Imagine a staple crop like rice has the potential to cure an ailing disease that millions of people face every year. By eating this genetically modified rice, you are getting your nutritional needs for vitamin A, which can in turn help reduce the risk of effects from not getting enough of this nutrient. Vitamin A deficiency affects vision, which can cause night blindness or even complete blindness. Younger populations are at the most risk. It seems a little too good to be true right? When it comes to genetically modified foods, when does the risk outweigh the benefits?

The golden rice is visually different than any other type of rice. It has the yellow color that shows the presence of beta-carotene. One bowl of golden rice can supply a child with at least 60% of their daily-recommended intake of vitamin A. Some people are cautious of the true benefits of consuming this type of rice, because it was discovered through biotechnology. While this rice seems like it is a great solution for a problem that affects millions of people each year, some people argue that genetically modified foods are not driven to help people, but driven to gain a profit.

This can be true for many different government and private company decisions that have been made in the past and present. In the past, when nuclear technologies became more popular, it was believed that people approached risk first with rational thought and considering all information before making a decision. If you provide the people with all the information, it will alter their perception of the risk. Many years later, the research stated that even if you provide someone with all of the information they need to make a decision, this still won’t quiet their irrational fears. This methodology comes from Paul Slovic, where he “examines the particular heuristics and biases people invent to interpret the amount of risk in their environment”. He surveys different social and cultural factors that lead to risk evaluation.

One of the more controversial issues in our country today is the debate about hydraulic fracturing, or as it is more popularly known, fracking. Fracking involves using a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals deep into shale formations to crack and release oil to be brought to ground level. The benefits of fracking are highly economic, while the negative impacts range from contaminating aquifers to air pollution. In this situation do the benefits outweigh the risks?

It has been considered why people’s perception of risk of nuclear fallouts are much greater than automobile accidents, which have caused much more deaths than the former. It could perhaps be linked to media coverage in the news. Car accidents happen every day, but rarely appear in national news. When there is a disease outbreak, natural disaster, or a shooting, they are covered by the news in depth. The media greatly influences what we perceive to be a risk, and can determine how we react to many different situations. With the continuing changes on our planet, it is important now more than ever to promote public policy, and provide education to improve the public's reactions.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2013/01/16/how-do-we-perceive-risk-paul-slovics-landmark-analysis-2/

http://www.psandman.com/col/fracking.htm

Harvey Washington Wiley is a name I had never heard of before, but I am surprised that I haven’t. He is described as the “The Father of the Pure Food and Drugs Act”, and without his help on the regulation of the foods that we eat every day in this country, we could still be consuming poison with every meal.

Wiley completed degree programs from Indiana Medical College and Harvard University, and he went on to teach Chemistry at Purdue University. He then went on to be the chief chemist for the USDA. He was supposed to support the new agricultural industries, but he kept working on his true passion: creating tests to identify the purity of foods.

During the late 1800s, pure food bills were pushed through Congress, but eventually failed because of powerful lobbyists who disagreed with them. Wiley wanted to expose the public to his concerns, so in 1902 he developed testing group of 12 healthy young men, who later became known as “The Poison Squad”. All twelve took oaths, “pledging one year of service, promising to only eat food that was prepared in the Poison Squad’s kitchen, and waiving their right to sue the government for damages -- including death -- that might result from their participation in the program”.

With a budget of $5,000, this group subjected themselves to chemicals and other food additives to study the effects they had on the body. During each of the different trials, the amount of chemical would slowly be increased, and the effects would be tracked. Before each meal, each man would be weighed, have their temperature taken, and their blood pressure measured. Stool, urine, hair, and sweat samples were taken, as well as a weekly physical. If at any point one of the men became too sick to continue, the trial would be stopped. They tested substances such as Borax, sulfuric acid, saltpeter, formaldehyde, and many more.

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drug Act, which was largely written by Wiley. Wiley was appointed to oversee its administration. However, in 1912 he decided to leave his government job, and start something new. He directed the Bureau of Foods, Sanitation, and Health for Good Housekeeping. He continued his fight for pure foods, and still monitored the government’s activities. Wiley stayed at Good Housekeeping for 19 years, and changed the food industry completely.

