Fertilizer is amongst the few fundamental components that helps seeds bloom into plants and vegetation. It promotes plant growth and gives nourishment while boosting the soil's fertility. There are two main types of fertilizer used in agriculture; artificial fertilizer and organic fertilizer. Organic fertilizer includes animal manure. Nowadays, human waste (or the scientific term biosolids) have recently began being used for fertilizer as well. Reusing human waste is questionable amongst many people as it is seen as unsanitary. It is also favoured by some as it contains many nutrients that are put to waste most of the time. Whether this new innovation is good or not requires further investigation.
Biosolids have the potential to solve many of the current problems dealing with our environment. There are many pros that come with replacing the customary fertilizer with biosolids because they contain many nutrients that are vital for producing agriculture such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Not only do they help have good absorbency, but if we used them as fertilizer, it would require less landfills and disposal sites. This will undoubtedly create a positive impact on the condition of our environment.
There aren't many cons that go against the use of biosolids as fertilizer besides the odor factor and preconceived notions that biosolids are unsanitary. It is understandable that many people may not be able to stand the odor that biosolids produce but it can be easily solved by treating it with lime to raise the pH level. It is also understandable that many people would believe that biosolids are contaminated and can carry disease-causing bacteria that pose a threat of human health. However, biosolids go through a strict treatment facility that eliminates any potential disease ridden organisms. After treatment, the biosolids are virtually hazard-free.
Here is an example of how the city of San Francisco has already accepted the use of biosolids as fertilizer and 100% of the biosolids are put to use in their crops and such.
There are no reasonable excuses as to why we shouldn't use biosolids as fertilizer. The pros far outweigh the cons and it is a good step towards helping our planet. Technology certainly needs to be acknowledged as it plays a main role in treating the waste so they can become hazard-free fertilizer.
Works Cited:
BIOSOLIDS:
http://www.biosolids.com/concerns.html
U.S ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY: BIOSOLIDS
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/genqa.htm
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1l55k9_ukg
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Canadian Contributions to Our Understanding of Internal Body Systems
Our internal systems, whether digestive, circulatory or respiratory, are very intricate but vital parts of our bodies. They adapt intelligently to defend and maintain our bodies' health. They are also all interconnected to provide us with oxygen and distribute blood. Understanding how these systems work require a high amount of knowledge and of course, technology. A clearer understanding on how our internal systems work have assisted scientists and researchers with finding cures. Without such breakthroughs in scientific technology, treatments to many diseases would not have existed and diagnosing an illness would seem almost impossible. Our lives have noticably improved as a result and Canadians have helped make that happen.
All types of diabetes have been treatable since insulin was made available in 1921. Insulin is a hormone that monitors the glucose in our bodies and is an important component in converting food into energy. Without it, our blood sugar levels would increase uncontrollably. Sir Frederick Banting, a Canadian scientist who specialized in medecine, discovered insulin along with Dr. Charles Best. The journey that led to the discovery of insulin began when Banting developed a fascination with diabetes. His curiosity led to several experiments at the University of Toronto. After the success that was achieved when they managed to keep a dog alive for an entire summer after removing its pancreas (to replicate diabetes), Banting and Best attempted their experiment several more times on other diabetic dogs before making an attempt on a 14 year old human diabetes patient. Success was ultimately attained and two injections later, any symptoms of diabetes had disappeared. Since the discovery of insulin, millions of diabetic people have been able to live a normal life and Canadians Sir Frederick Banting and Charles Best are responsible for such an amazing achievement that will be remembered forever in medical science history.
A better understanding of the purpose and importance of insulin can be acquired through viewing this short clip.
Another major breakthrough in medical science made by a Canadian is the invention of the artificial pacemaker. As most of you should know, our heart's natural pacemaker is the sinoatrial node (SA node), a group of cells located in the right atrium. This group of cells sends signal that must travel down certain paths that reach the ventricles in order to keep the heart beating. Blockage in the tracts or too slow of a pace can arise numerous problems. Canadian doctor John Hopps created the first artificial pacemaker that would help those with such a problems maintain a healthy heart rate.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/29593-invention-the-pacemaker-video.htm
This link leads to a clip of an interview of the first man who recieved an external pacemaker.
