On March 4, our class ventured over to MIT’s plasma reactor lab in Cambridge. A member of its team, grad student Paul Ennever, gave us a presentation and tour on the many facets of plasma and its practical potential for sustainability.

Our mass-pulley experiment provided us four objectives and concepts to work with:

1. Newton’s Second Law: Force= Mass multiplied by Acceleration. The acceleration of an object produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the direct force not just in the same direction, but also in an inverse proportion to the object’s mass.

2. The law of conservation of energy: total energy of an isolated system remains constant because energy can only change form, never lost.

3. Velocity and Acceleration: although quite similar, the distinction between these measurements is crucial to determine full results of the lab experiment. Speed determines the rate of motion of an object (magnitude component), while velocity determines the direction of said object (magnitude and direction).

4. Power: the power level sets the force on the masses. By setting the power level of the motor, it applies torque to the motor wheel and results in a particular force used to lift the masses. As seen in our findings below, the higher the power level, the higher the force.

If you have trouble viewing the graphs, use this link:
http://web.cas.suffolk.edu/faculty/lshatz/Sustainability_class/Lab1.htm/.

As evidenced above, the greater the mass, the greater the battery drainage. This is where the importance of work is seen: with a heightened gravitational effect, there is a inherent requirement for increased power and velocity needed to move the object. The inverse of this is when you apply force to an object and it doesn’t move because you didn’t apply any work to it.

We calculated the power used by dividing potential energy by time, which equals mgh/time. A secondary finding here is that when we decreased power level, the acceleration decreased concurrently. Also interesting was the inverse proportion in the decreasing of mass and its increasing of acceleration. Each of these findings falls in line with Newton’s Second Law.

At its essence, this experiment has shown us the direct and inverse proportions amongst power level, acceleration, work, and velocity and their relations to the efficiency of an object such as the pulley mechanism. Our findings are crucial to bear in mind regarding the climate change debate because these same sustainability fundamentals are involved in creating a more efficient, greener source of energy. A perpetual energy source, although not yet conceived, is certainly the goal of our efforts in transcending the finite resources we depend on today.

Robert Stone’s documentary, Pandora’ s Promise, offers an off-the-mainstream take on nuclear energy and its potential for sustainability. Its association with disaster and peril is largely attributed by its inception into the world as the atomic bomb- the very picture of mankind’s most perilous concept ever brought to fruition. The phrase “nuclear project” often brings to mind events such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile, among others. However, as the documentary points out, these disasters have overshadowed the successes and potential seen in other aspects of nuclear usage, like the USS Nautilus and traveling wave reactor (TWR).

Stone and fellow converted pro-nuclear environmentalists do a thorough job sifting through popular belief to reinforce the potential in nuclear energy. A topic in the movie which seemed especially pertinent to me concerns the USS Nautilus and its Light Water Reactor (LWR) power source. While, yes, this ship was built with commercial purposes (to control Europe’s nuclear market) and the contemporaneous “Atoms For Peace” plan has generated for waste than anticipated, it has opened the door to enhanced procedural mechanisms for nuclear plants. Precautionary cooling systems and containment buildings have become staple implementations which the world did not have during the disaster at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

The key to an objective analysis of society’s relationship with nuclear sustainability requires that society know that energy must come from somewhere, whether it be coal, oil, gas, or any other various possibility yet to be discovered. When presenting the case for or against nuclear energy it must be directly relative to its alternatives– all of which are far from ideal long term solutions currently. Robert Stone keenly makes this distinction throughout his documentary. He explains that although nuclear is expensive, financial costs are no longer able to be the primary concern as the environment continues to take a growing toll. Its not perfect, but neither are the alternatives in gas, oil, or coal. A “comparative absolutism” perspective should circumvent the nuclear debate, as we must make progress forward in steady, linear increments nonetheless.

Despite the difficult path to a perfect energy source, Pandora’s Promise reminds us not to discount nuclear energy’s great potential and to look beyond its common perception of terror and instead of hope. As Stone has asserted in light of the documentary, “Can you be an environmentalist and pro-nuclear?…In light of climate change, can you be an environmentalist and not be pro-nuclear?” This sentiment provides the debate’s required essence and mindset making progressive steps forward.

Hydraulic Fracturing is explained by ProPublica as the “injection of more than a million gallons of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure down and across into horizontally drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet below the surface.”

If this sounds like an energy-intensive, earth-impacting engagement, its because it is.

Hydro-fracking, as ProPublica continues to explain, is used in 90% of natural gas wells across the United States. It requires such significant quantities of water, sand, and chemicals because the drill needs enough force to penetrate thick sheets of rock that comprise the Earth’s core. This method delivers enormous quantities of natural gas that then comprise the international market.

