Oh the joys of a good cocktail.

If fracking fluid were a drink, it’ll be the highlight of many restaurant bars. However, actual fracking fluid is neither tasty nor potable, and the formula is probably better hidden than the recipe for Dr. Pepper.

If you click on this link, you’ll be taken to a chart that shows the basic components of the fluid used during hydraulic fracturing.

For those who need a reminder, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is (simply put) the process of injecting tons of fluid underground to break up shale, which releases natural gas that can be collected and used. The issue is, the fluid often cannot be retrieved, and the chemicals it carries often leach into the earth and fresh water supply.

Recently, California has been experiencing a long drought, and this article reports that the officials in the state have decided to shut off several injection sites in order to protect the water that was originally deemed unsuitable for human consumption. The article states that the aquifers which were exempt from protection weren’t polluted to begin with, but rather just of “poor quality” or difficult to reach. This makes me question how much scientific knowledge was applied when the decision to exempt the aquifers was made. Only about 2 percent of the earth’s water is drinkable, and yet, the state of California allowed fresh water sources to be polluted? As a state highly prone to drought, one would think that they would protect whatever precious amount of water they had.  I wonder how much of that decision was based on projected usage, and whether or not the political economy, instead of science, played a role.

Another glaring example of whether or not something is science is the statement made by the state gas and oil supervisor of CA, Steve Bohlen, “We do not have any direct evidence any drinking water has been affected,”. Already, I can sense some bias in the statement. Bohlen says that there is no direct evidence, but what about indirect evidence? As you may know, many scientific theories are proven by examining how variables are affected instead of trying to look for the cause. For example, we cannot “see” gravity, but we know it is there because things fall when thrown in the air. Likewise, fracking fluid may not be coming out of the taps, but there can certainly be a high amount of pollution surrounding a major source of drinking water. We know that the EPA has already deemed California irresponsible when it comes to checking conditions around an injection site “to ensure that fluids pumped into it would not leak underground and contaminate drinking water”, so it is rather unprofessional to demand solid proof of pollution before agreeing that the aquifers are put in danger simply by being close to the dumping grounds.

Up until a few weeks ago I was very unaware of what fracking is so I decided that for “Is this Science” I’d research this topic. I found an article on Science Daily that was written by Stanford University, it synthesis various academic studies to reach a conclusion on the impact of natural gas drilling. The writer tries to reason that fracking is an eco friendly alternative to coal but it may pose a threat to people living near by.

The argument is that fracking will definitely provide society more energy then conventional forms of energy production, all we have to do is ensure that it is done in a safe manner. I find this unlikely since 1-10% of wells fracture and leak chemicals, unfortunately there is very little concrete evidence: “we still don’t know whether methane losses from well pads and pipelines outweigh the lower carbon dioxide emissions.” While reading the article I began to notice the frequent use of “unknown” and “don’t know” in association with possible effects on human health, the article quotes an expert saying, “Almost no comprehensive research has been done on health effects.” I find this lack of knowledge severely disturbing, it’s proof that there is almost no government regulation regarding fracking and people are exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals.

The author doesn’t fully analyze the environmental impact of fracking; it’s academically accepted that it leaves a smaller footprint than coal, but what are the consequences if all of Washington gets on the fracking bandwagon? Funding and subsidies may end up being diverted from more ecofriendly energy sources like wind, solar, or hydro. Its important to keep in mind that fracking is a step up from coal but if we allow it to replace other forms of renewable energy then globally progress towards preventing climate change will be lost. This viewpoint was expressed in another article regarding fracking in England, they seems to be taking a much more cautious and regulated approach towards the natural gas industry.

