Click here to see our Prezi presentation!
Click here to see our project planning and research!
Click here to see our citations!
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Monday, February 12, 2018
Transfer Station/Recycle Center - February 10th, 2018
Lauren Ho
"Visit to the Transfer Station/Recycle Center"
640 Main Street, Andover, New Hampshire
Date of Excursion: February 10th, 2018
On February 10th, the class all brought trash/recycling from our dorms to APES class first block, and headed onto the bus with Alan to make our way to the Town of Andover Transfer Station and Recycling center, located at 640 Main Street. It was a short trip of 2.1 miles and it was only about 3 minutes in the bus one way. It was a relatively warm morning when we went, leaving at around 8:20am and returning at around 9:00am to head to our next class. There was snow on the ground, but not too much. The sun was out, but not shining directly on us, and the winds were still so it was the perfect combination of hot and cold. It was a little chilly, but we all had coats to keep up warm. It was a relatively small place over all.
Screenshot from Google Maps Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
The Andover Transfer Station and Recycling Center is where residents of Andover, New Hampshire, go to dispose of their trash and recycling. It is a processing site and waste management (chapter 22 vocabulary) that it used for the temporary deposition of waste generated by the town. It is not meant for industrial solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary). In order to use the transfer station, residents of the town must obtain a permit in the form of a sticker that will be placed on their car. They come with the small fee of $5.00 per car, and proof of residency must be provided when residents apply for a permit. There were a few different waste disposal group areas that we looked at. The trash, recyclables and dispolables are laster sent onto other places to be properly recycled or disposed of, such as Boston, Rochester, Concord and New London.
We started by looking at the general trash dump and took turns throwing in the trash bags we had brought. This is where all municipal solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary) is disposed of. We were lucky enough to be able to see the compacter in action, squishing all the bags and creating space for more trash. When we were here, Alan talked about the sign above the trash disposal that said "DUMPING RECYCLABLES HERE MEANS HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL". He went on to described how reducing our overall trash generation would reduce costs for the town, because it is measured by weight and taxes follow accordingly. On another note, the state of New Hampshire is currently working on finding a way to require transfer stations to compost food waste, because this will results in a very significant trash waste reduction.
Throwing trash - photo taken by Lauren Ho General trash disposal - photo taken by Lauren Ho
After looking at the general trash disposal area, we moved into a room in which there were a lot of items (such as toys, books etc.) including televisions - E-Waste - and we learned that they ship these away to be disposed of. It is sent to another company for about $0.48/lb to be recycled. It costs between $2-$16 for an Andover resident to dispose of e-waste here. This price covers the price of sending it off to be recycled. I believe electronics are sent to Rochester after the transfer station. The company that receives the waste from the transfer station tries to recycle the plastics, metals and as much of the product as possible. We learned that items in this room could be taken, picked up or traded by any resident of Andover. In this room, there was also a box to dispose of lightbulbs and other mercury-containing items. I learned that it is against the law to throw items containing mercury in the trash. This includes anything from fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats, to tilt switches, manometers and button batteries. It is unknown where electronics and alkaline batteries go after they leave the facility. Mercury containing products can be harmful to the environment if they are improperly disposed of. Consumers are encouraged to bring their mercury products along with their other recyclables and either dispose of them through "collection and recycling at municipal facilities", "household hazardous waste (Chapter 22 vocabulary) collection events" (they host one day where they collect all household hazardous waste for free!!) or "municipal and commercial thermostat recycling locations. The reason why is because mercury is a highly toxic chemical that when it accumulates in human bodies, it never breaks down into a non-toxic form. It can be damaging to the liver, kidney and brain(causing neurological disorders). It can also be absorbed by plants and animals once it's released into the air. It bioaccumulates and moves up the food chain. (http://www.andover-nh.gov/assets/municipal/10/Products_Containing_Mercury_List_1476198738.pdf)
E-Waste - Photo by Lauren Ho Tradable trash - Photo by Lauren Ho
When we were done inside, we moved onto the recyclables disposal and learned that Andover recycles about 70% of their waste. Some of us who brought our recycling threw it in, and then we learned about single stream recycling. By definition single stream recycling refers to "a system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals and other containers are mixed in a collection truck, instead of being sorted by the depositor into separate commodities." Also, we weren't allowed to throw in the recycling bags, but instead had to pour all the recyclables out into the disposal. Because this facility requires that residents have to sort their own trash, they have very clear guidelines on what should be recycled and what shouldn't. It is important that people individually sort out their own trash, because failure to do so would increase in fees and taxes for everyone. It's like a team effort. When describing how the single stream recycling works, Alan said "This site has a whole automised system that will pick out all these things and bundle them into collections and send them off into the market or whoever wants to recover this material" (-Alan McIntyre). He talked about how China was the biggest buyer of plastics, and the plastic market is now collapsing, that means that we have a lot of plastic resources in this country and "if someone is innovative enough, they could make that into manufacturing stuff and make America great again." (-Alan McIntyre).
Single stream recycling - Photo by Lauren Ho Pouring out recyclables - Photo by Lauren Ho
Recycling Disposal - Photo by Lauren Ho
After that, we moved forward and took a look at the glass disposal. The glass disposal was just a big, bright orange dumpster. It was filled with snow and just has glass bottles sticking out of it here and there. The first thing that Alan said to us here was that "at every dump, at every recycling center, at every trash can, there are errors that are made. And these recycling services expect that about 10% of stuff that doesn't belong. They don't like to go over that number. The more pure it is, the better it is for recovery" (-Alan McIntyre). Because there weren't many bottles disposed of in this dumpster, we were able to immediately identify some things that didn't belong, such as a styrofoam cup from Dunkin' Donuts. Building off of what Alan said, because more purity means it's better for recovery, other countries and areas may have stricter rules. Because we have zero-sort, we are more prone to having errors. However, the biggest issue is that people don't participate in recycling to begin with. The reason why the town went single stream was because they were trying to increase the amount of stuff recovered. It's impossible to have a perfect system, because there are always pros and cons. Other places such as Germany and Italy have very strict rules of enforcement, they have better recovery rates and purer streams for the market, and they don't have participation issues because people are required to participate. One way to get a lot of participation to do "pay as you throw", whereas this is free. There are also a lot of other factors that influence the cost, for example the cost of moving it. The glass is charged by weight, gasoline is used, so the price of gasoline influences it. The glass in this particular bin would be headed to New London, and a plant there would break it down and mix it in with asphalt. "There is more glass in the waste stream in the state of New Hampshire than anything else, so you don't get a lot of money for that. If there's an oversupply and not enough demand...that's economics. Cardboard, we usually make lots of money on cardboard." (-Alan McIntyre) What is important about this is exactly in the quote. We have too much glass and there isn't enough demand for it, so we are making a minimal about of money, whereas with things with higher demand, such as cardboard, we make more money off it and we hope for a higher supply of it.
Resident disposing of glass - Lauren Ho // Glass dumpster - photo by Lauren Ho
"If you market your budget and your workers based off the volatility of the recycling market... you're in trouble" - Alan McIntyre
We then headed over to another dumpster, which was the white goods, which is the generic term for appliances with chemicals in them. Disposal of these cost about $5-$8 per item. It is expensive because someone has to extract the chemicals which are hazardous to the environment out of them. These are sent to Concord after the transfer station. Over on the other side, there was a dumpster for flame retardant products, specifically construction debris, they're hazardous so they have to be separated. On Proctor's campus, it would be the stuff that we keep behind the hockey rink. That is where we keep our construction debris. We saw the metal scraps dump but didn't walk over because of the coldness and the snow, and we didn't talk too much about it. We then walked over to a burn pile.
