No Impact Journal Day One Sunday

Today has been a difficult day for starting the no impact experiment. We went canvassing for the election Tuesday, and we ate out at our favorite bagel restaurant. When eating out, it becomes clear that there’s a lot of waste I can’t control. The Styrofoam containers that are used for food, the paper cups, the plastic forks and knives—all these are beyond the control of the person using these services, as I’m sure students living on campus might feel about the food and services they use at Chapman. Being out and about also creates an impact through driving. So it’s not so easy. This leads to one conclusion: that people need to patronize stores that use ecologically friendly packaging and products. Otherwise, nothing will change. Another unnecessary purchase? The plastic bags that are so ubiquitous and so difficult to do without. I just need to be more conscientious and carry reusable cloth bags with me wherever I go.
I loved the idea of a clothing swap party. Sounds like a great idea.
And finding the time to do something else in lieu of shopping? Great idea! A bike ride, a trip to the gym on my bike, or a walk all sound good.

DAY 1: Sunday: Consumption

Sunday: Consumption

The goal for Sunday was to consume no new goods except food. Being a college student I found that really easy because I did not go buy new things. I also made a list of what I need this week and crossed out what I did not need. I consumed a lot less today. I usually never buy anything during the week unless it is food. The story of stuff video was also very good it helped me realize that I have to reuse things more. Also, today while throwing out my trash I recycled. Today was fairly easy, all I need to do is remember to reuse and not waste which today I did. I am sure later on in the week it is going to get tougher so I am really excited to see what is going to happen.

Day 1

alright, so I ruined this experiment from the get go by waking up early and going to a Record Swap Meet and buying a Smiths LP I really wanted. It was used so i guess its not that bad. Other than that, I didn't buy anything else and as for my needs, there was nothing incredibly significant that came to mind for the week. The trash collection aspect of day 1 didnt really seem to significant either, as the only thing i threw away today was the envelope my ballot came in, and i recycled it. So nothing too exciting for day 1, but im sure this is going to get harder when we start stacking the other days objectives on top of each previous one

Sunday: Consumption

Well the most important thing I wanted accomplish for today's experiment was to see how much trash I produced. Surprisingly, it was very few, only a total of four items.  However, I realized that if hypothetically this was the average amount of trash I produced every day, in a year that becomes a substantial amount, about 1460 pieces of trash a year! So after today I realized that maybe I need to cut down on the amount of trash which I produce and limit the amount of stuff I buy because even though many products can be recycled, it is a much bigger impact if the items aren't purchased at all.

No Impact Experiment Day 1

It's a Sunday and it's Halloween. I went to the mall and found a top that I liked, but I didn't buy it because I had no cash on me and I purposely leave less than 20 bucks in my checking account so I won't use my card. So that prevented me from buying any new clothing. Buying food is an exception to buying new goods so I did buy candy to celebrate Halloween and I also bought fast food and tea. The only new product I did buy and that went against this experiment was a razor. I have started collecting my trash in a special bag for tomorrow's experiment. I think buying nothing new for a week will be easy for me at least. I borrow clothes from my sister and mom and I know that helps. One thing that I will find difficult is reducing my trash. I do eat a lot snacks that are packaged or are in wrappers, but I am excited to start this challenge.

No Impact Experiment Day 1: Consumption

The topic for today's activity, consumption, is a topic that is constantly present in my life. Ever since I was a little girl I have always had a love for buying new items especially for clothing, shoes and accessories. After reading my challenge I am more aware of how bad it is to buy new items on a constant basis. I am very excited to say that I have not bought a single new item today. Shockingly, it was not that hard for me to not buy anything today. I have also made a list of the items that I think I "need" to have this week and after reviewing it I have come to the realization that I actually do not need anything on it besides new toiletries. Also, I have become more aware of separating my trash into different bins. I now have one trash bin in dorm room my for my normal trash and the another one for recycling. Overall this activity allows me more aware of decreasing the amount of products I consume.

