Questions for news conference with BARC:
1. What do you believe is the reason that Pensacola is considered one of the worst counties environmentally?
2. I feel like since I have been here It is getting harder for me to breathe when I work out, etc. Could this have anything to do with the pollution levels?
3. Excluding the gulf, how dangerouse are the waters around Pensacola (ie the bayous and rivers). Are they save for residents to swim in? What about pets?
4.What plans does BARC currently have for the Pensacola area?
5. What do you believe could be done to lessen the pollution and it's effects on the area?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
They Say I Live in Toxic Town...
Wow! We have been looking at how to read the Toxic Release Inventory in our Environmental Journalism class and I am pretty surprised at how toxic Pensacola and the surrounding area is! When Looking at how we compare (Escambia County) to other counties in the U.S. it is pretty frightening. We are ranked in the top 10% worst counties for overall environmental release, cancer risk score, non cancer risk score, and air releases of recognized carcinogens. We are ranked pretty poorly in all other categories as well. I see that there is an effort to clean up by the EPA (all of the superfund sites in the area) but I dont see how that makes up for what Pensacola industry is doing to the environment. Ever since I started living here in August 2008 I have felt like it is harder for me to breathe, especially when I work out. I always wake up congested as well. I can see now how the area contributes majorly to this problem! Come on Pensacola! Go green! ....well partly at least!
TRI REPORTING
Huntsman Corporation, of Cantonment, is one of several businesses in Florida that the Environmental Protection Agency listed on their 2007 Toxic Release Inventory report for releasing harmful chemicals into the environment.
Huntsman, located at 3000 Old Chemstrand Rd., is a lead global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of chemicals. The chemicals are manufactured for many different industries including plastics, automotive, aviation, textiles, footwear, paints and coatings, construction, technology, agriculture, health care, detergent, personal care, furniture, appliances and packaging.
Today, Huntsman employs over 12,000 people and operates from multiple locations worldwide, with 2008 revenues exceeding $10 Billion.
The total of on-site and off-site waste managed at Huntsman in 2007 totaled 7,306,100 pounds. The six chemicals listed on the TRI report are Acrylic Acid, Dibutyl Phthalate, Maleic Anhydride, N-Butyl Alcohol, Phthalic Anhydride, and Vanadium Compounds.
Each of these chemicals causes negative effects to the air and to the human body. These chemicals have several adverse reactions to humans. One adverse affect reported is developmental toxicants which cause adverse affects in the developments of children. Some of the toxicants negatively affect the kidneys, respiratory system, and nervous system, just to name a few.
Other human health hazards can be found and explained in detail at www.scorecard.org.
Scorecard lists Acrylic acid as especially dangerous, ranking it as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10 percent) to ecosystems and human health.
There are several ways that these chemicals are released into the environment from Huntsman. The toxins are released either on-site or off-site.
“On-site releases include emissions from our facilities directly into the air or into a wastewater treatment facility, where it is treated to reduce the quaintly of contaminants before being discharged off-site,” Huntsman Spokesman Ed Gunderson said in an interview.
Gunderson went on to explain that chemicals are transferred off-site and can include aqueous wastewater which is directly discharged to a publicly owned treatment facility where it is treated before being discharged.
He said that wastes are processed off-site to be disposed of or destroyed “in compliance with environmental regulations.”
Gunderson also said that the company does recycle some of its wastes as well.
“In addition, we also report those chemicals that we recycle on-site, or that we recover and make beneficial use of their energy value,” Gunderson said. “Rather than discharge or emit some of the reportable compounds into the environment (such as ethylene propylene), we use them as fuel in our process.”
Since 2000, Huntsman has made an effort to decrease the amount of toxins released into the environment. According to a trend graph of the total on and off-site releases between 1994 and 2007, Huntsman cut back tremendously on the release of toxic chemicals.
In 2001 the releases were at an all time low of just under 100,000 pounds, more than four times less what they released in 1994. Releases have increased over the years 2006 and 2007, to 350,000 pounds.
Although the Huntsman Corporation does release harmful chemicals into the environment, the TRI report shows that they are trying to decrease that amount.
Gunderson is optimistic about the efforts of the corporation and said that Huntsman has “continued efforts to minimize its impact to the environment.”