Metal Scraps and White goods - Photo by Lauren Ho
Flame Retardants & Metal Scraps Burn Pile (covered in snow)
Photo by Lauren Ho Photo by Lauren Ho
"The biggest challenge for any town dump or transfer station is that most towns are growing, and most people create more and more trash every year. The idea is to create zero waste and have everything go back into its own cycle," like closed loop recycling (chapter 22 vocabulary), breaking the cradle-to-grave system and turning it into a cradle-to-cradle (chapter 22 vocabulary) system. "Yard waste and food waste is something this town is yet to master. 20% of the trash flow is organic." -Alan McIntyre
There was a lot of snow in the 'burn pile' and we found out that they usually wait until it melts a little bit before they pile it up, add gasoline and burn things. The last thing that we looked at (from a distance) was a trailer full of tires. It costs $5 for a tire to dispose of them, and they can either be incinerated (chapter 22 vocabulary) or they can be recycled.
Tire Trailer - photo by Lauren Ho
"Not all transfer stations are some cruel, capitalist service" -Alan McIntyre
(A Proctor service group collected 45 tires along the rail trail in the fall and the town didn't charge them $5 a tire, because that would be almost $200. They took the tires because they were grateful that the group cleaned up and reduced hazards of mosquitoes etc.)
"All these materials are going to be useful for something - whether it's life forms, composting, or for human innovation - recycling." -Alan McIntyre
Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
Reflection:
This experience/field trip was extremely eye opening for me, because I got to see that there are so many details that go into sorting 'garbage'. Things that we throw away when we are done with them aren't just one big category of 'garbage'. They aren't even just two big categories of "recyclable" and "non-recyclable". There are countless subcategories within both of those two major groups. It also gave me an opportunity to see where my waste goes after I throw it into the trash can or recycling bin and it gets taken out of my dorm. Although it makes me sound very arrogant and snobby, I had never heard of a transfer station before this. I don't believe there are any transfer stations in Hong Kong, and we never had to drive our trash anywhere to dispose of it. Growing up, all I knew about the disposal of trash was that I threw it into the big garbage can in the kitchen or under my desk, and it got taken out the back door in the stairwell. Someone would then come a few mornings a week, take all the trash from the backdoors of the entire building, throw it into a truck, and then I would never know anything about where it went after the big truck disappeared around the corner of our driveway. There was also no option for recycling in my apartment building. Everyone's trash went in one place and it got taken away, all to the same place. Being able to experience this and see ordinary Andover residents piling into the transfer station to dispose of their trash properly, to boost economics and to increase the health of the environment was really inspiring and (for lack of a better word) surprising to me. It was also very shocking to me the amount of trash that the tiny town of Andover produces. With only about 700 people bringing their garbage there every week, it is a lot of trash for a mere 7 days. It makes me really curious to know what a transfer station in a big city might look like, New York, or even Hong Kong for example. On a ending note, hearing Alan talk about the way things are managed and briefly hearing from one of the workers there, he very clearly stressed the importance of everything being sorted well and safely at the transfer station to simplify and make everything after that much smoother. I really hope to be able to learn more about transfer stations and the waste cycle.
"Visit to the Transfer Station/Recycle Center"
640 Main Street, Andover, New Hampshire
Date of Excursion: February 10th, 2018
On February 10th, the class all brought trash/recycling from our dorms to APES class first block, and headed onto the bus with Alan to make our way to the Town of Andover Transfer Station and Recycling center, located at 640 Main Street. It was a short trip of 2.1 miles and it was only about 3 minutes in the bus one way. It was a relatively warm morning when we went, leaving at around 8:20am and returning at around 9:00am to head to our next class. There was snow on the ground, but not too much. The sun was out, but not shining directly on us, and the winds were still so it was the perfect combination of hot and cold. It was a little chilly, but we all had coats to keep up warm. It was a relatively small place over all.
Screenshot from Google Maps Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
The Andover Transfer Station and Recycling Center is where residents of Andover, New Hampshire, go to dispose of their trash and recycling. It is a processing site and waste management (chapter 22 vocabulary) that it used for the temporary deposition of waste generated by the town. It is not meant for industrial solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary). In order to use the transfer station, residents of the town must obtain a permit in the form of a sticker that will be placed on their car. They come with the small fee of $5.00 per car, and proof of residency must be provided when residents apply for a permit. There were a few different waste disposal group areas that we looked at. The trash, recyclables and dispolables are laster sent onto other places to be properly recycled or disposed of, such as Boston, Rochester, Concord and New London.
We started by looking at the general trash dump and took turns throwing in the trash bags we had brought. This is where all municipal solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary) is disposed of. We were lucky enough to be able to see the compacter in action, squishing all the bags and creating space for more trash. When we were here, Alan talked about the sign above the trash disposal that said "DUMPING RECYCLABLES HERE MEANS HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL". He went on to described how reducing our overall trash generation would reduce costs for the town, because it is measured by weight and taxes follow accordingly. On another note, the state of New Hampshire is currently working on finding a way to require transfer stations to compost food waste, because this will results in a very significant trash waste reduction.
Throwing trash - photo taken by Lauren Ho General trash disposal - photo taken by Lauren Ho
After looking at the general trash disposal area, we moved into a room in which there were a lot of items (such as toys, books etc.) including televisions - E-Waste - and we learned that they ship these away to be disposed of. It is sent to another company for about $0.48/lb to be recycled. It costs between $2-$16 for an Andover resident to dispose of e-waste here. This price covers the price of sending it off to be recycled. I believe electronics are sent to Rochester after the transfer station. The company that receives the waste from the transfer station tries to recycle the plastics, metals and as much of the product as possible. We learned that items in this room could be taken, picked up or traded by any resident of Andover. In this room, there was also a box to dispose of lightbulbs and other mercury-containing items. I learned that it is against the law to throw items containing mercury in the trash. This includes anything from fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats, to tilt switches, manometers and button batteries. It is unknown where electronics and alkaline batteries go after they leave the facility. Mercury containing products can be harmful to the environment if they are improperly disposed of. Consumers are encouraged to bring their mercury products along with their other recyclables and either dispose of them through "collection and recycling at municipal facilities", "household hazardous waste (Chapter 22 vocabulary) collection events" (they host one day where they collect all household hazardous waste for free!!) or "municipal and commercial thermostat recycling locations. The reason why is because mercury is a highly toxic chemical that when it accumulates in human bodies, it never breaks down into a non-toxic form. It can be damaging to the liver, kidney and brain(causing neurological disorders). It can also be absorbed by plants and animals once it's released into the air. It bioaccumulates and moves up the food chain. (http://www.andover-nh.gov/assets/municipal/10/Products_Containing_Mercury_List_1476198738.pdf)
E-Waste - Photo by Lauren Ho Tradable trash - Photo by Lauren Ho
When we were done inside, we moved onto the recyclables disposal and learned that Andover recycles about 70% of their waste. Some of us who brought our recycling threw it in, and then we learned about single stream recycling. By definition single stream recycling refers to "a system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals and other containers are mixed in a collection truck, instead of being sorted by the depositor into separate commodities." Also, we weren't allowed to throw in the recycling bags, but instead had to pour all the recyclables out into the disposal. Because this facility requires that residents have to sort their own trash, they have very clear guidelines on what should be recycled and what shouldn't. It is important that people individually sort out their own trash, because failure to do so would increase in fees and taxes for everyone. It's like a team effort. When describing how the single stream recycling works, Alan said "This site has a whole automised system that will pick out all these things and bundle them into collections and send them off into the market or whoever wants to recover this material" (-Alan McIntyre). He talked about how China was the biggest buyer of plastics, and the plastic market is now collapsing, that means that we have a lot of plastic resources in this country and "if someone is innovative enough, they could make that into manufacturing stuff and make America great again." (-Alan McIntyre).
