the mother cookies website and on the bag.

imagesource:http://www.kelloggs.com/content/dam/common/products/nutrition/MothersCookiesChocolateChipcookies_17251.gif

 

 

 

 

Gasland 2 Documentary Review*Extra Credit Post*

Imagesource:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/06/arts/06GASLAND/06GASLAND-superJumbo.jpg

 

No the above image is NOT a photo-shopped image you see, but a still from the documentary Gasland 2 screened on a movie night hosted by the Student Sustainability Collective at Riverside Community College. This homeowner's water supply could be set on fire just like most homeowners' water supply affected by fracking. I really had no idea what fracking was (which is what the documentary is about) and didn't really think it affected me. Now I've come to learn that there is big support and plans to have fracking in California. "In most states, fracking operations are designed to extract natural gas reserves. In California, it’s all about oil. California has the largest shale oil play in the nation- the Monterey Shale. It spans much of the Central Valley and Southern California. It lies below many of the sources of drinking water for Central Valley residents and contains an estimated 13.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil that have historically been too difficult to extract." Yes, alternative energy sources are important so that the U.S. does not have to be so dependent on foreign energy sources, but at what cost? After viewing Gasland 2 I can say that the repercussions of fracking are unsafe and harmful and I strongly oppose any plans for fracking anywhere! The one thing that really scared me about the movie was the way that government was portrayed. The government is actually under the govern of corporations and companies as evidenced by the film, and if we can't turn to the government for help where can we go? I highly recommend this movie!

Here are notes I took while watching the film, so you can get an idea of what the film's about:

• Gas industry denies water contamination and air pollution result of fracking, "We don't believe... haven't seen proof..."
• Families told not to fish or swim in ponds because of unsafe water, altering their lifestyle
• Victoria Switzer-property values decrease, "hey have to bring your own water"
• Cabbot Oil and Gas had contaminated Dimmick, Pennsylvania water with methane (causing it to be able to set on fire)
• EPA told pavilion residents not to drink their water
• natural filtration in ground wont filter fracking chemicals
• this isn't news, resource extraction at expense of indigenous people done for years in the history of the U.S.
• Some residents forced to leave their homes because house can blow up, or they were getting really sick. forced to take the financial loss
• Counterinsurgency, psy-ops techniques used by companies against public. military terms
• Cement failure within the fracking systems at high rates, allowing chemicals to escape into resorvoirs
• fracking cause of earthquakes
• natural gas good for weaning of fossil fuels
• sufficient clean renewable energy available (wind)- do not need to dig for fuels
• corporations have high influence in government more than ever
• court cases with angry homeowners settled with nondisclosure agreements
• EPA rep said they could not tell the truth (lied and said water was safe). They have to listen to the higher ups in D.C.
• oil control  business has so much money and power over what's going on with fracking
• own government afraid of a business

Sources:If you would like to learn more about fracking in California visit:http://www.cleanwateraction.org/fracking-california

Tap VS Bottled Water? Is One Really Better Than The Other?

 

 

Maybe your better off giving up bottled water!

imagesource:http://everythingsimpsons.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/boyscoutz3.jpg

http://bestepisodeever.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/9f22b.jpg

 

So this week's assignment is about where our water at home comes from as well as learning if bottled water is any better than tap water. After short investigation at the site http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/water-wqr.asp I learned my tap water is "groundwater from wells in the Bunker Hill Basin and Riverside Basin." The Water Annual Report from Riverside provides a little more information about my water:

Riverside’s water begins as rain and snow that touches down in our local foothills and mountains and flows down through the earth into underground aquifers. With every storm, these water sources, located throughout the Riverside and San Bernardino basins, receive new water that is filtered through percolation, a naturally occurring purification process.

I learned that California's drinking water standards are among the highest in the U.S. That certainly makes me feel a little better about drinking my tap water.. if I had too. Lab tests are carried out daily to test for harmful chemicals as well. The tap water is safe to drink and has a safe amount of chlorine to prevent bacteria from growing in it (but the water can be filtered if the chlorine is an issue).

 

On another note, it is of interest to know WHO regulates our bottled water and tap water. Not surprisingly, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates tap water. They have National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and primary standards to protect the public by limiting the amount of contaminants in drinking water by enforcing maximum contaminant levels. Bottled water is regulated by The Food and Drug Administration. It appears that tap water might be the safest to drink after all because "Public water systems must also provide reports to customers about their water, noting its source, evidence of contaminants and compliance with regulations." The FDA seems to lack in  regulatory authority unlike the  EPA. "By comparison, GAO said, FDA regulates bottled water as a food and cannot require certified lab testing or violation reporting. Furthermore, FDA does not require bottled water companies to disclose to consumers where the water came from, how it has been treated or what contaminants it contains."