No Impact Experiment: Sunday Day 1

Today the experiment seemed easy, as I had no need to buy anything today. I created a list as suggested and I was able to cross of may of the things on my list. The few things that I needed to keep on my list to buy in the future are school supplies that I need from Target. I wasn't able to think of a way to get around to not buying paper, pens, ink, and markers. I plan on trying to do this more frequently! I don't think I can not consume because I love to shop but I think I can cut down on little trinkets that I never really wanted in the first place.

Electric Vehicles Not Ready Yet.

Problems with the Electric Cars.

Electric cars are generally more expensive than gasoline cars. The primary reason is the high cost of car batteries. US consumers seem to be unwilling to pay more for an electric car. This prohibits the mass transition from gasoline cars to electric cars. A recent survey taken by Nielsen for the Financial Times has shown that 65 per cent of Americans are not willing pay more for an electric car above the price of a gasoline car.

Electric cars have expensive batteries.

Electric cars are short-range cars that cannot be driven for long distances without needing to be recharged. Also full recharge times are over 4 hours making it impracticable to be able to recharge and go. Plus, the increase in your electricity bill and the need for a smart grid approach when you have an electric vehicle steers many people away.

In car accident the increased mass caused by the mass of the battery causes an increase in accelerations and hence an increase in the severity of the accidents. Also, Some electric cars use low rolling resistance tires, which typically offer less grip than normal tires making stopping speeds slower. Finally, Many electric cars have a small, light and fragile body, though, and therefore offer inadequate safety protection.

Link to article over electric cars:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/10/study-electric-car-sales-will-be-weak-through-2020/1

Air Pollution and Human Health

Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both short-term and long-term effects.

Examples of short-term effects include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Other symptoms can include headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions. Short-term air pollution can aggravate the medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. In the great "Smog Disaster" in London in 1952, four thousand people died in a few days due to the high concentrations of pollution.

Air pollution causes a variety of health problems for people of all ages; however, the elderly, young, sick, disabled and poor are more disproportionally affected. This is also the case when comparing poorer nations that have less pollution restrictions to wealthier and more environmentally regulated countries. Even small doses and short exposure times to pollutants can bring on an asthma attack or worsen a preexisting condition. Short term health effects of air pollution can exacerbate pulmonary issues that can lead to death.

Eye, Nose and Throat Irritation

1. Smog, particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide can all contribute to ear, nose and/or throat irritation. Smog is a combination of smoke and fog. Smoke contains particulate matter which can severely irritate the eyes, nose and throat. Even short term exposure to significant particulate matter can cause intense coughing spells, sneezing, eye watering and burning. Similarly ozone can cause coughing, wheezing and a dry throat. Nitrogen dioxide irritates the lungs and throat while sulfur dioxide narrows the airways, causing wheezing, shortness of breath and tightening in the chest. High concentrations of sulfur dioxide in air pollution can cause burning in the nose.

Bronchitis and Pneumonia

2. Short term exposure to air pollution can cause or aggravate lower respiratory conditions such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Children are especially affected by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which can cause acute bronchitis. PAHs are released when fuel such as wood and coal are burned, as well as from grilling food and vehicle emissions. In addition, indoor air pollution from cooking fuels is detrimental to women and children across the world. According to the World Health Organization, exposure to indoor pollution more than doubles the risk of pneumonia.

Asthma and Emphysemia

3. People with chronic conditions like asthma and emphysema are especially vulnerable to short term exposure to air pollution. Nitrogen dioxide affects asthmatic people more intensely than others. It causes those with asthma to be more susceptible to lung infections and asthma triggers like exercise and pollen. Sulfur dioxide affects people with chronic conditions as well. Since it tightens the airways it can cause people with asthma or emphysema to have stronger symptoms than normal and an increased lack of breath. Air pollution from industrial plants, factories and automobiles all contribute significantly to an increase in asthma attacks.