Single stream recycling - Photo by Lauren Ho Pouring out recyclables - Photo by Lauren Ho
Recycling Disposal - Photo by Lauren Ho
After that, we moved forward and took a look at the glass disposal. The glass disposal was just a big, bright orange dumpster. It was filled with snow and just has glass bottles sticking out of it here and there. The first thing that Alan said to us here was that "at every dump, at every recycling center, at every trash can, there are errors that are made. And these recycling services expect that about 10% of stuff that doesn't belong. They don't like to go over that number. The more pure it is, the better it is for recovery" (-Alan McIntyre). Because there weren't many bottles disposed of in this dumpster, we were able to immediately identify some things that didn't belong, such as a styrofoam cup from Dunkin' Donuts. Building off of what Alan said, because more purity means it's better for recovery, other countries and areas may have stricter rules. Because we have zero-sort, we are more prone to having errors. However, the biggest issue is that people don't participate in recycling to begin with. The reason why the town went single stream was because they were trying to increase the amount of stuff recovered. It's impossible to have a perfect system, because there are always pros and cons. Other places such as Germany and Italy have very strict rules of enforcement, they have better recovery rates and purer streams for the market, and they don't have participation issues because people are required to participate. One way to get a lot of participation to do "pay as you throw", whereas this is free. There are also a lot of other factors that influence the cost, for example the cost of moving it. The glass is charged by weight, gasoline is used, so the price of gasoline influences it. The glass in this particular bin would be headed to New London, and a plant there would break it down and mix it in with asphalt. "There is more glass in the waste stream in the state of New Hampshire than anything else, so you don't get a lot of money for that. If there's an oversupply and not enough demand...that's economics. Cardboard, we usually make lots of money on cardboard." (-Alan McIntyre) What is important about this is exactly in the quote. We have too much glass and there isn't enough demand for it, so we are making a minimal about of money, whereas with things with higher demand, such as cardboard, we make more money off it and we hope for a higher supply of it.
Resident disposing of glass - Lauren Ho // Glass dumpster - photo by Lauren Ho
"If you market your budget and your workers based off the volatility of the recycling market... you're in trouble" - Alan McIntyre
We then headed over to another dumpster, which was the white goods, which is the generic term for appliances with chemicals in them. Disposal of these cost about $5-$8 per item. It is expensive because someone has to extract the chemicals which are hazardous to the environment out of them. These are sent to Concord after the transfer station. Over on the other side, there was a dumpster for flame retardant products, specifically construction debris, they're hazardous so they have to be separated. On Proctor's campus, it would be the stuff that we keep behind the hockey rink. That is where we keep our construction debris. We saw the metal scraps dump but didn't walk over because of the coldness and the snow, and we didn't talk too much about it. We then walked over to a burn pile.
Metal Scraps and White goods - Photo by Lauren Ho
Flame Retardants & Metal Scraps Burn Pile (covered in snow)
Photo by Lauren Ho Photo by Lauren Ho
"The biggest challenge for any town dump or transfer station is that most towns are growing, and most people create more and more trash every year. The idea is to create zero waste and have everything go back into its own cycle," like closed loop recycling (chapter 22 vocabulary), breaking the cradle-to-grave system and turning it into a cradle-to-cradle (chapter 22 vocabulary) system. "Yard waste and food waste is something this town is yet to master. 20% of the trash flow is organic." -Alan McIntyre
There was a lot of snow in the 'burn pile' and we found out that they usually wait until it melts a little bit before they pile it up, add gasoline and burn things. The last thing that we looked at (from a distance) was a trailer full of tires. It costs $5 for a tire to dispose of them, and they can either be incinerated (chapter 22 vocabulary) or they can be recycled.
Tire Trailer - photo by Lauren Ho
"Not all transfer stations are some cruel, capitalist service" -Alan McIntyre
(A Proctor service group collected 45 tires along the rail trail in the fall and the town didn't charge them $5 a tire, because that would be almost $200. They took the tires because they were grateful that the group cleaned up and reduced hazards of mosquitoes etc.)
"All these materials are going to be useful for something - whether it's life forms, composting, or for human innovation - recycling." -Alan McIntyre
Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
Reflection:
This experience/field trip was extremely eye opening for me, because I got to see that there are so many details that go into sorting 'garbage'. Things that we throw away when we are done with them aren't just one big category of 'garbage'. They aren't even just two big categories of "recyclable" and "non-recyclable". There are countless subcategories within both of those two major groups. It also gave me an opportunity to see where my waste goes after I throw it into the trash can or recycling bin and it gets taken out of my dorm. Although it makes me sound very arrogant and snobby, I had never heard of a transfer station before this. I don't believe there are any transfer stations in Hong Kong, and we never had to drive our trash anywhere to dispose of it. Growing up, all I knew about the disposal of trash was that I threw it into the big garbage can in the kitchen or under my desk, and it got taken out the back door in the stairwell. Someone would then come a few mornings a week, take all the trash from the backdoors of the entire building, throw it into a truck, and then I would never know anything about where it went after the big truck disappeared around the corner of our driveway. There was also no option for recycling in my apartment building. Everyone's trash went in one place and it got taken away, all to the same place. Being able to experience this and see ordinary Andover residents piling into the transfer station to dispose of their trash properly, to boost economics and to increase the health of the environment was really inspiring and (for lack of a better word) surprising to me. It was also very shocking to me the amount of trash that the tiny town of Andover produces. With only about 700 people bringing their garbage there every week, it is a lot of trash for a mere 7 days. It makes me really curious to know what a transfer station in a big city might look like, New York, or even Hong Kong for example. On a ending note, hearing Alan talk about the way things are managed and briefly hearing from one of the workers there, he very clearly stressed the importance of everything being sorted well and safely at the transfer station to simplify and make everything after that much smoother. I really hope to be able to learn more about transfer stations and the waste cycle.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Cradle to Cradle Worksheet Answers
1. William McDonough states: "The fundamental issue is that, for me, design is the first signal of human intentions." 17:11
Do you share McDonough's viewpoint? Explain and use an example of a design that supports your position.
I agree with McDonough's viewpoint for the most part, however he moves forward and says "well, what would our intentions be as a species now that we are the dominant species?" and I disagree with his assumption that all humans carry the same intentions. On the other hand, I think the quoted statement is true, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, depending on the actual intentions of the person. I believe that there is intention behind the creation of every product - whether that is to resolve a problem, satisfy a need, provide entertainment, simplify human tasks, and so on. One bad example is the rubber duck he explained at the beginning. It contained chemicals that were carcinogens but they were still labelled and sold as children's toys. The obvious intention of this was to make money, not to keep the safety of the users. Underlying intention is applied to every product big and small. Steve Jobs for example, he probably had the money making intention in mind, but his main intention was likely to create a product (computer, iphone, ipad, etc.) to make human life more enjoyable, easier, more efficient and convenient, as well as to advance our technology needs. Also, solar panels, whoever designed those likely knew that earths resources (ie fossil fuels) would not be able to support the human race forever and ever, so they invented something that would use solar power to produce electricity, something that would be more sustainable and environmentally friendly. On another note, I think there are several occasions where the designer has a good intention at heart, but they aren't aware of potential consequences or harm that may accompany those benefits. For example, pencil leads which make our lives much easier, but the led is harmful to our bodies, the designer probably didn't know this. The precautionary principle should be in place to ensure safety and the risks really have to be weighed and analysed against the benefits.