Wiley was cautious when it came to the food industry, and did not buy into their health claims that the additives were not affecting consumers. Without his research, these additives may have been still used to this day. In fact, in 1927 Wiley expressed his concern for the health effects of tobacco, and this was 12 years before the Surgeon General issued a report.

Wiley died in 1930 at the age of 86, and was granted a patriot’s funeral at Arlington Cemetery. He is buried there along side his wife. Without the intense trials of The Poison Squad, the hazards of the chemicals added to food may not have been discovered. His work on the Pure Food and Drug Act revolutionized the governments place in overseeing the food industry, and worked to make the food we consume in this country safe.

FDA

The Poison Squad

Fluoridated Public Drinking Water

Everyday we turn on our faucets, and drink the water that comes out of it. Most people are not aware to the different chemicals that are present in the public water supply. Fluoride is one of the chemicals that are present in many different water systems throughout the United States. Fluoride is added to the public water system to reduce tooth decay. The decision to fluoridate the water is made by the local or state government, and there is no federal mandate to at it to the water supply.

Since the 19^th century, the relationship between fluoride and tooth health has been studied. A dentist named Fredrick McKay was one of the key dentists that were investigating this relationship. Over the years, more research was conducted and a positive relationship between fluoride and teeth health was proven. Fluoridation of water went became an official policy by the United States Public Health Service in 1951. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. This law “requires EPA to determine the level of contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur”. The MCLG, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm.

Fluoride can get into the water in many different ways. There are different forms of fluoride that can be found in different types of rocks that can possibly dissolve into the ground water. Fluoride can enter into the environment as discharge from fertilizer and aluminum plants. Communities can also add it to their public water supply to promote dental health.

Seventy percent of the public water systems in the United States are fluoridated. Other countries fluoridate their water as well, but 97% of developed countries do not consume fluoridated water.

There are many reasons why people advocate the removal of fluoride from the public water system. Dr. Paul Connett, an anti-fluoride activist who is also a Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, published 50 fluoridation should be opposed. One of his stated reasons is that fluoride is the only chemical that is added to the water system for a medical benefit. Every other additive is to improve the water quality or safety. In his words, “adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment.”

He also argues that it is near impossible to control the dose of fluoride that each person is receiving. Many people drink different amounts of water, and could then be consuming too little or too much of their daily-recommended level. Also, each person regardless of age, health, or vulnerability is getting the same amount of fluoride.

People are also getting fluoride from many different sources now than they were before. Many food and beverages and dental products use fluoridated water in the process of making them. If someone is consuming too much fluoride, it will begin to accumulate in their body because the kidneys are only equipped to filter about 50-60% of the fluoride we ingest.

The reason for fluoridating public drinking water is to prevent tooth decay within the population. In low-income communities that have fluoridated water, the prevalence of tooth decay is very high. It has even been argued that fluoride will only prevent tooth decay when applied topically, and not ingested into the body.

Many advocates state that fluoride can affect the brain and lower the IQ, but there have been no definitive tests to prove this statement. However, if there is even a hint of skepticism for negative effects of fluoride in the drinking water, it should be removed. In the next couple decades, we may learn more about the effect of fluoridating water because now people are growing old that have been consuming it for most of their lives.

Basic Information about Fluoride in the Drinking Water

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluirdation

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

At 12:04 am local time on March 24^th, 1989, the oil tanker named Exxon Valdez was traveling through Prince William Sound, Alaska, when it struck the Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef. Over the next few days, the tanker spilled approximately 260,000 to 750,000 barrels of crude oil into the ocean. To this day, it is considered one of the most devastating human caused disasters on the planet. Until the 2010 Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it was the biggest spill ever in US waters. Unfortunately, the Prince William Sound area is not very accessible, so it made clean up plans to be only carried out by helicopter, plane, or boat. After the damage was done, the spill affected 1,300 miles of coastline, and 11,000 square miles of ocean waters.