Allergic Reactions

4. One of the short term effects of air pollution is an increase in the likelihood of allergic reactions. Not only do people with chronic conditions like asthma and emphysema need to pay attention to pollution indexes but now people with allergies are advised to do so as well. Pollution acts as a trigger to inflame already existing allergic reactions. Ozone is one of the main culprits. People who have strong allergies may want to stay clear of high traffic areas like freeways and highways; ozone is particularly acute in these areas.

Air Pollution and Mortality

5. Air pollution can lead to death in many cases. The World Health Organization estimates that indoor air pollution from solid fuel leads to approximately 1.6 million deaths per year. During London's "Smog Disaster" in 1952 about four thousand people died in just a few days because of a high concentration of air pollution. Carbon monoxide is also a quick and silent killer. It bonds to the blood's hemoglobin, slowly suffocating people as they breath. Carbon monoxide is especially dangerous indoors during the winter because it originates from unburnt fuel and settles close to the ground in cold seasons.

Sources of Air Pollution

6. The main source of air pollution is fuel. Burning fields, wood fires, vehicle emissions, cooking and heating oil all contribute to air pollution. Coal burning plants also release tons of particulates into the atmosphere. Industrial plants release toxins from smoke stacks and even household products containing formaldehyde can cause respiratory irritation.

Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly.

Exposure to air pollution contributes to the development of cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke).

A person’s relative risk due to air pollution is small compared with the impact of established cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or high blood pressure. However, this is a serious public health problem because an enormous number of people are exposed over an entire lifetime.

Background

Until May of 2004, the American Heart Association had not issued any expert reviewed statement about the short-term and long-term effects of chronic exposure to different pollutants. This was due to flaws in research design and methodology of many pollution studies. During the last decade, however, epidemiological studies conducted worldwide have shown a consistent, increased risk for cardiovascular events, including heart and stroke deaths, in relation to short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of pollution, especially particulate matter.

Elderly patients, people with underlying heart or lung disease, lower socioeconomic populations and diabetics may be at particularly increased risk. More research is needed to find out the differential toxicity of various constituents of air pollution.

Components of Air Pollution

Air pollution is composed of many environmental factors. They include carbon monoxide, nitrates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, lead, secondhand tobacco smoke and particulate matter. Particulate matter, also known as particle pollution, is composed of solid and liquid particles within the air. It can be generated from vehicle emissions, tire fragmentation and road dust, power generation and industrial combustion, smelting and other metal processing, construction and demolition activities, residential wood burning, windblown soil, pollens, molds, forest fires, volcanic emissions and sea spray. These particles vary considerably in size, composition and origin.

Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide

The concentrations of both particulate matter and sulfur dioxide often change in parallel. The oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is linked with the formation of various particulate compounds, including acid sulfates.

A 1994 report on the adverse effects of particulate air pollution, published in the Annual Reviews of Public Health, noted a 1 percent increase in total mortality for each 10 mg/m³ increase in particulate matter. Respiratory mortality increased 3.4 percent and cardiovascular mortality increased 1.4 percent. More recent research suggests that one possible link between acute exposure to particulate matter and sudden death may be related to sudden increases in heart rate or changes in heart rate variability.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that "tens of thousands of people die each year from breathing tiny particles in the environment." A recent report released by the nonprofit Health Effects Institute in Cambridge, Mass., agrees with the EPA assessment. This study was reviewed by Science magazine and clearly shows that death rates in the 90 largest U.S. cities rise by 0.5 percent with only a tiny increase – 10 micrograms (mcg) per cubic meter -- in particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter. This finding is similar to those of other studies throughout the world. The case is stronger with this study, because it eliminated several factors that could confound the interpretation of the data, such as temperature and other pollutants.

The number of deaths due to cardiac and respiratory problems may be small when looking at individual cities with small particles in the environment. The combined long-term effect of studies in several large cities predicts 60,000 deaths each year caused by particulate matter. This is a staggering loss of life that can be eliminated by stricter emissions standards as proposed by the EPA.