2. McDonough states: "What we realise today is that modern culture appears to have adopted a strategy of tragedy. If we come here and say, "Well, I didn't intend to cause global warming on the way here," and we say, "That's not part of my plan," then we realise it's part of our de facto plan. Because it's the thing that's happening because we have no other plan."
Do you agree with McDonough that we have a "strategy of tragedy" that is shaping the human condition? Why or why not?
I agree with McDonough that humans tend to have a "strategy of tragedy". Although often unintentionally and/or subconsciously, humans often go about their daily lives and do things without realising the effect that it has on our environment and community. I think there is also a mentality that we are doing nothing wrong if it is unintentional, and if it's something that everyone else does, then what different does it make? For example, driving cars. Cars are a huge contributor of global warming and pollution. Of course, people don't drive cars with the intention of killing the earth and polluting the environment and lungs of people in the community, they're driving cars for convenience. But they continue to do it, because they're not hurting the environment intentionally. Also, there often aren't short term, immediate effects, but rather gradual and long term effects...ultimately resulting in a tragedy in the environment. When people come up with new ideas and plans, they often focus solely on the end, "successful" results, and don't consider the whole picture, all the negatives that will come along with it. I think another example was the love canal tragedy. The Hooker Chemical Company were just looking for a place to dump their waste. They did not consider the fact that the toxic chemicals would leak out and seep into peoples homes. By trying to simplify their work by just dumping it into the river, they put many people at risk and created a huge and messy commotion.
3. McDonough believes that design determines our interactions with nature and how we value it. Is there evidence to support that view? Or does McDonough have it backwards, that nature actually shapes the way we design?
Personally, I think that McDonough has it backwards and that nature shapes the way that we design more so than our design shapes nature. I feel like there are a lot of things that nature does (like ecosystem services) that inspire humans to include into their designs. (A bit of a long shot), but I think the shapes of leaves are naturally formed so that water can run down them and these kinds of designs can be seen in some human designs. On the other hand, I can also see how some could argue that because the environment and the way it works is not something that we think about much because it was just "given" to us, designers don't really have it in mind when they design. I think they design more inspired off of other human designs. I also think the way that we value it sort of relates to the cradle to cradle design he mentions. There's a cycle that natural resources go through, like the food chain (kind of). Similarly, when our environment is healthy, so are we. Natures cradle to cradle design makes it apparent that nature shapes the way we design. Also, we have to keep up with our environment. If the world around us is changing, we have to change alongside with it. We design things to adhere what surrounds us.
4. Explain what cradle to cradle design is. Describe and use an example (provide a web link please) of what the two metabolisms are and what they do. Illustrations are welcome here - make the readers lose their minds!
Cradle to cradle design is the idea that we are playing in an infinite and ongoing game. It's a term that basically describes recycling, allowing materials to be recycled and reused, keeping them valuable and useful in the industry for as long as possible. It's a product that can be used, then used over and over again. It can be thrown away and recycled into something else. He described two metabolisms which were biological and technical. Biological metabolisms naturally reuse their resources, they are nature's nutrient cycles. Their materials are very easily broken down. They are the natural process of ecosystems. "The natural processes of ecosystems are a biological metabolism, making safe and healthy use of materials in cycles of abundance. A material used by living organisms or cells to carry on life processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates and other complex functions" An example of a biological metabolism is a tree, because its materials are easily broken down and recycled by the natural environment.
A technical metabolism is a one way cycle. It can't recycle it's own materials. It's the process of putting products and their materials in a closed cycle, so they can be reused but not naturally. "the technical metabolism, designed to mirror the earth's cradle-to-cradle cycles, is a closed-loop system in which valuable, high-tech synthetics and mineral resources—technical nutrients—circulate in a perpetual cycle of production, recovery, and remanufacture" I think technical metabolisms are used more for like industrial purposes. A toothbrush could be a good example of this, because after it is used, it is thrown into a landfill and incinerated.
Example: G-Diapers https://www.gdiapers.com/
Example: Ice Stone counter surfaces http://www.c2ccertified.org/innovation-stories/icestone
Do you share McDonough's viewpoint? Explain and use an example of a design that supports your position.
I agree with McDonough's viewpoint for the most part, however he moves forward and says "well, what would our intentions be as a species now that we are the dominant species?" and I disagree with his assumption that all humans carry the same intentions. On the other hand, I think the quoted statement is true, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, depending on the actual intentions of the person. I believe that there is intention behind the creation of every product - whether that is to resolve a problem, satisfy a need, provide entertainment, simplify human tasks, and so on. One bad example is the rubber duck he explained at the beginning. It contained chemicals that were carcinogens but they were still labelled and sold as children's toys. The obvious intention of this was to make money, not to keep the safety of the users. Underlying intention is applied to every product big and small. Steve Jobs for example, he probably had the money making intention in mind, but his main intention was likely to create a product (computer, iphone, ipad, etc.) to make human life more enjoyable, easier, more efficient and convenient, as well as to advance our technology needs. Also, solar panels, whoever designed those likely knew that earths resources (ie fossil fuels) would not be able to support the human race forever and ever, so they invented something that would use solar power to produce electricity, something that would be more sustainable and environmentally friendly. On another note, I think there are several occasions where the designer has a good intention at heart, but they aren't aware of potential consequences or harm that may accompany those benefits. For example, pencil leads which make our lives much easier, but the led is harmful to our bodies, the designer probably didn't know this. The precautionary principle should be in place to ensure safety and the risks really have to be weighed and analysed against the benefits.
2. McDonough states: "What we realise today is that modern culture appears to have adopted a strategy of tragedy. If we come here and say, "Well, I didn't intend to cause global warming on the way here," and we say, "That's not part of my plan," then we realise it's part of our de facto plan. Because it's the thing that's happening because we have no other plan."
Do you agree with McDonough that we have a "strategy of tragedy" that is shaping the human condition? Why or why not?
I agree with McDonough that humans tend to have a "strategy of tragedy". Although often unintentionally and/or subconsciously, humans often go about their daily lives and do things without realising the effect that it has on our environment and community. I think there is also a mentality that we are doing nothing wrong if it is unintentional, and if it's something that everyone else does, then what different does it make? For example, driving cars. Cars are a huge contributor of global warming and pollution. Of course, people don't drive cars with the intention of killing the earth and polluting the environment and lungs of people in the community, they're driving cars for convenience. But they continue to do it, because they're not hurting the environment intentionally. Also, there often aren't short term, immediate effects, but rather gradual and long term effects...ultimately resulting in a tragedy in the environment. When people come up with new ideas and plans, they often focus solely on the end, "successful" results, and don't consider the whole picture, all the negatives that will come along with it. I think another example was the love canal tragedy. The Hooker Chemical Company were just looking for a place to dump their waste. They did not consider the fact that the toxic chemicals would leak out and seep into peoples homes. By trying to simplify their work by just dumping it into the river, they put many people at risk and created a huge and messy commotion.