It's agreeable that Canadians have made several notable contributions to deepen our understanding in our internal body systems. The discovery of insulin has lead to diabetes being controlled and the invention of the pacemaker has provided a solution for those who don't have a healthy heart rate. We continue to overcome incredible obstacles and conquer the illnesses that claim millions of lives as scientific technology advances.
Works Cited:
Discovery of Insulin
http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Home.htm
Wikipedia: Insulin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
Wikipedia: Artificial Pacemaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pacemaker
VIDEO:
YouTube: Insulin
LINK:
Howstuffworks: Invention - The Pacemaker
All types of diabetes have been treatable since insulin was made available in 1921. Insulin is a hormone that monitors the glucose in our bodies and is an important component in converting food into energy. Without it, our blood sugar levels would increase uncontrollably. Sir Frederick Banting, a Canadian scientist who specialized in medecine, discovered insulin along with Dr. Charles Best. The journey that led to the discovery of insulin began when Banting developed a fascination with diabetes. His curiosity led to several experiments at the University of Toronto. After the success that was achieved when they managed to keep a dog alive for an entire summer after removing its pancreas (to replicate diabetes), Banting and Best attempted their experiment several more times on other diabetic dogs before making an attempt on a 14 year old human diabetes patient. Success was ultimately attained and two injections later, any symptoms of diabetes had disappeared. Since the discovery of insulin, millions of diabetic people have been able to live a normal life and Canadians Sir Frederick Banting and Charles Best are responsible for such an amazing achievement that will be remembered forever in medical science history.
A better understanding of the purpose and importance of insulin can be acquired through viewing this short clip.
Another major breakthrough in medical science made by a Canadian is the invention of the artificial pacemaker. As most of you should know, our heart's natural pacemaker is the sinoatrial node (SA node), a group of cells located in the right atrium. This group of cells sends signal that must travel down certain paths that reach the ventricles in order to keep the heart beating. Blockage in the tracts or too slow of a pace can arise numerous problems. Canadian doctor John Hopps created the first artificial pacemaker that would help those with such a problems maintain a healthy heart rate.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/29593-invention-the-pacemaker-video.htm
This link leads to a clip of an interview of the first man who recieved an external pacemaker.
It's agreeable that Canadians have made several notable contributions to deepen our understanding in our internal body systems. The discovery of insulin has lead to diabetes being controlled and the invention of the pacemaker has provided a solution for those who don't have a healthy heart rate. We continue to overcome incredible obstacles and conquer the illnesses that claim millions of lives as scientific technology advances.
Works Cited:
Discovery of Insulin
http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Home.htm
Wikipedia: Insulin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
Wikipedia: Artificial Pacemaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pacemaker
VIDEO:
YouTube: Insulin
LINK:
Howstuffworks: Invention - The Pacemaker
Monday, February 8, 2010
Artificial Selection - Good or Bad?
It is best understood that artificial selection is a contrast to natural selection. Unlike natural selection, which animals survive and reproduce isn't random. Individuals select desirable traits and combine them to create what they think is 'ideal'. After reading and learning about the capability of humans and technology, it seems we've conquered them all. Artificial selection is generally performed on agriculture and a variety of the fruits and vegetables we consume today derived from a single plant a long time ago. An example of artificial selection in vegetables is the chili pepper. Chili peppers have been cultivated and bred into the range of spices, tastes, shapes and colours available today. Artificial selection is largely debated about today as humans are discovering more and more ways to interfere with the evolution of a species or population.
In my opinion, artificial selection in plants is perfectly acceptable as long as nothing living is harmed in the process. Considering the wide variety of plants existing, the idea of humans modifying certain characteristics of a vegetable or fruit is revolutionary. The tasks of plant breeders and farmers have become easier as crops and plants now require low maintenance since most have a high resistance to cold temperatures and even viruses. For example, a hybrid plant that thrives throughout Mexico known as "guayule" has successfully taken its resistance to cold temperatures from its relatives. As well, some types of okra have taken resistance to the most serious plant disease through the crossing of two other edible plants. Undoubtedly, artificial selection in plants is a positive innovation and is beneficial for both humans and plants.