Despite its environmental intensity, organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute promote hydro-fracking as a growingly eco-friendly procedure. API cites safety mechanisms such as the way concrete is pumped through the well to protect ground water from contamination, but it is still causing greater potential harm than this small allowance.

Dangersoffracking.com points out the bigger issues with these methods. It takes anywhere from 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, depending on the well’s size. This is an enormous, indirect tax on the environment and its thinning clean water supplies. Furthermore, add in an extra 40,000 gallons of chemicals (including lead, uranium, mercury, radium, methanol, and formaldehyde) multiplied by 18 times a well can be fracked, and we are now looking at 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of chemicals being pumped into current gas wells alone.

To further magnify these dangers is the immense lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry. With growing criticism of the industry’s cursory fracturing practices, officials such as former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator Al Armendariz receive the punishment. According to Brendan DeMelle of the Huffington Post, in May of 2012 Armendariz submitted his letter of resignation due to comments he made two years previously that had been circulated by Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma. Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors were leading officials in the oil and gas industry, sparking great controversy over the industry’s influence on environmental policy.

As the debate surrounding hydro-fracking continues on, it is imperative to stay conscious of its potential environmental and health effects on the American public, as explained by dangersoffracking.com, as well as the imbalance of power visible in the case with Armendariz. False information is easily disseminated by large, corporate lobbying arms that can only eschew the truth if they are allowed to do so. Hydraulic fracturing undoubtedly alters the environments in which it exists, so it is in the public’s responsibility to hold these practitioners accountable.

http://www.propublica.org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-national

http://iehn.org/overview.naturalgashydraulicfracturing.php

http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/exploration-and-production/hydraulic-fracturing/hydraulic-fracturing-safe-oil-natural-gas-extraction

http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/al-armendariz_b_1515948.html

Of the past two decades alone, a significant cultural shift has taken place in the automobile marketplace as the government has increased its role as mediator between economic and environmental protection. This generational shift will be a key determinant in appraising the sustainability of our future. Merely the fact that the government has been willing to step in so forcefully is significant in itself because it has not been able to mediate as effectively as possible with the rise of powerful lobbyist firms and policy institutes. Even Mitt Romney had said that he would attempt to repeal legislation on this matter if elected president, claiming that its a government overreach. Of course, this is counterintuitive due to the benefits it has had for all parties and externalities, as Rick Newman of usnews.com has pointed out that “so far, the new mileage rules have generated tangible benefits for consumers, with few of the downsides opponents have predicted.” Improving efficiency standards has proved to generate long term savings for buyers and sellers alike, going to show that making “greener” business decisions can be reasonable both economically and socially.

The biggest nationwide shift occurred in 2011, when the federal government raised its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) by its largest margin for the first time since 1975, per Csaba Csere at caranddriver.com. Carmakers now have to hit a universal minimum of 37.8 mpg by 2016, thereby ensuring these companies invest more into finding ways to increase gas mileage in the long run. The graph below displays the long-term financial benefits of these innovations.

The key technical specifications of gas mileage improvements are explained here by researchers at Aberdeen Group. The most efficient, immediate technologies include improved drivetrain efficiency, lighter weight vehicles, smarter software, hybrid technology, electric drive technologies, battery performance, and investing in newer technology. This last aspect holds perhaps the most potential, as in it lies the possibility for sustainability that has yet to be even formulated in theory. Today, there is already great headway occurring throughout the auto industry improving gas mileage in numerous different ways- 88% of automotive companies already have plans to develop even newer strategies for utilizing materials for total efficiency, per Aberdeen Group. “Composite materials have been very good in terms of rigidity, corrosion resistance, and strength. I would definitely recommend using them, especially when you consider how fuel-efficiency standards are on the rise,” says a product engineer at Automotive OEM. This engineer has certainly proved to be in the right by the rest of the auto industry as each and every company continues to develop new, sustainable mechanisms of gas mileage.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/08/27/tough-government-gas-mileage-rules-good-for-drivers-auto-industry

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-automakers-will-meet-2016-cafe-standards

http://m.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/Images/Solutions-for-Meeting-Fuel-Efficiency-and-Emissions-Standards_tcm1224-219133.pdf

This week in class we continued on with our robotics team exercise. After setting up all the configurations with Windows, we measured the circumference of the wheel and computed it in the front panel of our own car. From here we were then able to calculate the time taken for each wheel rotation. It took approximately  half a second (.55 milliseconds) per rotations over four rotations because we had the speed at a moderate level. Milliseconds and seconds are related to each other as: 1000 ms per 1 s. Each full wheel turn is a representation of the wheel’s circumference, and this equates to the distance traveled as the sum of the full rotations multiplied by the circumference. We also made note of percentage difference, calculated as ((actual-labview)/(average actual, labview))100.