3. McDonough believes that design determines our interactions with nature and how we value it. Is there evidence to support that view? Or does McDonough have it backwards, that nature actually shapes the way we design?
Personally, I think that McDonough has it backwards and that nature shapes the way that we design more so than our design shapes nature. I feel like there are a lot of things that nature does (like ecosystem services) that inspire humans to include into their designs. (A bit of a long shot), but I think the shapes of leaves are naturally formed so that water can run down them and these kinds of designs can be seen in some human designs. On the other hand, I can also see how some could argue that because the environment and the way it works is not something that we think about much because it was just "given" to us, designers don't really have it in mind when they design. I think they design more inspired off of other human designs. I also think the way that we value it sort of relates to the cradle to cradle design he mentions. There's a cycle that natural resources go through, like the food chain (kind of). Similarly, when our environment is healthy, so are we. Natures cradle to cradle design makes it apparent that nature shapes the way we design. Also, we have to keep up with our environment. If the world around us is changing, we have to change alongside with it. We design things to adhere what surrounds us.
4. Explain what cradle to cradle design is. Describe and use an example (provide a web link please) of what the two metabolisms are and what they do. Illustrations are welcome here - make the readers lose their minds!
Cradle to cradle design is the idea that we are playing in an infinite and ongoing game. It's a term that basically describes recycling, allowing materials to be recycled and reused, keeping them valuable and useful in the industry for as long as possible. It's a product that can be used, then used over and over again. It can be thrown away and recycled into something else. He described two metabolisms which were biological and technical. Biological metabolisms naturally reuse their resources, they are nature's nutrient cycles. Their materials are very easily broken down. They are the natural process of ecosystems. "The natural processes of ecosystems are a biological metabolism, making safe and healthy use of materials in cycles of abundance. A material used by living organisms or cells to carry on life processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates and other complex functions" An example of a biological metabolism is a tree, because its materials are easily broken down and recycled by the natural environment.
A technical metabolism is a one way cycle. It can't recycle it's own materials. It's the process of putting products and their materials in a closed cycle, so they can be reused but not naturally. "the technical metabolism, designed to mirror the earth's cradle-to-cradle cycles, is a closed-loop system in which valuable, high-tech synthetics and mineral resources—technical nutrients—circulate in a perpetual cycle of production, recovery, and remanufacture" I think technical metabolisms are used more for like industrial purposes. A toothbrush could be a good example of this, because after it is used, it is thrown into a landfill and incinerated.
Example: G-Diapers https://www.gdiapers.com/
Example: Ice Stone counter surfaces http://www.c2ccertified.org/innovation-stories/icestone
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
The Hunt for PBDEs - Project Report
Academy Building & Location: Lovejoy Library - Fowler Learning Centre
Dorm/Home: Davis House Dorm
Example products:
Concluding Questions:
1. Where (what kind of room) did you find the most flame retardant products?
As visible from my data charts, for a lot of products, I was unable to identify and prove that a product was flame retardant or non-flame retardant, however, if I were to single out one room, it would probably be the bedroom. Of the two products I found that did have labels, the mattress was one of them, and a dog pen was the other. I felt that the mattress represented the bedroom more so than the dog pen represented the common room. Although not visible on any labels, after doing some research, I also discovered that a lot of the clothing brands I have have been tested to contain flame retardant chemicals (The North Face, for example). The sleeping bag I tested was another item that, after looking online, I discovered was very likely to contain flame retardant chemicals. However, the common room has a lot of couches, which although weren’t apparent on the tag, likely contain flame retardant chemicals.
2. What was the most abundant product found to be dosed in flame retardants?
It was hard to decide how to answer this question, seeing as I only was able to find two labels that talked about flame retardants in the product. If I were to make an assumption that the sofa and the sofa cushions contained flame retardant chemicals, then I would say that the sofas and the sofa chairs (in both the library and the dorm) are the most abundant products found to be dosed in flame retardants. However, if I can’t fairly make that assumption, then I would have to go with mattresses. With 12 girls in the dorm, there are 12 mattresses, and this doesn’t even include the ones in our dorm parents home. However, I did have to check labels on two mattresses before finding the one that contained flame retardant chemical information, so saying mattresses as an answer to this question would still be assuming that although I only found the tag on one mattress, that it applies to all of the ones I didn’t check.
3. Examining your charts, which product do you think gets the most use from people?
It’s most likely that the mattress/sheets/pillows/blankets or the sofas get the most use from people. While clothing is worn every day, specific individual pieces of clothing are usually only worn once every few days. Sofas are used everyday by a variety of different people. With nine students living in the dorm sharing the sofas, they are definitely used very often. Beds (and everything on it) are used every night, as well as during the day when students need a nap or want somewhere comfortable to work or read.
4. Knowing that exposure rate, route of exposure and age of exposure are keys to determining toxic impact, which product generates the highest health risk? Which product has the lowest health risk? Explain why.
There are a variety of ways that humans can be exposed to PBDEs. It’s most likely that for most of the products I examined, the PBDEs enter our bodies through inhalation of absorption through contact with the product. I think that the bed (and sheets, pillows and blankets) generates the highest health risk for a few reasons. This is because when you sleep in the bed, you wrap yourself completely in products that are filled with PBDE chemicals. For those who sleep face down, they can be especially vulnerable with their face so close to the product(s) that contain and are releasing the dangerous chemicals. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the dorms, the bedrooms are relatively small spaces, which means there’s probably a higher concentration in the room than there would be in a bigger room, from the chemicals being released. Also, it is a stagnant item that rarely, if ever, leaves the room. I think of the products I examined, the product with the lowest risk is probably my suitcase. It isn’t used very often and there isn’t a ton of material on it. I would also say for me that toys are a relatively low risk due to their small size and my lack of exposure to them, but for young children, they could pose quite a high risk of inhalation and ingestion, especially for children who stick everything into their mouths.
5. After watching SAFETY ON FIRE, what would you suggest are some appropriate means to address the concerns of PBDE exposure?
The most obvious would be to avoid buying PBDE products whenever possible. It comes back down to the risk vs benefit test. It will be argued that buying non-PBDE products will increase your chances of death in a fire, and it’s also argued that buying PBDE products will increase your chances of cancer, brain problems etc. I think we should be more focused on avoiding cancer and health problems, because by buying PBDE products, we are lowering the already low chances of being caught and killed in a house fire. The chances of being killed by cancer are much higher than a fire, and by buying PBDE products, not only are we lowering already-low fire chances, we are raising already-high cancer chances. 85% + of people have had or have cancer in some form or another by their 80’s. Buying PBDE products will lower that age number. Even just buying products with natural fibers (such as cotton or wool) that are already somewhat flame resistant on their own and contain far fewer chemicals. Foam is the biggest concern of carriers of PBDE. Replace or make sure to cover up any cushions (or the like) if there is any exposed foam, and always try to avoid contact with crumbly foam. It is hard, though, to address the global concern, because it’s not so simple to just ban companies from using the product, and it’s not short of impossible to get everyone to agree that preventing cancer is more important than preventing fires.
