New Wastewater Treatment System

Current wastewater treatment systems cost millions of dollars and a large amount of unnecessary energy to run. Poo-Gloos are a new way to provide wastewater treatment for less money and a lot less energy. Poo-Gloo installation typically costs between $100,000 and $200,000, compared to the systems we have in place now, which cost millions. In order to save energy, ten Poo-Gloos only require one horsepower, whereas other systems require at least 8 horsepower, and most require 40-60 horsepower. Also, these systems that require the extra energy are still not meeting stringent environmental requirements.

Poo-Gloos are domes lined with bacterial biofilm to clean water in existing facilities. They work by having heterotrophic bacteria eat most carbon-based material in sewage water and autotrophic bacteria consume ammonia and nitrogen compounds. These domes are typically placed in traditional wastewater lagoons to meet more stringent standards. There are about 6,000 of these wastewater treatment ponds in the U.S. The company is still trying to make these devices more efficient. At the moment there are still several chemicals that they can not clean up and this may be their barrier to a solution until this can be fixed. Right now they are working on phosphorous removal as well as trickier chemicals such as endocrine-disruptors. Poo-Gloos could be extremely helpful in cleaning up the environment, as well as doing so in a more efficient and costly manner.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41040917/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Little Progress Disposing of 34 Metric Tons of Surplus Weapons Grade Plutonium

In the mid 1990s the United States chose a technology that would be used to contribute to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Today the technology is being held out as a solution to America's energy future. The United States and Russia signed the 1991 Stragic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), the two countries had committed to dispose of 34 metric tons of their surplus weapons plutonium to deduce the chance that the material could be stolen or diverted. Both countries were supposed to use a two step process to dispose of the material. The United States decided to focus on a single part of the disposal process, MOX. Russia decided, to stock the plutonium for disposition for future decades. The only condition of the deal is that the two countries would proceed in parallel. Russia is now planning to "recycle" the plutonium to help start its atomic energy future in 2014. To Russia, this would allow them to use all of its plutonium covered by the agreement and the United States would will use some of its plutonium as MOX fuel and immobilize the rest. This is not without risk because immobilized material could be recovered more readily for the use in weapons.

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/42288

Which Should Live?

Ecology is the branch of science that studies the distribution and abundance of living organisms, and the interactions between organisms and their environment. If you change one part, some other part will change in response to that change. In this case conservationists have been so successful at protecting the endangered birds in a Spanish nature reserve that the birds are now killing the reserve's ancient cork oak forest. The birds are killing the trees because there are 70 nests in each tree and the birds are creating so much feces which affects the soil system around the trees. The birds feces also leads to high concentration of salt in the soil and the salt makes it hard for the trees to absorb enough water. Alternatives at the moment are either moving the birds nests to another location or possibly reducing the bird population in the area. These trees are very important to the reserve because they are used by other endangered species as homes and food. There is clearly a trade-off between maintaining the area for the birds and protecting the ancient cork oak forests so a solution must be made.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/42123

How Protected Are U.S. Waterways?

It all started when two challenges were made against the Clean Water Act, one was in 2001, from a company in Illinois they wanted to fill in some old sand and gravel mining pits. Then in 2006 a Michigan real estate developer who filled wetlands to build a shopping mall. Both of them went to the US Supreme Court and in both cases, the Court decided that the CWA protected only “navigable waters of the United States” not all waters like people were thinking. It does not protect thousands of miles of creeks, springs, isolated wetlands, and other bodies of water that are not navigable. They did not say that the waters shouldn’t be protected they just said that the law did not protect it. They are now trying to rewrite the Clean Water Act so that it protects all waters. People are now saying that it is starting to take over their rights if the act is passed to include all waterways which is good but some people say they won’t support it because they think the government should not be able to take over their private ponds and wetlands.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2011/01/how-much-our-water-truly-protected

Environmentally and Human Friendly Dishwashing Liquids

Most restaurants have a dish washing machine that sanitizes dishes by a final rinse of a chemical sanitizing solution (most often, bleach). The beach solution is very dilute, approximately 1 cap full of bleach per gallon of water. Researchers at Ohio State University recently tested two new dishwasher sanitizers, and found them to be much more effective at removing bacteria from restaurant dishware than the current sanitizers that many institutions are using. These two new sanitizers not only sanitize the dishes more effectively, but they contained fewer toxic chemicals, and were healthier for humans and the environment. These new sanitizers would be more cost effective, because a little of it goes a long way, they would not have to use nearly as much as the current solution that they are already using. These traditional sanitizers contain bleach, which corrodes dishes, damages the environment, and is harmful to skin. These sanitizers also lose their effectiveness fairly quickly with each washing cycle, meaning that the sanitizer kills less and less bacteria with each wash. These new sanitizers have been proven more effective in cleaning and killing the E. Coli bacteria from dishware, they are also mostly made up of natural compounds. E. Coli outbreaks have been on the decline since early 2002, but the CDC estimates that 28% of food borne outbreaks from 1982-2002 started in restaurants and other public food establishments. But people are too lazy to change, they already have this dish washing liquid and so they find no reason to change it. But the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives. With this new dish washing agent, the amount of bacteria and harmful diseases is practically none. Plus it is safer and more cost-effective for humans and the environment.

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/42280

New York City Vs. Denver-Who's the Bigger Polluter?

A study was done to figure out which cities in the world were the biggest polluters. Researchers studied data from 100 cities from 33 nations. 71 percent of greenhouse gases come from cities but the people who live in the cities, who use public transportation helped lower emissions in some cities. Big cities like New York, London and Shanghai send less pollution into the atmosphere than places like Denver and Rotterdam. Denver's emissions were almost as twice as much as New York City's emissions. "This is mainly attributable to New York's greater density and much lower reliance on the automobile for commuting," said the study. New York City is the home to 8 million people. Chinese cities stood out from the rest of the world because their average emissions were far higher. The study showed that cities with colder weather have higher emissions, and for poor and middle income countries, like Asia, Latin America and Africa, to have lower emissions per capita than wealthy countries. It was found that the highest emissions came from the suburbs, with large single family homes that are far from commercial centers. The lowest levels of emissions came from areas with apartment complexes in walking distance to shopping and transportation.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/big-cities-are-not-always-biggest-polluters

Coral Reefs Moving North!

A study of coral reefs in Japan, has shown that some of the reefs have been moving to different climate zones for about 80 years now. The team of greographers has been analyzing maps from four time periods, starting in 1930. They found that out of nine common coral species, four have been moving north, and two have moved to different temperature waters. Some of the coral species that moved, moved over eight miles a year.One of the scientists says the corals were moving to fight the climate increase, so they moved north. Two ways that coral dies, is a temperature change, and if there is too much acidity from high concentrations of carbon dioxide can weaken it. The water up north is more likely to have high concentraitions of carbon dioxide so scientists think its strange that the coral is going up there. This study their conducting is good to show how marine life is reacting to temperature change. All animals react differently to climate change.