Trial 1: 75 (power)
0.26 – 0.258 / 0.267= 0.038, or 3.38%

Trial 2: 75 (power)
0.26 – 0.263 / 0.267= 0.015, or 1.5%

Individual Attempt 1: 90 (power)

0.38 – 0.34 / 0.34= 0.088, or 8.8%

After this general set up, we began by programming our to drive in a 2 foot radius both forwards and backwards. We noticed that in comparison to the VI, our car travelled .43 meters farther than the VI; we attributed this to a slightly higher power level than the VI. By the end, we experimented with power levels of 75, 100, 125, and then 50 in order to alter the revolution speed. It definitely needed some music as well, so we incorporated some tunes already programmed into our car.

Furthermore, we altered the power levels between ports by as much as a discrepancy of 20 units (1 on the left, 1.20 on the right wheel), which resulted in a circular rotation. This was due to higher power in one wheel forcing the car to spin unevenly and therefore cause a controlled tailspin. We altered the speeds between wheels to experiment with a more “funky trajectory.” We also attempted the While and For loops, but needed some assistance from colleagues in order to perfect it- which we did by the end of class Wednesday. We did wish, however, that we tried out more of these different programming techniques like the altered wheel programming. More creative techniques will definitely be a bigger option in future experiments.

Overall, it was a good experience working within the Robotics Activity. We were able to examine the correlation between wheel rotation, circumference, and distance travelled for both our robot and the VI. We alternated amongst different wheel movements and speeds as well and still have more to do next time, most importantly being bigger changes of speed and examining more pertinently the scale of difference on distance accumulated.

The measles vaccine is crucial to the protection of all people, regardless of age, race, or nationality. Particularly in the United States, with a history of epidemics ranging from polio to the more recent H1N1 scare, hesitation regarding a measles vaccination should not even be a consideration. In fact, our country credit the vaccine for being rid of the virus for so long! According to Dan Whitcomb and Michael Fleeman at Reuters, Measles was declared “eliminated in the United States in 2000 after decades of intensive childhood vaccine efforts. But last year the nation had its highest number of measles cases in two decades.” This only shows the effectiveness of the vaccine, and that this current outbreak is not just an aberration to be overlooked. Parents have a responsibility to their children in ensuring this vaccine.

There are even companies and organizations taking this threat just as seriously as is meant to be. KinderCare, a child care organization located in Lake County, has already instituted policies requiring all employees assisting children 15 months or younger to be vaccinated. This is especially commendable because KinderCare is located in Chicago! Despite not being remotely near ground zero in California, this organization has taken heed to precaution and made sure to stop a fight with measles before it can even begin. That is the essence of vaccinations, in today’s children especially- to preempt any possible threat to health and wellbeing.

Parents who still believe themselves to be anti-vaccine need to take heed of the cautions offered by Dr. Sanjay Gupta in his open letter to CNN just last Thursday. He points out that science “often loses the zeal argument to ideology,” and most certainly in the case of vaccinations because there is so rarely an accident regarding them that whenever there is, it is blown out of proportion by fear. It is imperative that one regard facts, not hyperbole, when understanding how valuable vaccinations are in any case. As interpreted by Kelly Wallace of CNN, professor Tara Smith has confirmed that “the diseases are much worse than any potential side effect from the vaccines, so for me it’s a risk-benefit.” Vaccines are administered in order to prevent the worst possible outcome, and the measles outbreak is no different.

Barring an extenuating circumstance such as serious allergy, there is no logical reason for declining the measles vaccine. The United States’ population alone is approaching 320 million people, so the vaccine must be looked at in regard all the people we come in contact with each and everyday on our commutes, in our classrooms, and our workspaces. Its time to vaccinate our children.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-measles-california-idUSKBN0L82NR20150205

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-measles-chicago-reax-0207-20150206-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/04/living/feat-measles-parents-vaccinate-children/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/health/measles-gupta-fact/

Ebola is not a new virus. It has been an affliction on humanity for countless years, but not until recently has it hit American soil on such profound terms. The 2014 outbreak has become the largest on record with a total of 66 cases and 49 deaths reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, per the Center of Disease Control. American health workers sought to treat these victims and as a result had brought strains of the virus to US soil. This proximity has magnified the terrors of Ebola in ways not felt by citizens since the Polio epidemic of the early 1900s.