6. What concerns and questions do you still have about PBDEs?
After doing this project and studying all the labels and tags of the furniture and items that we have, the biggest concern that I have is the lack of information provided to us about PBDEs in our products. Looking at the charts and bar graphs, I was only able to find two products that had labels addressing the issue. Some products had stacks of labels, but nothing about flame. Many products had tags that said they were made of “new materials” that are described in accordance with the law. Most of the tags just had washing instructions and materials on it. One even said "keep away from fire" but no other information on it. I think people need to be educated, because the reason why a lot of companies don’t think to include the information, is because most people don’t know of the problems or they don’t care because they don’t know the true effects it can have on them. Even with the labels, most of the time the labels are completely looked over, no matter what they say. My question, which ultimately is the big question of the project, is: is the risk and damage really worth the benefit? Also, looking at it the other way around, how much damage do PBDEs really do to our bodies? The effects aren’t so big that everyone notices them, but granted, it is hard to notice something when you don’t know the alternatives. I’m excited and worried at the same time to find out about the future of PBDE, how its usage may reduce or increase, and how it will affect future generations and the human race in general. Though the damage now, even to individuals, isn’t gigantic, in the long term, it could have major effects on our whole species.
I found this project really enlightening and challenging. It was interesting to get a closer look at all the products we surround ourselves with. The biggest challenge was definitely finding tags and labels with the information we needed, or even just finding tags in general (especially on furniture!). Even though we were able to find very little useful (to this project) information, I never usually look at tags when I buy things, so even though I didn’t see much about PBDEs, I did learn a lot about the materials and the washing methods of a lot of my clothing. When doing research around this project, it was also kind of scary to find out just how much we are surrounded by chemicals that we don’t even know about let alone acknowledge and actively deal with. This project had made me more aware of the things that surround me and of my body health.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Campus Pond Assessment - October 31st 2017
Lauren Ho 10.31.2017 AP Environmental Science Alan Mcintyre
Campus Pond Assessment
- General purpose
The general purpose of this lab and field work was to study Proctor’s campus pond and to look at the general health of it. We were taking into account the biotic and abiotic aspects of the pond to determine its health, looking specifically at the diversity of the pond as it’s a huge determinant of the ponds’ health. Knowing and understanding the health of the pond is important, because it informs us of the overall health of our campus ecosystem, which ultimately has a large impact on us. It was also a very effective way for us to continue our in class study of species interactions and community ecology. Because this was the tenth and final year of a ten year APES class generation study, we were able to pull up past data and look at it in comparison to this year’s data, and identify trends throughout the years. To ensure more accurate data collection, we were split into groups to study different parts of the pond as opposed to only taking samples from one location on the pond. There were six sites in total and our class groups covered five of them. There were also other APES classes doing the same project, so we collected raw data and calculated averages between sites and classes.
Variables:
Controlled - Location(s) of data collection, method of data collection,
Independent - The year and date of data collection
Dependent - Abiotic (Temperature, turbidity, pH levels, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphate levels) and biotic (number of species and species diversity) data of pond
Hypothesis:
I predict that the campus pond is not extremely healthy, but is not extremely unhealthy. I would guess that it is unhealthier than it was in the past, because of the increase in air pollution around Proctor’s campus as well as the source/inflow of the water. Also, the Proctor pond isn’t something that is greatly cared for, parts of it are becoming very overgrown and it lets off a not-so-nice smell, as well as the fact that the water is not very clear and it looks quite murky. However, there isn’t any specific reason for the pond to be very unhealthy, as in people don’t litter in it or do anything to it. It all just grows and ages as it naturally would. If the pond is healthy, I would expect to see a high diversity index, a neutral pH of about 6-7, low phosphate and nitrate levels, and high dissolved oxygen levels.
2) Materials Used:
Material
|
Quantity
|
Magnifying glass
|
1
|
D-Ring Net
|
1
|
Pipette
|
1
|
Tupperware container with 3 sections
|
1
|
Container or bin
|
1
|
pH Level test set
|
1
|
Phosphate test set
|
2
|
Turbidity test
|
1
|
Temperature & dissolved oxygen reader
|
1
|
Nitrogen test
|
1
|
Species identification sheet
|
1
|
Digital thermometer
|
1
|
Dissolved O2 measurement
|
N/A
|
3) Method of Data Collection:
Biotic data collection (photos by Lauren Ho)
- Each group went to each site with materials (listed above) to explore abiotic and biotic features of the pond
- We took the larger tub/bucket and filled it a quarter full with water from the pond, making sure the the water is fairly clear of dirt, leaves, twigs, etc.
- Taking the D-ring net, One person used the net and swept the bottom of the pond 3-5 times (depends) through the water, being sure to reach all the way to the bottom
- After the fifth sweep, scoop the contents of the net (but don’t dig into the dirt) into the large collection tub–you may have to get your hands dirty in order to get all the contents out of the net!
- Using your hands or the spoons and pipette, remove all of the abiotic features that are in the tub (i.e. leaves, twigs, trash)
- Sift through and locate all of the living specimens into the smaller container with three compartments (add clear pond water so that the creatures stay alive) Identify the specimen using the ID guide and magnifying glass. Keep a tally of the number of species found per test, but do not combine the tallies of multiple tests.
Abiotic data collection method
- pH test
- Fill test tube to 10ml
- Put little tablet in water
- Shake tube until tablet is dissolved
- Compare color to chart
- Phosphate Test
- Fill test tube to 5ml
- Put tablet in
- Shake until tablet is dissolved
- Wait 5 minutes
- Compare color to chart
- Turbidity test
- Fill tube with water
- Put in the middle and compare the clarity to the examples on the card
- Temperature/Dissolved oxygen
- Put the rod in the water and slowly circled it
- waited for the numbers to adjust from the air
4) General narrative of sites 
Site 3: Matilda, Sydney and I were stationed at site 3, which is located on the corner of the pond, between sites 5 and 2. It’s located nearest to the health centre. There is a small downhill grass slope that leads down onto the sandy, beach area. It’s on the far end of the stone wall that runs along the edge of the pond, with site 5 being on the opposite end. This site is known as the ‘beach site’, because it has an actual mini bank of sand. Over the years, this site has become more and more overgrown with weeds and tall grasses, and has much less sand space visible than a few years ago. We had to put on rain boots and actually go and walk a few inches into the pond, walking through the tall brown weeds/grasses to actually get to where the water was deep enough to scoop with our net. I was absent the first two days, but Matilda and Sydney still collected data. According to recorded data (as I was not present), the first day was October 14th, 2017 at around 8:30am - the average air temperature was 47ºF, with the lowest and highest recordings being a minimum of 33ºF and a maximum of 61ºF, and it was a relatively foggy morning but there was no precipitation. Again, according to recorded data (I was not present), the second day of data collection on October 16th, 2017 at around 10:35am had an average air temperature of 62ºF, with the lowest and highest recordings being a minimum of 53ºF and a maximum of 70ºF, and it was slightly warmer and sunnier day, with a slight breeze. The third and final day of data collection, which I was present for and actively engaged in, was October 17th, 2017 at around 2:05pm, with the average air temperature being 52ºF, with the lowest and highest recordings being a minimum 39ºF and a maximum 66ºF. On this day, the weather was slightly cloudy, but also clear, and was also quite windy. At our particular site, there were a lot of dead weeds and leaves, as well as dirt and twigs from the bottom of the pond. Not to mention, because we were on the ‘beach’, there were a lot of sand, which made it easy for the living creatures to hide and camouflage themselves, making it particularly hard for us to locate, catch and identify them.