So finally is this science? Yes and no. Yes because any complex issue these days can be tied science, but no because it is primarily a political issue. Fracking is a viable form of energy production when subjected to proper regulation but currently very little research is being done, corporations have the power to steamroll municipal opposition and a large portion of the research seems to be funded by energy corporations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140912112522.htm

Hunger is a key issue in my life as it is one of the painful outcomes of being poor and can lead to malnutrition, illness, and ultimately death for those who never manage to get access to some kind of food. In the U.S., we sometimes forget that hunger exists in our very own country. We pride ourselves on being a “developed” country that uphold “liberty and freedom”. We constantly feel the obligation to help other countries because we are obviously doing a much better job at aspects such as protecting civil rights, keeping up with the science, math, and technology fields, or maintaining a fairly represented general population in government. However, this sometimes blinds us to the little cracks and gaps in our own structure as a country—one of which is how we simply throw out hundreds of pounds of food every day while there are hundreds starving in our own country and millions across the globe.

This article concludes that the U.S. most certainly does have an issue with wasting food –more than 30% of our food- which could go to the millions starving in the world. The author also concludes that with a such a major food lose and waste issue, there allows for even more opportunities to distribute food throughout the country. By preserving food and learning storage methods, populations can greatly decrease food loss/waste. The author refers to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations which states that about one-third of the food produced around the world for humans to eat- which is about 2.8 trillion pounds- is lost or wasted. That is enough to feed three billion people. With a value of $162 billion, in the U.S., more than 30% of our food produced is either lost or wasted. The author also uses many statistics to show how by providing means of storing foods- such as storage bins and equipment for preserving and cooling produce – countries are greatly able to reduce loss of food. In Afghanistan alone, tomato loss reduced from 5-% to 5 percent and cereal grain and grain legume loss from 15-20% to less than 2%. With such statistics, the author’s argument is scientific and sufficiently relevant. The reader can easily understand the issue and even change their habits so as not to add to the national issue of food waste and loss.

The author tries not to show bias by providing information equally about the U.S. and countries around the world. Her objectiveness added to her conclusion that hunger is everywhere and food is wasted all over the world but it can be greatly reduced.

Carl Zimmer’s New York Times article, “Turning to Darwin to Solve the Mystery of Invasive Species,” examines the evidence that we have of how certain invasive species thrive in new settings versus those that don’t. One of the things he points to for a proof as to why certain species that originate in places such as Asia thrive and take over in new places such as North America, is that Charles Darwin, in his book “The Origin of Species,” says that we should not be surprised by native species “being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land.” Thus Darwin shows us that not only do animals fight for survival of the fittest, but so do plants as they travel across the world.

The main assumption in this article, although one that is backed up by years of research an immense amount of evidence, is that evolution is the best explanation for why certain species thrive over others in the first place. Of course, the author cannot go into a full in-depth analysis of the evidence behind evolution and the things we still have to figure out, because evolution is a fairly agreed-upon theory in general.

The article goes on to explain how scientists have seen that certain species of plants, such as emerald ash borer and Japanese barberry, have come over from foreign places such as Asia and have invaded and overpowered some of the species native to North America. Scientists have been trying to figure out why it is that these plants can invade so effectively, and many are considering Darwin’s prediction to be a good explanation–that these species are simply more aggressive and can survive more easily due to their origins in environments that are tougher than that of which they are invading. Scientists are also pointing to the levels of biodiversity in certain areas compared to others as an originator of the tougher species that are able to invade other environments than their own. The author brings up an example of the Suez Canal, which connects two very different environments — the Red Sea/Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. The Read Sea and Indian Ocean are two old, very diverse marine environments whereas the Mediterranean Sea is a newer environment with considerably less biodiversity. Scientists saw that the species coming from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were easily invading and taking over species that were native to the Mediterranean.

The author does point out that this is not a perfect experiment nor is it backed by enough data to be considered the answer to invasive species, but the data that the author collects and explains seems adequate for seriously considering this theory.

Carole Bartolotto tells us in her article for The Huffington Post that GMOs have not been proven safe in humans. In her quest to educate the public, she cites two studies supporting GMOs (one of which she insults the validity of because of the source’s past work), and none specifically against GMOs. She builds up a claim that GMOs could be unsafe to humans since we only have animal tests, and that in the past (in the case of artificial sweeteners), these tests were shown to be uncorrelated to human responses.