However, I have a different standpoint on artificial selection with animals. Similar to the previous blog topic on designers babies, humans manipulating the genes of any living creature to make it "perfect" is inhumane, promotes superficiality and discourages the natural way of life. It is common today that livestock such as pigs, cows and chickens are artificially enhanced and bred so they are able to provide farmers with more meat or milk. With such advantages, we can easily oversee the side effects. Artificially bred species will all have the same probability of survival and vulnerability to diseases and illnesses can be easily passed down onto generations.
This is an interesting video on how a Japanese myth emerged from artificial selection that occurred hundreds of years ago.
Even though I object artificial selection in animals, it is inevitable that it has existed for a very long time and will continue to in the future. It is also undeniable that artificial selection has actually improved our lives and sustains our large population. The capability of humans continues to be under-estimated and as incredible as artificial selection may be and as much as it has done for us, I don't believe artificially breeding living organisms is acceptable under any circumstances.
Works Cited:
MACROEVOLUTION: Hybrid Plants and Artificial Selection
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-plants.html
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - Artificial Selection: Creating the Perfect Pet
http://www.calacademy.org/science/sia/2009/07/artificial-selection-creating-the-perfect-pet/
LIFE SCIENCE: Artificial Selection at Work
http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session5/closer1.html
Artificial Selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVAartselection.shtml
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JCx5e8ZeYM&feature=related
In my opinion, artificial selection in plants is perfectly acceptable as long as nothing living is harmed in the process. Considering the wide variety of plants existing, the idea of humans modifying certain characteristics of a vegetable or fruit is revolutionary. The tasks of plant breeders and farmers have become easier as crops and plants now require low maintenance since most have a high resistance to cold temperatures and even viruses. For example, a hybrid plant that thrives throughout Mexico known as "guayule" has successfully taken its resistance to cold temperatures from its relatives. As well, some types of okra have taken resistance to the most serious plant disease through the crossing of two other edible plants. Undoubtedly, artificial selection in plants is a positive innovation and is beneficial for both humans and plants.
However, I have a different standpoint on artificial selection with animals. Similar to the previous blog topic on designers babies, humans manipulating the genes of any living creature to make it "perfect" is inhumane, promotes superficiality and discourages the natural way of life. It is common today that livestock such as pigs, cows and chickens are artificially enhanced and bred so they are able to provide farmers with more meat or milk. With such advantages, we can easily oversee the side effects. Artificially bred species will all have the same probability of survival and vulnerability to diseases and illnesses can be easily passed down onto generations.
This is an interesting video on how a Japanese myth emerged from artificial selection that occurred hundreds of years ago.
Even though I object artificial selection in animals, it is inevitable that it has existed for a very long time and will continue to in the future. It is also undeniable that artificial selection has actually improved our lives and sustains our large population. The capability of humans continues to be under-estimated and as incredible as artificial selection may be and as much as it has done for us, I don't believe artificially breeding living organisms is acceptable under any circumstances.
Works Cited:
MACROEVOLUTION: Hybrid Plants and Artificial Selection
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-plants.html
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - Artificial Selection: Creating the Perfect Pet
http://www.calacademy.org/science/sia/2009/07/artificial-selection-creating-the-perfect-pet/
LIFE SCIENCE: Artificial Selection at Work
http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session5/closer1.html
Artificial Selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVAartselection.shtml
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JCx5e8ZeYM&feature=related
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Designer Babies
“Designer babies”, a playful spinoff of the word “designer clothing”, is a term that originated from the media. It is used to describe the future of genetics and how scientists are now capable of manipulating a child’s DNA according to the parents’ preferences. This new innovation was first introduced a decade ago when parents were able to determine a baby’s sex before conceiving them, but has since advanced immensely. As most would agree, this practice of gene-altering in unborn children is unethical, but perhaps we are overlooking some of the positive effects it can have on our population. "Designer babies" is a controversial topic that has many debating whether the benefit of eliminating disorders in newborn babies is worth surrendering our ethical beliefs.