Site 1: This site is one of the two inflows of the pond. It’s located at the corner opposite to site 3, and is between site 2 and site 4. Site 1’s inflow comes from and follows the path of drains between ice rink and field house, outside the dining hall, the pond behind the ice rink and in front of the library
Site 2: This site is the other of the two inflows. It’s located on the corner opposite to site 5, and it is between site 3 and site 1. The inflow from site 2 comes from turf and field drainage, and from the underground river that leads from the woods near the ice rink to the softball field
Site 4: This site is located by the lamp post right between site 1 and site 5. It’s located in the middle of the edge of the pond, closest to Shirley hall. Site 4 is neither an inflow or an outflow site.
Site 5: This site is where the outflow of the pond is. It’s located on the corner opposite to site 2, and it’s between site 3 and site 4. It’s on the end of the mini stone wall, with site 3 on the opposite end, the side closest to Shirley hall. The outflow leads out to the Merrimack river, and goes through and follows that path, and ultimately ends up in the ocean.
5) Data Tables
Abiotic Data:
Water Temperature
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Avg. (ºF)
| |
Avg. Water Temp (ºF)
|
52.1
|
52.1
|
N/A
|
53.1
|
N/A
|
54.3
|
55.6
|
54.4
|
50.5
|
47.0
|
56.6
|
52.9
|
Site 1
|
52.0
|
52.0
|
N/A
|
53.0
|
N/A
|
53.0
|
53.7
|
53.7
|
52.4
|
49.7
|
56.6
|
52.9
|
Site 2
|
52.4
|
52.4
|
N/A
|
53.4
|
N/A
|
53.7
|
57.2
|
56.8
|
49.5
|
44.2
|
58.5
|
53.1
|
Site 3
|
50.3
|
50.3
|
N/A
|
53.3
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
57.3
|
54.8
|
51.1
|
N/A
|
56.9
|
53.4
|
Site 4
|
52.5
|
52.5
|
N/A
|
52.5
|
N/A
|
53.6
|
62.5
|
54.0
|
49.2
|
47.8
|
58.2
|
53.6
|
Site 5
|
52.3
|
52.3
|
N/A
|
53.3
|
N/A
|
56.8
|
56.3
|
56.0
|
49.3
|
46.7
|
57.2
|
53.4
|
Site 6
|
53.1
|
53.0
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
50.6
|
51.4
|
51.6
|
N/A
|
52.4
|
52.0
|
pH Levels
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Avg.
| |
Site 1
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
N/A
|
7.0
|
N/A
|
6.8
|
8
|
6.44
|
6.5
|
7.00
|
7.07
|
6.98
|
Site 2
|
7.2
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
6.6
|
7
|
5.85
|
6.17
|
6.67
|
6.37
|
6.61
|
Site 3
|
6.2
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
7
|
6.29
|
6.23
|
N/A
|
6.67
|
6.57
|
Site 4
|
6.8
|
7.5
|
N/A
|
7.0
|
N/A
|
6.6
|
7.5
|
6.25
|
6.62
|
6.67
|
6.75
|
6.85
|
Site 5
|
6.9
|
7.3
|
N/A
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
6.5
|
7
|
6.18
|
6.705
|
6.67
|
6.92
|
6.775
|
Site 6
|
6.5
|
6.8
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
7
|
5.86
|
6.275
|
N/A
|
6.30
|
6.46
|
Avg PH
|
6.77
|
7.03
|
N/A
|
6.88
|
N/A
|
6.625
|
7.25
|
6.145
|
6.42
|
6.75
|
6.68
|
6.71
|
Turbidity Levels
Year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Average (JTU)
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
N/A
|
2
|
N/A
|
0
|
20
|
4.85
|
6.87
|
5.3
|
13.3
|
Phosphate Levels
Year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Average
(PPM)
|
2.2
|
4
|
N/A
|
3.5
|
N/A
|
0.43
|
0.4
|
1.05
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
0.97
|
Nitrate Levels
Year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Average (PPM)
|
0.2
|
0
|
N/A
|
0
|
N/A
|
0
|
0
|
0.56
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
0
|
Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Average DO Level (mg/L)
|
2.5
|
1.67
|
N/A
|
1.6
|
N/A
|
1.5
|
N/A
|
6.2-7.9
|
6.65
|
8.3
|
1.39
|
Biotic Data:
Raw Species Data 2017 
Calculated Diversity Index
Year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
Average
|
19.3
|
15.4
|
0.74
|
11.7
|
N/A
|
7.26
|
12.2
|
7.1
|
6.3
|
6.3
|
7.4
|
6) Analysis of data trends
We used “Simpson’s Diversity Index” to calculate and put a number on the diversity of the pond. The equation for this is
Diversity index is described as “a quantitative measure that reflects how many different types (such as species) there are in a dataset (a community), and simultaneously takes into account how evenly the basic entities (such as individuals) are distributed among those types.” After collecting and calculating the data of all classes, the determined diversity index this year came out to be 7.4, a number considered to be slightly above average in comparison to more recent years, but significantly lower than numbers calculated at the start of the ten year study. The diversity each year had been decreasing rapidly, but in recent years, the trend is seemingly levelling out with a few fluctuations here and there. There were other factors playing a role in the diversity of the pond. For example, there was a massive decrease in diversity in 2012, which was when the turf went in. However, there are currently no real explanations as to why the diversity decreased so quickly from 2007 to 2011. Despite that, there are many reasons why it potentially could have been lower one year compared to another. In 2009, the data from this year isn’t really considered in this lab, because the weather that year was so cold that there was already a layer of thick snow on the ground when they tried the experiment. This meant they weren’t even able to find 100 individual critters, and found a ridiculously small number of around 12 different species. Other factors could have been that not all sites were studied. For example in 2010, five sites were studied, but in 2012, only four sites were studied. A huge impact was in 2012 when the new turf was put in beside the pond, which caused us to see a sudden decrease in diversity. It then when back up in 2013 and showed resilience and rebuilt itself after the exterior disruption. This could make the data less accurate. Because diversity is a huge indicator as to whether the pond is healthy or not, does the fact that the diversity index is decreasing mean the pond health is as well? Potential reasons for this could be interspecific and intraspecific competition. Extinction within species and species coexistence both lead to a lower diversity index.
Diversity index is described as “a quantitative measure that reflects how many different types (such as species) there are in a dataset (a community), and simultaneously takes into account how evenly the basic entities (such as individuals) are distributed among those types.” After collecting and calculating the data of all classes, the determined diversity index this year came out to be 7.4, a number considered to be slightly above average in comparison to more recent years, but significantly lower than numbers calculated at the start of the ten year study. The diversity each year had been decreasing rapidly, but in recent years, the trend is seemingly levelling out with a few fluctuations here and there. There were other factors playing a role in the diversity of the pond. For example, there was a massive decrease in diversity in 2012, which was when the turf went in. However, there are currently no real explanations as to why the diversity decreased so quickly from 2007 to 2011. Despite that, there are many reasons why it potentially could have been lower one year compared to another. In 2009, the data from this year isn’t really considered in this lab, because the weather that year was so cold that there was already a layer of thick snow on the ground when they tried the experiment. This meant they weren’t even able to find 100 individual critters, and found a ridiculously small number of around 12 different species. Other factors could have been that not all sites were studied. For example in 2010, five sites were studied, but in 2012, only four sites were studied. A huge impact was in 2012 when the new turf was put in beside the pond, which caused us to see a sudden decrease in diversity. It then when back up in 2013 and showed resilience and rebuilt itself after the exterior disruption. This could make the data less accurate. Because diversity is a huge indicator as to whether the pond is healthy or not, does the fact that the diversity index is decreasing mean the pond health is as well? Potential reasons for this could be interspecific and intraspecific competition. Extinction within species and species coexistence both lead to a lower diversity index.