Secondhand Tobacco Smoke

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is the single largest contributor to indoor air pollution when a smoker is present. Studies of secondhand smoke indicate that air pollution in general can affect the heart and circulatory system. Previous research has established that exposure to the secondhand smoke of just one cigarette per day accelerates the progression of atherosclerosis – thus it is plausible that even low doses of air pollution could negatively affect coronary functions.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and highly poisonous gas. It's a common air pollutant associated with combustion reactions in cars and other vehicles. It's also in cigarette smoke. When the level of CO in blood increases, the level of oxygen that blood can carry decreases. That's why CO in any level is harmful to your body -- and high levels may prove deadly. Long-term, low-level exposure to carbon monoxide may lead to serious respiratory diseases. Smoking tobacco and breathing environmental tobacco smoke raise CO levels in your blood, eventually leading to disease.

Carbon monoxide levels in the blood of nonsmokers vary depending on the quality of air that they generally breathe. The levels are usually 0-8 parts per million (abbreviated ppm). The CO level of smokers is much higher, but it depends on when and how much they smoke, and how they smoke (cigar, pipe, cigarette, etc.). A person who smokes one pack of cigarettes a day has a blood CO level of 20 ppm; someone who smokes two packs a day may have a blood CO level of 40 ppm. When smoking stops, the blood CO level should return to normal in a few days.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a precursor to ozone (O3) formation. Current efforts to reduce ozone levels also target reductions in NO2 levels. In contrast to ozone, NO2 is often found at higher levels indoors compared with outdoors. Mainly this occurs in settings where gas stoves and kerosene heaters are being used.

The main sources of NO and NO2 in outdoor air are emissions from vehicles and from power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries. NO2 levels vary with traffic density. Annual average concentrations range from 0.015-0.035 ppm. Some highly congested areas like metropolitan Los Angeles ranged from 0.020-0.056 ppm in 1990. Estimates of concentrations inside vehicles in Los Angeles ranged from 0.028-0.078 ppm, where average commuting time was about 6.5 hours per week.

People with respiratory or heart problems should avoid prolonged exposure to high-traffic areas and unventilated heating elements in their homes.

People with asthma appear to be especially vulnerable to the effects of acute NO2 exposure. Healthy people, by contrast, don't seem to show detectable changes in lung function. Exposure to high levels (20 ppm) for several weeks or longer causes emphysema-like changes in the lungs of animals.

EPA Air Quality Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced its 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to educate the public about daily air quality levels, including information about ozone and particulate matter levels. This daily Air Quality Index was updated in 2003 to include information on fine particle pollution. This index provides information each day for more than 150 cities along with a health alert system that reflects recommended changes in activity on days when pollution is high. These daily updates can be found on the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/airnow and in many newspapers across the country.

The American Heart Association supports these EPA guidelines for activity restriction for people with heart disease or those who have certain cardiovascular risk factors and for people with pulmonary disease and diabetes and the elderly.

Nineteen percent of all U.S. counties with air-quality monitoring systems are presently not meeting these standards. This inadequacy soars to much higher estimates in regions such as the industrial Midwest (41 percent) and California (60 percent).

Air Pollution Impact in U.S. Cities

Another study confirmed the importance of variations of pollution within a single city. Its findings suggested that a person’s exposure to toxic components of air pollution may vary as much within one city as across different cities. After studying 5,000 adults for eight years, the researchers also found that exposure to traffic-related air pollutants was more highly related to mortality than were city-wide background levels. For example, those who lived near a major road were more likely to die of a cardiovascular event.

Celebrities Involved in Sustainability

There are many political leaders that are strong sustainability supporters, but what about celebrities, the people that can truly moves the hearts of the public. Here are but a few examples or celebrities see the danger coming up and are using their money and power to help in the cause.

Britney Spears posing in a garden to
show her love for nature.

Pierce Brosnan

Brosnan is involved in the Natural Resources Defense Council, where he headlined and helped campaign against the destruction of wetlands. He also campaigned against whale hunting with the NRDC. For more information on the NRDC visit http://www.nrdc.org/


Brosnan is but one example of a celebrity using his powers to help the environment.