Link to Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Huntsman+Corporation,+cantonment+fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.421237,78.75&ie=UTF8&z=12&iwloc=A
Huntsman, located at 3000 Old Chemstrand Rd., is a lead global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of chemicals. The chemicals are manufactured for many different industries including plastics, automotive, aviation, textiles, footwear, paints and coatings, construction, technology, agriculture, health care, detergent, personal care, furniture, appliances and packaging.
Today, Huntsman employs over 12,000 people and operates from multiple locations worldwide, with 2008 revenues exceeding $10 Billion.
The total of on-site and off-site waste managed at Huntsman in 2007 totaled 7,306,100 pounds. The six chemicals listed on the TRI report are Acrylic Acid, Dibutyl Phthalate, Maleic Anhydride, N-Butyl Alcohol, Phthalic Anhydride, and Vanadium Compounds.
Each of these chemicals causes negative effects to the air and to the human body. These chemicals have several adverse reactions to humans. One adverse affect reported is developmental toxicants which cause adverse affects in the developments of children. Some of the toxicants negatively affect the kidneys, respiratory system, and nervous system, just to name a few.
Other human health hazards can be found and explained in detail at www.scorecard.org.
Scorecard lists Acrylic acid as especially dangerous, ranking it as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10 percent) to ecosystems and human health.
There are several ways that these chemicals are released into the environment from Huntsman. The toxins are released either on-site or off-site.
“On-site releases include emissions from our facilities directly into the air or into a wastewater treatment facility, where it is treated to reduce the quaintly of contaminants before being discharged off-site,” Huntsman Spokesman Ed Gunderson said in an interview.
Gunderson went on to explain that chemicals are transferred off-site and can include aqueous wastewater which is directly discharged to a publicly owned treatment facility where it is treated before being discharged.
He said that wastes are processed off-site to be disposed of or destroyed “in compliance with environmental regulations.”
Gunderson also said that the company does recycle some of its wastes as well.
“In addition, we also report those chemicals that we recycle on-site, or that we recover and make beneficial use of their energy value,” Gunderson said. “Rather than discharge or emit some of the reportable compounds into the environment (such as ethylene propylene), we use them as fuel in our process.”
Since 2000, Huntsman has made an effort to decrease the amount of toxins released into the environment. According to a trend graph of the total on and off-site releases between 1994 and 2007, Huntsman cut back tremendously on the release of toxic chemicals.
In 2001 the releases were at an all time low of just under 100,000 pounds, more than four times less what they released in 1994. Releases have increased over the years 2006 and 2007, to 350,000 pounds.
Although the Huntsman Corporation does release harmful chemicals into the environment, the TRI report shows that they are trying to decrease that amount.
Gunderson is optimistic about the efforts of the corporation and said that Huntsman has “continued efforts to minimize its impact to the environment.”
Link to Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Huntsman+Corporation,+cantonment+fl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.421237,78.75&ie=UTF8&z=12&iwloc=A
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Fossil Creek Restoration Assignment
Bethany Williams
On June 18, 2005, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) decommissioned two Childs-Irving Hydrelectric power plants, returning full flows of 46 cfs to fossil creek. This was done with hopes that Fossil Creek would eventually regain it’s natural state.
Fossil Creek restoration was a top priority because of the condition of the Southwest where over 90% of wetland and riparian areas have been lost or severely degraded over the last century.
Research and monitoring prior to and after the return of full flows at Fossil Creek is being conducted by many groups, each having their own specific goals and focuses: U.S. Forest Service, Coconino and Tonto National Forests; Northern Arizona University; Arizona Game and Fish Department; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Here are some examples of what the groups are doing:
The Arizona Game and Fish Department is working to restore the native fish species to the river.
The Arizona Wilderness Commission wrote a restoration proposal and got other parties involved and educated them on the subject of Fossil Creek.
The U.S. Forest Service believed that drought conditions would bring harm when pumping tanks, worrying that they may run dry. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation helped to remedy this situation by renovating 5 tanks in 2005.
The restoration project of Fossil Creek is seen as a success with full waterflow being restored to the creek and the fish population increasing in numbers greater than what it was initially. I think this was a great idea, and it just amazes me that it takes humans 100 years to realize that what they are doing to our ecosystem is negative.