The adequacy of the United States’ response to the Ebola threat can be best understood in two overarching categories: timeliness and limitation. Response to the former was highly effective; within days there was protocol set and initiated to quarantine any potentially transmittable strains of the virus. Despite this seemingly-comprehensive contingency, its initiation out of the abstract worst-case scenario into its physical implementation proved disastrous. Thomas Eric Duncan brought the virus home to Dallas from a “hot zone” in Liberia. Health contractors were reluctant to clean his apartment. The ER at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital misdiagnosed  Duncan upon his arrival, as Dr. Joseph Howard Meier reportedly “looked him over, checked his vital signs and ordered tests. After a few hours, Meier diagnosed him with sinusitis, prescribed antibiotics and sent him home.”  This resulted in up to 100 additional people having made contact with Duncan after arriving in the United States.

These linear mishaps only reinforce the importance and difficulty in actively carrying out a contingency plan, especially in the case of a disease as dangerous and potent as Ebola. American College of Emergency Physicians spokesperson Dr. Ryan Stanton characterized the recognize and respond process to Ebola as “a needle in a hayfield we’re going to find.”

Despite these enormous boundaries the country must overcome to better handle the Ebola crisis, there is still reason to believe in ever-improving response measures since September and through this new year. President Obama has committed the United States to greater humanitarian efforts in the countries most affected by the outbreak; this will, of course, aid the US indirectly as well because it will better quarantine the virus before it can travel to domestic soil again. His assertiveness in laying way for more field hospitals and health workers has vindicated his intentions to make the outbreak a top national security threat. Ultimately, President Obama’s toughened policies on this outbreak have resulted in increased adequacy in this ongoing fight for humanitarian protection and against Ebola.

Referenced:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/summaries.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29483946

http://www.dallasnews.com/ebola/headlines/20141206-er-doctor-discusses-role-in-ebola-patients-initial-misdiagnosis.ece

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-scare-prompts-us-hospitals-prepare-outbreak/story?id=26105274

Amy Harmon’s article, A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, provides a thorough detail of an oft-overlooked topic: GMOs and their various implications across society and its environment. Walk into any chain supermarket and many any of the foods you will see are affected or produced by GMOs- namely produce, beef, poultry, eggs, and milk. So common are these modified foods in supermarkets today that there is now a specially-marked aisle as “organic,” “whole foods,” “good harvest,” or a range of other semantically-pure words to indicate that the items in this aisle do not have direct GMO effects (thus implying that the rest of the store may). According to Harmon, “about three-quarters of processed foods now have such ingredients, mostly corn syrup, corn oil and soy meal and sugar.” This alone places GMOs directly at the center of sustainability debates.

Despite this proximity to the American people, the topic of genetically modified crops and organisms has garnered a shockingly low level of salience. Through this long piece for the New York Times, Harmon intends to shed further light on GMOs and rid some of the ambiguity surrounding their purported effects on food as beneficial or poisonous. This is essential in understanding growth and sustainability of a world food supply with the understanding that the global population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion people by the year 2050.  If GMOs are proven safe and sustainable for annual use, it will be an enormous discovery. If not, we risk an industrial collapse not unlike the DDT scare of the 1960s. It is clear that this issue requires a much higher level of salience than is currently given.

Harmon hit on an especially important aspect of the GMO debate in regard to popular opinion’s acceptance as fact in some cases. Oftentimes this opinion will masquerade as a scientific conclusion due to the sheer volume of the argument in circulation. Such is seen on show Real Time With Bill Maher and guest Republican David Frum:

“Mr. Maher’s audience, in turn, recently hissed at a commentator who defended genetic modification as merely an extension of traditional breeding.”

Is Maher distorting the risks of GMOs or basing his arguments on logical conclusions delivered by way of irony and humor? This article vehemently argues the former and offers caution to Maher’s tactics, although it is likely a Republican-based group attempting to dissuade his arguments with political advantage. Furthermore, despite the clarity in which a supermarket shopper can see chicken breasts and legs as far bigger and unnatural than 10 years ago, it is still difficult to validate GMOs’ dangers because it is a relatively young proponent and therefore lacks the longevity to fully see their effects. In other words, Maher’s debate against the GMO corporatocracy is not strong enough to stand alone yet.

In all, Harmon’s characterization here of the public’s distrust of companies like Monsanto and GMO products in general is testament to the ambiguity of the GMO debate itself. What is popular opinion, and what is scientific finding? To find a truly sustainable option (whether or not it is GMO-related) will rely on establishing the relationship between these doctored crops and potential affects on humans in the coming years. This larger sample size will firmly determine the arguments made by catalysts of the anti-GMO movement like Greggor Ilagan and Margaret Wille and generate conclusions to their role in food sustainability.

Welcome to Blogs @ Suffolk University. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Posts or make a new one under Posts>Add New, then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Appearance option to choose a new look for your blog!.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.

Happy Blogging!