It is unclear what she wants to convey to her audience. Does she want to ban or label GMOs? Her combative writing about artificial sweeteners and “diet” foods (which makes up most of her article) makes it seem like she wants to ban them, or at least unable to be served to humans. However, her final statement is “we need GMO labeling so we can do the epidemiological studies that are essential to determine their risk.” I ask, don’t we need controlled epidemiological studies in order to test their validity? We can’t simply slap a sticker on something and watch people eat, so in the meantime, deterring people from eating anything not labelled as “organic” is unprofessional.

The person writing this article dismisses the only statements supporting GMOs (and the only two statements actually about GMOs in her article) entirely. She introduces the viewpoint that some scientists “Some scientists are quite emphatic about this…” and then ends any discussion that does not adhere to her views about the subject, which, by the way, she does not even have. Her entire argument is based around a poor agreement between animal and human toxicology tests. Granted, she gives evidence to back up this claim, but, she has no evidence supporting the opposite (ironic, considering her stance that we do not yet know anything about GMOs).

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html

In an article published by ScienceDaily, Amy Kalkbrenner, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has found evidence that has added onto past findings that links autism to air pollution. Kalkbrenner’s study found that the influence of pollution on autistic rates were similar to that of studies done in California. Kalkbrenner also found that women in their third trimester were more prone to the harmful effects of air pollution on their unborn babies.

Kalkbrenner’s research focused on PM10, a particulate matter that results from traffic-related air pollution. In order to study the effects of this matter Kalkbrenner gathered the data of children from specific regions in two different states in order to “simultaneously measure the level of particulate matter present, and know which children had autism in these regions.” In order to gather accurate information about the level of PM10 each child was exposed to the research team looked at the addresses the mothers where living in while they were pregnant. The research found that “the concentration of particulate matter was highest among children born in summer months in North Carolina and those born in fall and winter months in California.”

The author uses various types of evidence to support her claim. She uses evidence from past studies that also show similar results of finding a link between air pollution and autism which are due to the effects these pollutants have in the brain of the unborn child during the third trimester. Kalkbrenner shows evidence that supports her assumptions within her own research, which also showed “links between autism and altered brain network development.” The article and the evidence shown are both scientific because the methods that were used such as using a more precise tool to measure the amount of exposure to pollution helped to gain more accurate results. The author of the article does not seem biased, but she is able to persuade the reader in making the same assumptions by stating the results of her research and being able to support her research by using past findings. The evidence is not balanced because all the evidence that was shown was in favor of her findings and none of the evidence opposed or offered a different explanation for her findings. The findings of this article supports the idea that there is a link between autism and air pollution, in order to move on with these findings it is important to do more research in order to find out why there is a greater risk for unborn babies during the third trimester.

The article that I decided to read is entitled Air Pollution Harmful to Young Brains, Study Finds. The article was found on ScienceDaily, and the source is the University of Montana. It describes a study conducted to see if living in cities negatively impacts children’s blood-brain barriers and other functions that can cause long lasting effects on the body. The study tested the serum and cerebrospinal fluids in the brains of children living in an area with low pollution and children living in Mexico City. The main conclusion of this article is that the harmful chemicals and metals found in the air are being inhaled by children living in cities, and the effects of this can increase the risk of neurological defects including brain inflammation as well as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

The author of this article only references this one study done by Dr. Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas. The evidence that was used to back up this finding was the results found by the doctor. She found that the children who were living in Mexico City had high levels of autoantibodies that were harming the parts of the brain that protect us from viruses and bacteria. The author of the article does not show any bias, instead detailing the study that was done and also mentioning that the doctor who conducted the study would recommend doing a follow-up study. This article does not try to persuade the reader to believe that air pollution is the cause of this increase in autoantibodies, but does include many quotes from Dr. Calderon-Garcinduenas explaining how continuously exposing oneself to air pollutants will eventually cause long-term negative effects. More research can be done to provide evidence towards the consequences of air pollution for people who are exposed to it in their daily lives. For example, studies can be done in other cities such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The author does mention that the air pollution in other major cities can cause harm to the brain. This article does not show any opposing views on the subject of air pollution being the cause of the brain’s protective barriers deteriorating.

Find Article Here