Sources:
http://www.watershed.nau.edu/fossilcreekproject/
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/forest-resources/wildlife-fisheries/fossil-creek/restoration-native-fish-fossil.shtml
http://www.americanlands.org/assets/docs/Arizona_NEPA_Success.pdf
On June 18, 2005, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) decommissioned two Childs-Irving Hydrelectric power plants, returning full flows of 46 cfs to fossil creek. This was done with hopes that Fossil Creek would eventually regain it’s natural state.
Fossil Creek restoration was a top priority because of the condition of the Southwest where over 90% of wetland and riparian areas have been lost or severely degraded over the last century.
Research and monitoring prior to and after the return of full flows at Fossil Creek is being conducted by many groups, each having their own specific goals and focuses: U.S. Forest Service, Coconino and Tonto National Forests; Northern Arizona University; Arizona Game and Fish Department; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Here are some examples of what the groups are doing:
The Arizona Game and Fish Department is working to restore the native fish species to the river.
The Arizona Wilderness Commission wrote a restoration proposal and got other parties involved and educated them on the subject of Fossil Creek.
The U.S. Forest Service believed that drought conditions would bring harm when pumping tanks, worrying that they may run dry. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation helped to remedy this situation by renovating 5 tanks in 2005.
The restoration project of Fossil Creek is seen as a success with full waterflow being restored to the creek and the fish population increasing in numbers greater than what it was initially. I think this was a great idea, and it just amazes me that it takes humans 100 years to realize that what they are doing to our ecosystem is negative.
Sources:
http://www.watershed.nau.edu/fossilcreekproject/
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/forest-resources/wildlife-fisheries/fossil-creek/restoration-native-fish-fossil.shtml
http://www.americanlands.org/assets/docs/Arizona_NEPA_Success.pdf
PICTURES!!!!
Hey everyone!
I added three pictures to the bottom of the page so that you can see the holding pond, the albino squirrel, and ducks! Im going to try and get better pics...
I added three pictures to the bottom of the page so that you can see the holding pond, the albino squirrel, and ducks! Im going to try and get better pics...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Ducks and Hawks and albino squirrel in my back yard...
I wanted to blog about this because I find it most interesting. I will publish photos that I take a little later so that you can see what I mean...
I live in an apartment complex off of North Davis. There is a holding pond right behind my apartment. When we first moved in here, it was almost dry and basically devoid of life. Now it seems to be thriving. There are now fish, tadpoles, and ducks that inhabit the pond. DUCKS!?! I wonder how they have made a home in the holding pond that is surrounded by mostly pavement and highways! There are also two hawks that live in the few trees by the pond. I see them out often and believe that they are red shouldered hawks because of the white stripe on the tail. I see them diving after prey often. There is also an albino squirrel that lives there too. I have seen him quite a few times, and have tried to take a picture of him, but I have not been successful yet. I can not get close enough! I will keep trying!
I live in an apartment complex off of North Davis. There is a holding pond right behind my apartment. When we first moved in here, it was almost dry and basically devoid of life. Now it seems to be thriving. There are now fish, tadpoles, and ducks that inhabit the pond. DUCKS!?! I wonder how they have made a home in the holding pond that is surrounded by mostly pavement and highways! There are also two hawks that live in the few trees by the pond. I see them out often and believe that they are red shouldered hawks because of the white stripe on the tail. I see them diving after prey often. There is also an albino squirrel that lives there too. I have seen him quite a few times, and have tried to take a picture of him, but I have not been successful yet. I can not get close enough! I will keep trying!
John Muir vs. Aldo Leopold (class assignment)
John Muir and Aldo Leopold both write about nature in their own ways, and compare and contrast throughout their writings.
John Muir writes about a wind storm and uses this natural phenomenon to show his attitude to man’s dominion over nature as well as land ethic, and man’s responsibility to nature. Muir speaks of a wind storm, and all that happens during, as a true lover of nature would. He speaks of it in awe, as if the human race were just a miniscule part of nature. He speaks of the natural disasters of hurricanes and wind storms as something that is beautiful. On page 252 he says that “we are compelled to believe that they are the most beautiful on the face of the earth,” when speaking of these storms. Muir seems like he feels that man is a part of nature, and that man should adapt to nature, and not nature to man. He shows he feels this way when he climbs the Douglas Spruce on page 254-255 he describes himself clinging to the swaying tree “with muscles firm braced, like a bobolink on a reed.” He describes this as the most exhilarating experience he has ever had. This example shows his attitude toward nature and how he sees it as majestic and full of awe. He believes that men and nature all coexist and says that “we all travel the milky way together, trees and men…” on page 257. He doesn’t speak much on the subject of land ethic, but we can interpret his feelings to be those of mutuality between men and nature. We all coexist together so we should take care of nature as it does us.