 

There are also a lot of concerns and drawbacks with water bottles. Their has been a lot of media on the impact of plastic water bottles. Apparently the most environmental thing you can do is carry around your own reusable water bottle filled with tap water. A spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council says roughly 70% or more of water bottles end up in landfills and incinerators, "That's 170 bottles per year for every man, woman and child in America,". You also have to think about the money and energy going into manufacturing the bottles as well as transporting them. The most alarming factor is the chemical bisphenol A found in plastic bottles that may alter the hormone levels in your body.

 

In conclusion, " In study after study, bottled water has been proven to be no cleaner than tap water, and has the added disadvantage that it isn't nearly as well regulated as your tap water." Let's not forget your tap water is cheaper than bottled water.

 

Additional Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/09/09greenwire-fewer-regulations-for-bottled-water-than-tap-g-33331.html

 

 http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/

 

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/181/62/

Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District First Class Fieldtrip

On April 4th, my environmental science class went on it's first fieldtrip! Seeing as this is college, no, my classmates and I were not transported by a big yellow school bus unfortunately (I rather enjoy school bus rides). Seeing as we are adults we drove to the location , which was conveniently 5 minutes from Riverside Community College. It's literally right at the base of Mt. Rubidoux. I never knew such an interesting place was so close by! They have this neat outdoor Land Use Learning Center  which is a 3 & 1/2 educational facility (that I believe is still in construction by the looks of some of it) "that demonstrates four important plant communities of the inland empire: coastal-sage-scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, and riparian." This project is only one of the many things the RCRCD contributes to the community. The district also :conducts educational, technical assistance, and on-the-land conservation programs. To become involved contact them at (909)683-7691.

Before we got to venture into the habitat models in the Learning Center, we got to learn about pest control from a Dr. David Morgan. He had a British accent I believe? Any who it made the mini-lecture more enjoyable, at least for me seeing as how I love accents especially British ones.
Here are some notes from the lecture:

• find a predator or pathogen that kills the insect/pest.
• has to reproduce more rapidly than the pest to control it
• the solution predator must be tested in the new climate to which it has been relocated to make sure that it will survive where the problem prey is habituating
• has to be tested to make sure it only preys on the pest
• lots of tests done in quarantine
• have to apply for a permit to bring in the new predator, requires 75 pages of research: geographic range, etc. 
• have to do follow up studies after pathogen/predator released
• Permit goes through. find a way of producing/storing/releasing the good pathogen/predator.
• hard to control pests in urban areas, most insecticides not allowed in urban areas
• birth of bio-control @ University California Riverside

My tour guide  went on to discuss the conservation work:

• Santa Ana Sucker-threatened fish, so impacted by pollution, human development
• the district propagates the fish and releases(populations separated genetically because of adaptations to certain habitats)
• Brown Headed Cowbird-Invasive species. parasite nests of other birds
• double door system to avoid infestation
• overpopulation? species within a habitat will naturally downsize (talking about the fish)

At the end of the tour we reached the agriculture demo area:

• Agriculture can't succeed without good soil and access to water
• And the craziest thing my guide said that I don't know  if it's true but it certainly got my attention and sorry for the run on sentence was  "There are more organisms in a handful of soil than people on Earth."

Here are some shots I took at the Learning Center:

 

Environemntal Science in the News!

Image from:http://www.mixerplanet.com/allarme-spreco-alimentare/
One thing that really rubs me the wrong way is when I see perfectly good food being thrown out.
When my siblings are about to throw out a lot of food still on their plate I make them feel guilty by saying "Think of the people starving in Africa!", That usually makes them shove down a few more spoonfuls and it makes me feel better even if it makes them feel sick from being too full!  As for me I have a bad habit of eating far more than I should because I hate to see a lot of food that my mom cooks get thrown away, and as much as I hate wasted food, it doesn't make much sense for me to become overweight because of this guilt of wasting food so I've learned to marginally control this eating behavior. For our assignment in class, we are to choose an online news article that pertains to an environmental science-related topic and I'm choosing an article on waste disposal, specifically food. This assignment is now 3-4 days late I'm not sure. I don't know why I always procrastinate on these posts since I actually enjoy writing them. I must have a problem with deadlines... but back to the topic!  Here is a summarization of the article I chose:

A new report states that up to HALF of the world's food is WASTED. To be more clear, of the annual 4.4 billion tons of food that is produced only half of it is actually eaten. This report is by the British Institution of Mechanical Engineers. If we want to meet future food demands, this type of wastage cannot continue. Food is wasted by harvesters, storage, transportation, markets, and consumers. Food production and consumption practices were studied in Europe, China and Africa. Waste occurs on a global scale but in less developed areas the waste happens at the farmer producer end while in more developed areas the waste happens at the wholesale and retail levels. Consumers throw away as much as half of what is bought to eat. Entire crops are rejected by supermarkets because they do not meet their standards of size and appearance. Promotions are constantly persuading consumers to buy more than what they really need which they end up not eating but why not? 2 for 1 is better than 1 right?