"Designer babies" are centered on superficiality and opposes the acceptance of flaws. Giving parents the choice to ‘design’ their babies is immoral and goes against our values. Without a doubt, babies are living, breathing humans with countless emotions - not objects. Diversity should be embraced rather than corrected. If couples were offered to 'design' their child's looks, it only encourages people to become more obsessed with appearance, rather than taking what they were given and making the best of it.
Despite the reasons above as to why "designer babies" are negative, I researched and discovered that they can supposedly serve usefully in our society. This practice can put an end to disorders or diseases appearing during the development of newborn children. If we can genetically modify an unborn baby, we can remove any potential chromosome disorders such as Down syndrome, Klinfelter syndrome and Turner syndrome. An article on TIMESONLINE tells the remarkable story of how a mother who had a cancer-ridden gene and was able to give birth to a healthy child. This was the first designer baby to beat breast cancer.
Designer babies have also served as an inspiration for inventions such as invitro fertilization, the process of injecting male sperm into the female embryo without sexual contact. Certainly, this gave pregnancy a whole new meaning. Invitro fertilization acts as a substitute for females who are unable to bear children.
A CBS News segment featuring two doctors and researchers debating whether designer babies is an ethical innovation or not.
Though eliminating illnesses and disorders in newborn children can be a remarkable feat, those who have such illnesses are not considered any less 'human' than any of us. I've seen people with down syndrome have a stable career and education. I'm not implying that people with an illness is a fortunate thing, but it's not completely devastating either. It teaches our society compassion and to not take life for granted. We don't need gene-altering, we need an open mind to realize that they can be perfectly capable of leading a life that we've living.
In conclusion, I believe "designer babies" corrupts our society’s view on imperfection and certainly sends a bad message. Parents shouldn't be given the option to alter their child's looks but they should be appreciative with what their child and themselves were gifted with.
Works Cited
TimesOnline: First Designer Babies to Beat Breast Cancer
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1706614.ece
Bionet: Design a Baby?
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm
VIDEO: CBS News: Designer Babies?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4840229n&tag=related;photovideo
"Designer babies" are centered on superficiality and opposes the acceptance of flaws. Giving parents the choice to ‘design’ their babies is immoral and goes against our values. Without a doubt, babies are living, breathing humans with countless emotions - not objects. Diversity should be embraced rather than corrected. If couples were offered to 'design' their child's looks, it only encourages people to become more obsessed with appearance, rather than taking what they were given and making the best of it.
Despite the reasons above as to why "designer babies" are negative, I researched and discovered that they can supposedly serve usefully in our society. This practice can put an end to disorders or diseases appearing during the development of newborn children. If we can genetically modify an unborn baby, we can remove any potential chromosome disorders such as Down syndrome, Klinfelter syndrome and Turner syndrome. An article on TIMESONLINE tells the remarkable story of how a mother who had a cancer-ridden gene and was able to give birth to a healthy child. This was the first designer baby to beat breast cancer.
Designer babies have also served as an inspiration for inventions such as invitro fertilization, the process of injecting male sperm into the female embryo without sexual contact. Certainly, this gave pregnancy a whole new meaning. Invitro fertilization acts as a substitute for females who are unable to bear children.
A CBS News segment featuring two doctors and researchers debating whether designer babies is an ethical innovation or not.
Though eliminating illnesses and disorders in newborn children can be a remarkable feat, those who have such illnesses are not considered any less 'human' than any of us. I've seen people with down syndrome have a stable career and education. I'm not implying that people with an illness is a fortunate thing, but it's not completely devastating either. It teaches our society compassion and to not take life for granted. We don't need gene-altering, we need an open mind to realize that they can be perfectly capable of leading a life that we've living.
In conclusion, I believe "designer babies" corrupts our society’s view on imperfection and certainly sends a bad message. Parents shouldn't be given the option to alter their child's looks but they should be appreciative with what their child and themselves were gifted with.
Works Cited
TimesOnline: First Designer Babies to Beat Breast Cancer
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1706614.ece
Bionet: Design a Baby?
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm
VIDEO: CBS News: Designer Babies?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4840229n&tag=related;photovideo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)