Leonardo DiCaprio


Along with his movie, The 11th Hour, Leonardo DiCaprio is a very strong environmental activist. DiCaprio not only does large scale campaigning, but also tries to live a sustainable lifestyle. For example he only flies commercial airlines, he drives a hybrid car, and has solar panels on his estate. DiCaprio also gave President Obama the maximum amount of funding that an individual can give during Obama's campaign for he saw that Obama would be more environmentally conscious. DiCaprio was also feature on the show Do Something on VH1, which commerates those who have done some good in the world.

Leonardo Speaks on his film, The 11th Hour





The Power of Celebrities

Although not always the most educated or intelligent figures, celebrities can play a huge role in the move towards a more sustainable. Many people in society are either uninterested or unable to comprehend the urgency in the situation we are currently in. Celebrities have always been able to influence a people, and can therefore make themselves useful by promoting sustainable living and endorsing products and foundations that help the cause.


For a list of more green celebrities visit http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/Green_Celebrities_&_Green_Speakers.php

Landfills vs. Waste-to-Energy Incinerators

This is an example of what landfills look like across the United States. These landfills release toxic gases into the atmosphere as well as leaching the same toxins into the soil.

This is an example of a waste-to-energy incinerator in Denmark. This incinerator filters out chemicals and harnesses these chemicals for energy in the local homes.

Response to Article: Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, U.S. Lags

NY times article

This article covers how European countries, such as Denmark, have been updating their incinerators. The old incinerators would just burn the trash releasing a high amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the air. Incinerators took the place of landfills that heated up the earth’s surface and leaked methane gas into the air, a green house gas, worse than Carbon dioxide. Now the incinerators in Europe have been updated so not only do they produce less carbon dioxide, they also covert this trash into heat and electricity. The transfer of burned trash into energy has also created Denmark to become less dependent on oil and gas. The U.S. could learn from this situation as we alone have so many people in our world that consume products and produce trash. However, our country is not adapting to these environmental changes. Our country sends over 10,500 tons to rural areas in the states that are buried or now pilled on top of a mountain of trash. The U.S. is against incinerators; however, I disagree with this. From the technological advances in Europe I learned how beneficial incinerators can actually be. When I first heard about the burning of trash, I was appalled, and automatically thought that there would be a large amount of toxic chemicals that would be released into the atmosphere. But after reading this article from the New York Times, and learning about the filter systems built into the new incinerators my mind has been changed.

Denmark's attitude towards waste-to-energy plants is extremely different of the attitudes held by the United States. Many environmentalists believe that these " incinerators are really the devil" however, Denmark promotes these incinerators and the citizens of Denmark are even willing to have them put in their own communities. I personally believe that this a very effective way to get rid of the amount of trash that our world creates and is even more appealing to me since it can turn waste into heat that if harnessed correctly could potentially furnish many homes. I believe that this new idea of turning waste into energy is only a glimpse of what will come in the future. The community of Horsholm also promotes recycling and heavily enforces among its citizens that only the items that are unable to be recycled are allowed to be burned in the incinerator. Although it can be quite expensive to reopen and refit old incinerators, I strongly believe that it is much more useful in the long run than the country constantly spending money on trucks to haul away garbage to far off landfills. The only way however, that I believe this project will work in the Unites States is if the public sector takes it over from the private sector. With government funding, this will allow for the waste-to-energy incinerator program to be reached across the country rather than in just certain wealthy areas. Citizens across the United States are constantly paying money for their trash to be taken away. They have the mindset of "out of sight out of mind" but rather if they spend their money on building an incinerator in their community than can harness the toxic chemicals towards energy that could heat their homes. Normally these chemicals would be released into the atmosphere and have detrimental side effects. This is a sustainable alternative because it is not only beneficial to the environment but will also decrease the homeowners heating bills while raising housing values at the same time, just like Denmark. Although most people often frown upon the use of the word "incinerator" I believe that it can actually be an efficient way of dealing with the amount of trash our society creates.