Aldo Leopold feels somewhat differently that Muir, and gives the viewpoints of both the economist and the conservationist. Leopold was a professional conservationist, “a forester who early understood the concept and value of wilderness…” as described on page 376. Leopold believes that nature is the symbol of our past. He says this on page 377 when he says that the crane “is the symbol of our untamable past, of that incredible sweep of millennia which underlies and conditions the daily affairs of birds and men.” Here he is also describing his attitude to nature, and like Muir, believe that man and nature coexist, and one can not live with out the other. When the marshes were dried up and wildfires were burning up all of the water, the conservationist began to worry while the economist had the attitude of “what good is a dried up marsh?” In “Thinking Like a Mountain” (My favorite story of Leopold’s) he shows us the first time he began to think deeply into land ethic and the importance of nature. When he killed his first wolf he looked into her dying eyes and “realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes-something known only to her and to the mountain.” He said that he used to believe that the more wolves he killed, the more plentiful the deer. The opposite was true, and he explains that dear can ravage and kill a forest, in turn killing the deer because of the lack of food. He believes that like Odysseus’ girls who were property and hung, we view the land as property, as more of an economic value. He disagrees, and believes that the land is not property but says one thing that especially sums up his view of land ethic. He says on page 383 that “ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for.) I see this attitude to be a lot like Muirs interpreted one.
Muir and Leopold both have their viewpoints on man and nature, and the land ethics of it all. They both seem to compare more than contrast, although Leopold delves deeper into land ethics and attitude toward nature.
John Muir writes about a wind storm and uses this natural phenomenon to show his attitude to man’s dominion over nature as well as land ethic, and man’s responsibility to nature. Muir speaks of a wind storm, and all that happens during, as a true lover of nature would. He speaks of it in awe, as if the human race were just a miniscule part of nature. He speaks of the natural disasters of hurricanes and wind storms as something that is beautiful. On page 252 he says that “we are compelled to believe that they are the most beautiful on the face of the earth,” when speaking of these storms. Muir seems like he feels that man is a part of nature, and that man should adapt to nature, and not nature to man. He shows he feels this way when he climbs the Douglas Spruce on page 254-255 he describes himself clinging to the swaying tree “with muscles firm braced, like a bobolink on a reed.” He describes this as the most exhilarating experience he has ever had. This example shows his attitude toward nature and how he sees it as majestic and full of awe. He believes that men and nature all coexist and says that “we all travel the milky way together, trees and men…” on page 257. He doesn’t speak much on the subject of land ethic, but we can interpret his feelings to be those of mutuality between men and nature. We all coexist together so we should take care of nature as it does us.
Aldo Leopold feels somewhat differently that Muir, and gives the viewpoints of both the economist and the conservationist. Leopold was a professional conservationist, “a forester who early understood the concept and value of wilderness…” as described on page 376. Leopold believes that nature is the symbol of our past. He says this on page 377 when he says that the crane “is the symbol of our untamable past, of that incredible sweep of millennia which underlies and conditions the daily affairs of birds and men.” Here he is also describing his attitude to nature, and like Muir, believe that man and nature coexist, and one can not live with out the other. When the marshes were dried up and wildfires were burning up all of the water, the conservationist began to worry while the economist had the attitude of “what good is a dried up marsh?” In “Thinking Like a Mountain” (My favorite story of Leopold’s) he shows us the first time he began to think deeply into land ethic and the importance of nature. When he killed his first wolf he looked into her dying eyes and “realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes-something known only to her and to the mountain.” He said that he used to believe that the more wolves he killed, the more plentiful the deer. The opposite was true, and he explains that dear can ravage and kill a forest, in turn killing the deer because of the lack of food. He believes that like Odysseus’ girls who were property and hung, we view the land as property, as more of an economic value. He disagrees, and believes that the land is not property but says one thing that especially sums up his view of land ethic. He says on page 383 that “ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for.) I see this attitude to be a lot like Muirs interpreted one.
Muir and Leopold both have their viewpoints on man and nature, and the land ethics of it all. They both seem to compare more than contrast, although Leopold delves deeper into land ethics and attitude toward nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