The turbidity is increasing quite rapidly, which in simpler terms, means the water is becoming cloudier and cloudier each year. There are multiple factors that affect the turbidity of a body of water. What turbidity is is “suspended solids comprised of organic and inorganic materials such as sediment, algae and other contaminants”. Keeping in mind that the water from the pond, other than rainfall, flows in from outside sources, there could be pollution from the source of the water, which would cause higher turbidity levels. High turbidity is mostly seen as a bad thing where bacteria, viruses and parasites can attach themselves to the increased number of suspended particles in the water. To give an idea of comparison, the water in the pond is definitely not healthy enough or clean enough to drink, as drinking water should not have a higher turbidity than 5 NTU.
Nitrate levels have remained quite constant - continuing to have very low numbers, as have average water temperatures, which have continued its trend in the low to mid 50’s. The pH has also remained relatively constant throughout the years, this is expected but it would be a cause of concern if it wasn’t. The pH levels have remained in the 6-7 region, which is quite neutral. This is desirable, because it prevents drastic changes to life in the pond due to death or mutation. If the pond suddenly becomes more acidic or more alkaline, it can and will most likely be fatal to many of the creatures and their species in the pond.
Dissolved oxygen levels were quite low in the earlier years, then they spiked, but this year dropped back down drastically. Dissolved oxygen is “the amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in the water. It enters the water by direct absorption from the atmosphere, by rapid movement, or as a waste product of plant photosynthesis. Water temperature and the volume of moving water can affect dissolved oxygen levels”. It’s quite strange that the dissolved oxygen levels increased so significantly so fast and only for a few years, before dropping from an 8.3 to a 1.39 in just a year. Dissolved oxygen levels are affected by diffusion and aeration, photosynthesis, respiration and decomposition. Low dissolved oxygen levels can be caused by excessive algae or plant growth, which has been increasing in our pond, and this excessive growth is caused by the phosphate levels. Especially at site 3, the proctor beach has been progressively becoming more and more overgrown with plants and algae. As mentioned, water temperature plays a role, but it has been quite consistent throughout the years.
Average phosphate levels have been quite staggered, but do seem to be showing a downhill trend. There was no phosphate level data collected in the last few years, however, the pond is looking slightly more unhealthy than it did in 2012-2013. It is looking quite a bit more healthy than it did at the start of the study, but it is not currently at the healthiest point that it has been in the past. It’s encouraging and happy for us to see that the phosphate levels are decreasing, which means the pond is becoming healthier.
Looking at the biotic data from this year and previous years, the major indicator species (biological species that defines a trait or characteristic of the environment) that stood out were mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies. Their populations in the past years are listed in the table below:
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
| |
Mayfly
|
12
|
5
|
N/A
|
11
|
N/A
|
9
|
30
|
72
|
N/A
|
27
|
24
|
Caddisfly
|
1
|
1
|
N/A
|
1
|
N/A
|
3
|
11
|
5
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
2
|
Stonefly
|
5
|
2
|
N/A
|
1
|
N/A
|
1
|
22
|
6
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
6
|
From the table above, it can be seen that the numbers for all three species increased greatly in the years 2013-2014. This could have been influenced by some factor, potentially ‘species coexistence’ which allowed the populations of these three species keep their numbers increasing or constant, other than the 2013-2014 spike.
There was definitely room for error in this data collection process. One of the most prominent is the lack of professionalism, detail, precision and time. Because we only had one class block to gather data each session, we didn’t have a whole lot of time to pick out every single creature in the bucket. Also, we were completely ‘eyeballing’ almost all of the data we collected, which leaves a margin for error, because the eyeball could interpret it differently. It’s very likely that we didn’t manage to see every single creature in the bucket. Also, when there was a very large number of a particular organism, for example the Copepod, we had to make educated guesses as to how many there were, we didn’t count them all specifically. Furthermore, although we did study five sites around the pond, all our sites were along the edge of the pond, and the majority of the pond was not studied. There’s a fair chance most of the creatures of the pond were closer to the middle, where we couldn’t reach and study. Thinking about it relative to the size of the whole pond, we actually covered very little of the pond. Furthermore, there was a lot of missing data that was either recorded incorrectly or not recorded. In some years, only a few locations were studied, and abiotic data wasn’t gathered from all of them, whereas in other years there was more data to find an average from. As noticeable in all the data tables, there are a lot of gaps in the data.
7) Conclusion
After analyzing the biotic and abiotic data of the pond, the data indicates that my hypothesis was correct. The pond is not extremely healthy, but it’s also not extremely unhealthy. It has been healthier in the past, especially in the earlier years. There is a bit of conflicting data regarding the ponds health, though, for example in 2008, it had a pretty high diversity index (indicating a healthy pond), however it had a 4ppm phosphate level, which indicates an unhealthy pond. This year, there was no alarming data to cause any reason for concern. Of course, there are things that we can do/not do to help maintain the health of the pond, but at the moment, it seems to be at a stable place. The pond is showing a trend of being less healthy than at the start of the study, which is a bit upsetting, but it’s nothing too much that should be worried about.
The variables that should have remained the same have done so for the most part, but there are parts that have not, which could mean there’s a few less reliable pieces of data. For example, one of the controlled variables was the sites of data collection. While the sites did remain the same, there weren’t always people stationed at each site every year - especially site 6, the drainage site, for most classes, most years there was no one there. This means less data was collected there, and less data lacks precisions and reliability. Also, the people collecting the data were different, and we weren’t following a specific method, but instead writing up a new one each year, so it is likely that the procedure of data collection wasn’t exactly the same. It was probably generally the same, but not exactly the same. Something else that changed would be the weather. Although, the experiment was carried out around the same time each year, of course, each year is different and this could have an impact on the data collected. For example, in 2009, much of the data wasn’t used, because the weather was so cold that data just couldn’t be collected. Snow will affect the acidity and temperature, and this affects the live and diversity in the pond. Also, when it’s cold and snowing, the species will become more competitive fighting over resources, and this will affect the populations of certain species.
I really enjoyed this project, because although I unfortunately missed two lessons/days of fieldwork and data collection, I was thankfully able to be present at the third day of data collection, and I had a lot of fun catching and separating the different species and identifying them using the magnifying glass and species identification sheet. I found it a little bit hard to catch up and get right back into things after having missed two classes, but I was grateful that Sydney and Matilda were patient with me and explained to me everything that I needed to know and that was going on. The data collection itself wasn't too hard, but understanding why we needed to know things like the purpose of 'dissolved oxygen' and 'nitrate levels' was confusing for me. Digging and sifting through the leaves and twigs in the pond to location and catch tiny creatures that camouflaged themselves in the leaves was a challenge, but I was patient and had fun doing it, even though it seemed like every time I got my capturing spoon under it, it would swim away incredibly quickly and hide itself somewhere else! I was excited for this project, because I gained a better understanding of the place that I live most of the year, where I spend a lot of time. I also learned how to do collect abiotic data, and how to study the quality of water. The most complicated thing I think I learned through this was doing the calculations with “Simpson’s Diversity Index”, because I was happy that I understood it and am able to do it (because my math is just terrible), but also I think it’s a really cool skill to have to be able to calculate the diversity of a pond and determine how healthy a body of water is. Being able to know about the health of our ecosystem was really interesting for me. I'm excited for the future to become even more involved with the environment and interact more with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)