There are many different factors that may have contributed to this accident. Some of the reasons range from an overworked and understaffed crew that were not able to perform their job duties, a radar system that was not properly working, and nonexistent Coast Guard inspections on the Valdez. It was even rumored that the captain of the vessel had been drinking that night, and was not in the right state of mind to be operating the ship. He was accused, but then eventually acquitted of the charges. In the end, the oil company receives the blame and criticism for the effects of the oil spill on the area and the surrounding communities.

The waters and surrounding region are habitat to many different animals, such as salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. Since the area is home to an abundance of plants and animals, a successful clean up operation was crucial to minimize the impact of the oil spill. There was a dispersant called Corexit 9580 used in attempt to dissipate the oil slick, but because of little action in the water to disperse the chemical properly, its use was discontinued. There were also attempts to ignite the oil, and try to burn off as much as possible, but because of unfavorable weather conditions this tactic was stopped. Mechanical clean up was started shortly afterwards by using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not available to use for clean up right away, and they tended to clog throughout the clean up from kelp.

Prince William Sound is filled with many rocky coves, and the oil tended to collect within the coves. The decision was made that to remove the oil the workers would use high-pressure hot water. This consisted of dozens of people holding fire hoses and spraying the beaches. The water containing the oil would travel down the shoreline, and would either be scooped up, sucked up, or absorbed by using special materials. However, this tactic would have consequences. The temperature of the water destroyed microbial growth, like plankton, which is a key factor in the food chain of this environment.

As well as microbial populations being affected by this oil spill, tons of animals were affected as well. The numbers are an estimate, because scientists believed a lot of the dead animal carcasses would have sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Estimates project that 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles,

up to 22 killer whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were killed as a result of the oil spill.

While more than 20 years has passed, the Prince William Sound environment is still facing the effects of the oil spill. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council stated that the most shocking conclusions they have come across is “that Exxon Valdez oil persists in the environment and, in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill." The council has also found that oil is persistent in the Kenai Peninsula and the Katmai coast, which are over 450 miles away from the original location of the oil spill. In the first 2-3 inches of water in the ocean, the clean up efforts and natural processes cleaned up the oil where oxygen and water can flow freely. However, nothing has helped the large amounts of oil farther below the surface.

Because of the excess oil still contaminating the region, some animals have been slow to recover their population sizes before the spill. Certain sea otter populations have recovered after the oil spill, specifically those in the western Prince William Sound, but others in highly oiled areas have been slower to bounce back. Otters are also foraging animals that look for mussels and clams in the water to eat. Their foraging habits are helping with the oil contamination in the waters because the digging releases contaminants into the water where they are dispersed and diluted.

The American Bird Conservancy has stated that certain types of bird species have recovered, but several significant ones have yet to return to the numbers before the spill. The oil spill destroyed “5-10 percent of the world's population of Kittlitz's Murrelets”, and the species has been declining at an overwhelmingly large rate. Two other species that have not recovered are the Pigeon Guillemot and the Marbled Murrelet. Herring populations have yet to recover, and they are a crucial food source for over forty different kinds of fish, birds, and mammals.

The vast majority of species affected by the oil spill has caused somewhat of a domino effect throughout the ecosystem. Any kind of animal that has to go through chronic exposure to contaminated water and any of the indirect effects the spill has caused will be affected in some way or another.

While some of the impacts of the oil spill are obvious, others are not as predictable. More information will be gathered through further research in Prince William Sound. Some areas of concern scientists will continue to watch are deeply penetrated oil leeching from beaches into the ocean, intertidal animals like mussels are still contaminated by oil in the sediments and water, and can affect humans and animals that eat them, recovery of beaches that were cleaned by high pressure water, and the long term chronic effects on fish and wildlife from oil levels that still remain.