Here is a link to the article:http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/world/world-food-waste/
(the link to the report by the Engineers does not work on the CNN website, but if you google "institution of mechanical engineers food waste pdf" the first link that appears is the actual waste report)

I do believe this is a reliable information source because it is a "news" website. "CNN.com is among the world's leaders in online news and information delivery. Staffed 24 hours, seven days a week by a dedicated staff in CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and in bureaus worldwide, CNN.com relies heavily on CNN's global team of almost 4,000 news professionals." It is also updated continuously throughout the day. I found this statement at http://www.cnn.com/about/ . I believe the information presented is reliable because it is presented objectively without the reporter's opinion. There is a LONG list of who runs the site which can be found here http://www.cnn.com/about/dotcom_executives.html . Extensive bios of the CNN Digital executive team are included on the page as well!

A claim made by the article is, "Up to half of the world's food is wasted, according to a new report that found production inefficiencies in developing countries and market and consumer waste in more advanced societies." I certainly was convinced by the claim because of the continuous evidence and facts that were provided in the article. The only logical fallacy I can find is in the last sentence of the article, "Moreover, sales promotions "frequently encourage customers to purchase excessive quantities," which they don't eat, the study said." It seems like a generalization, I'm sure not ALL consumers throw away food when they have excess.

My initial reaction to the article was "aha! I was right!" but I would have much preferred to be wrong than to have my suspicions of food waste validated. It seems almost hard to think you can make an impact on this when half the world is wasting food! But fortunately you can help! You can volunteer or donate to a Food Bank near you! "Food banks acquire donated food, much of which would otherwise be wasted, from farms, manufacturers, distributors, retail stores, consumers, and other sources, and make it available to those in need through a network of community agencies. These agencies include school feeding programs, food pantries, soup kitchens, AIDS and TB hospices, substance abuse clinics, after-school programs, and other nonprofit programs that provide food to the hungry."



Chemical Hazards & Human Health For The Modern (eco-friendly) Woman

image courtesy of: Rachel Carter, http://www.flickr.com/photos/raggle/

For this week's assignment, we are blogging about potential risks associated with chemicals found in common personal and household products. Before I let you know what household product to be wary of, I want to inform you of two chemicals to be more aware of. Maybe you've heard the word Methylparaben tossed around in conversations but never really knew what it was. Methylparaben is a chemical that destroys fungus and is an antibacterial agent so naturally is used in products to extend shelf-life. There are plenty of risks associated with this chemical that is commonly found in cosmetics products. The scary thing about this chemical is that it seeps through the skin when applied on the surface, and escapes out of our intestinal tract spreading into our bodies. This chemical has actually been found whole within breast cancer tissues. Researchers even "suggest that Methylparaben may increase risk of breast cancer, or accelerate the growth of these tumors." It has been suggested that because Methylparaben behaves like estrogen in the body, the "parabens can cause decreased sperm production and motility"(motility meaning the ability for sperm to swim properly toward an egg.) So maybe if you and your partner are trying to conceive, you might want to try staying away from products that list this chemical as an ingredient!
Source:http://www.livestrong.com/article/21581-dangers-methylparaben/

Paraffins (a by-product of petroleum) are also chemicals that should be checked for on labels. Parrafins have multiple uses such as coolants, lubricants, plasticizers, and as flame retardants. What's concerning about this chemical is the growing alarm "over the prevalence and health risks of short-chain chlorinated paraffins" so much that Paraffins now hold "a prominent spot on the Environmental Protection Agency’s short list of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to our health and the environment." The use of Parrafins is widespread and at high volumes, so much so, that it's found in "human livers and breast milk, plastic and rubber products, the fat tissue of freshwater fish and marine mammals, and the water and wastewater of four continents: North America, Asia, Europe and Antarctica". Scientists have found that the chemical is toxic to some aquatic animals and that it "can cause cancer and liver, thyroid and kidney damage in some mammals. Paraffins accumulate in tissues, prolonging our exposure and worsening the effects."
source:http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/epa-investigates-paraffin-risks.aspx

I took a look at the ingredients in my Aveeno Shave Gel (which I l-o-v-e) and unfortunately for me, it contains Methylparaben!All is not lost! You can still have the silky smooth legs you desire because there is an alternative to using harmful chemical laden shaving creams! The easiest option would be to switch to a natural ingredient shaving cream like "Crave Your Shave". You could also make your own homemade shaving cream:
http://everydayroots.com/homemade-shaving-cream
You would think waxing would be one solution but common wax used in hair removal actually contains the chemical Paraffin as I talked about earlier but there are a few natural ingredient waxes to be found. Some salons actually offer a more eco-friendly wax consisting of only sugar, lemon, and honey. You could even make the wax at home!:
http://tipnut.com/body-sugaring/
The process of using this wax with cloth strips is called "sugaring", I have yet to try it but my sister has made her own and says its not as painful as regular waxing. Of all the alternatives the one I'm most excited to try is the homemade shaving cream.