The areas surrounding the oil spill are still being monitored to this day. It may take years for the ecosystem to recover, if it even fully recovers at all. There is a lot of speculation that if the cleaning efforts that took place did more harm than good. For example, did the high pressure washing kill key microbial growth, or did the use of dispersants leech toxic chemicals into the environment.  We have better systems in place to deal with future oil spills, and have done even more in regards to preventing them. After 2015, the United States will prohibit any single hulled tankers. Double hulled tankers are crucial in protecting the wildlife and ecosystems from any future spills. Tankers are being observed now more than ever to prevent them from going in areas that would be more prone to accidents.

Unfortunately, in this world it sometimes takes a major accident to reevaluate the practices we are using. While the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a horrible disaster that affected the environment and the animals living within it, it also affected the surrounding communities. They advocated for the government and the oil companies to put change into action to prevent another catastrophe happening in the area again. Even though another oil spill did happen, Deepwater Horizon in 2010, with each event we are learning more about the spills effect the environment, and what else needs to be done to prevent them.

Oil Plagues Sound 20 Years After Exxon Valdez

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

The Lingering Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

20 Years Later Exxon Valdez Spill

The Risk of Transporting Crude Oil by Railway

Throughout the years, there has been an increase in railway accidents. The use of railways to transport hazardous materials has increased steadily over the past couple of decades. There can be many different variables to blame in these situations. America has begun to process more crude oil within the United States, so we have to transport it to other places around the continent to turn a profit. The railways that we are using to transport have been around for a long time. There aren't too many other options around for us to ship the oil that we extract from North Dakota's Bakken area. So we resort to the railways that have been around for ages, and arguably aren't equipped to transport the large amounts of crude oil that we require.

While the need for use to transport crude oil is inevitable, there are safe ways to do so. The most popular rail car to transport crude oil is called DOT-111 cars, by almost 70% of all rail cars used today. While the Lac Megantic was a horrible tragedy that a town faced from a railway accident, I wasn't too sure what factors could be contributed to railway accidents in today's day and age. An article featured in Reuters entitled "Railroads act to reduce crude-by-rail risks" by John Kemp, highlighted what should be considered when researching the hazardous of the railways.

Speed limits have been identified as one of the main causes of railway accidents. The faster a train is traveling when an accident occurs, the more likely tanks are to rupture or potentially lose some of their contents, which increases the risk of a fire in the surrounding area. While it is required in some areas, but not all, railcars traveling through high populated urban areas are required to lower their speed to reduce the risk of any accidents. 

More than a decade ago, the Rail Corridor Risk Management System (RCRMS) was developed to reroute all railway train carrying hazardous materials away from urban areas as much as possible. Well this is a great precaution, what happens to areas that aren't classified as urban areas and there is a railway crash. While it may take years to reroute railways, I think the ideal goal is to change the routes of the railways to avoid any populated towns at all.

The oil tank cars that are being used to transport crude oil today have been around for a very long time. The crude oil tankers that are currently being used are not strong enough to stand against the forces that are involved in a crash. Another factor is that the crude oil that is being manufactured today is more volatile and flammable compared to the crude oil that was produced years ago. Other tankers like Class 105 and 112 are less likely to rupture in the event of an accident. When Class 111 tankers rupture, they leak the more flammable crude oil into the environment that subject it to the risk of combustion. 

More specifically, the oil that is coming from the Bakken region has a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 8.6 pounds per square inch. This is compared to other crude oils ranging from 3-6 psi. RVP is important because it measures the likelihood of crude oil, gasoline, or other flammable liquids to evaporate and form a flammable cloud around the train. 

The Class 111 is one of the most inefficient tankers to transport oil, and if a company decides to use this tanker, they will be charged a tax of $325 for each car that is not transported on a more recommended version of tanker. 

There are plans in the works to revamp all Class 111 tankers, but this will be a long and expensive process. As long as these tankers are on the railways, the risk of accidents are exponentially higher, and put many communities and people at risk. If the government does not take action, and place a mandate on updating all tankers to the high safety standards, many people could suffer from the errors that happen on the railways, either from human or mechanical error.

Railwords act to reduce crude by rail risk

pressure mounts to sidetrack older, hazardous rail cars