Author: olgapinkhas

For years, it was assumed that giant boulders were compiled on a flat peninsula in western Island due to tsunamis. These boulders weighed four times more than a school bus and sit on a field of shallow cliffs overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. However, a recent study debunked those assumptions and provided us with interesting, yet worrisome data regarding the potential strength of violent storms and the subsequent storm surge they create. Using historical records, oceanographic data, and field measurements, researchers were able to track the potential wave heights reached in case of a storm. Furthermore, lighthouse records and measurements from offshore buoys point towards a landscape that is commonly ravaged by large storm waves. Past data dating back to 1861, documented a storm that was able to send waves crashing over a 220 feet tall light house near the boulder site. Records from this storm show that the lighthouse was entirely flooded with all of the glass breaking. Researchers configured the potential weight of a cubic meter of such a wave, a metric ton or 2,200 pounds and plugged in this value as well as historical and oceanographic data into a computer model. The results showed that the waves were powerful enough to wash massive boulders that originate beneath the ocean’s surface hundreds of feet inland, exactly on the peninsula on which they are currently found. Furthermore, the calculations showed that the waves can even rip boulders from the surrounding cliffs and that with each successive storm these boulders could be moved further and further inland. (Hall)
It is important to note that while these specific boulders were found to come from extremely powerful storms, the same conclusion cannot be broadened to include borders found further in-feild in New Zealand. These boulders weigh 150 tons and therefore, were probably deposited there via a tsunami (Barbano, Gerardi & Pirrotta). However, more evidence exists than simply their extremely high mass. Between the boulders, researchers discovered pieces of sandstone and broken shells embedded, that come only from the ocean floor. Here we see the process of story telling and the science of geology merge. Geologists use this science in order to fill in the gaps of history and find an explanation for phenomenons that we see today. This is exactly what they did in comparing these two sites. By comparing the two sites, the team found that storm surges can sometimes be just as storng as tsunamis. In fact, their calculations showed that a 65 foot tall storm surge is capable of ripping the same-size boulder from a cliff as a 16-feet-tall tsunami (Barbano, Gerardi & Pirrotta). In western Ireland, such tall storm waves are particularly common, occurring approximately 30 times every year (Barbano, Gerardi & Pirrotta).
This article specifically highlights the danger of powerful storms, such as hurricanes. While the fact that tsunamis are dangerous is somewhat common knowledges, people often underestimate the power behind storms. However, due to global warming, it is predicted that such storms are going to increase both in number and intensity in the near future so understanding the power of coastal waves and storm surge on coastal communities is extremely important. In fact, after recent ex-hurricane Ophelia hit Ireland just this past October, it exemplified just how much Europe’s cities are currently unprepared to deal with such storms (Feed). Furthermore, based on a recent observed increase of surface water temperature, we can anticipate an increase in severe storms of predominantly tropical origin reaching western Europe as part of 21st-century global warming (Feed). Therefore, preparatory actions in Europe need to be undertaken immediately to prepare for the strong storms that are predicted.

Works Cited:
Barbano, M., Pirrotta, C., & Gerardi, F. (2010). Large boulders along the coast of Ireland: Storm or tsunami deposits? Marine Geology, 275(1-4), 140-154. doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2010.05.005

Cara Tabachnick Feed. (2017, October 25). As Ophelia Strikes Ireland, Europe Buckles up for Stronger Storms. Retrieved December 09, 2017, from https://www.citylab.com/environment/2017/10/ophelia-ireland-storms-climate/543018/

Hall, S. (2017, November 29). Storm Waves With the Power to Heave Massive Boulders Over Cliffs. Retrieved December 09, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/science/boulders-storms-waves-tsunamis.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=32&pgtype=sectionfront

Radioactive waste poses an enormous health threat to all those exposed to it. Accidents surrounding radioactive waste are extremely dangerous and for this reason, radioactive material is highly protected and monitored in modern day. However, recent data emerging from Russia pushes us to question our safety in terms of this matter. History shows us the consequences of radioactive accidents. Sixty years ago, a container of radioactive waste exploded at the Mayak factory and became known as one of the worst accidents of the nuclear age. The accident was specifically marked by its secrecy, which proved deadly. 272,000 people were exposed and thousands died. As much as we would like to believe that such secrecy and inadequacy of protecting dangerous nuclear waste is in the past, officials have recently detected a radiation cloud over Europe. Not coincidentally, this data emerged shortly after another possible accident at Mayak, a plant at the heart of Russia’s nuclear program. (Kramer, Broad 2017).
The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection first reported the radiation cloud on October 9, pinpointing its most likely origin as the southern Ural Mountains in Russia. French authorities reached the same conclusion. Russian authorities contradicted these claims initially, and later agreed, indicating a potential accident that occurred. Further analysis showed that the radiation cloud consisted mainly of ruthernium 106. The plant at Mayak reprocesses spent fuel and produces isotopes. Ruthenium 106 is obtained from spent fuel, and is used mostly in medicine. It is considered not particularly dangerous because of its short half-life, 373 days, and harmless at the low concentrations that have turned up in Europe; however, this leak is still of concern, especially when considered under the scrutiny of natural disasters, such as Earthquakes.
Tailoring the discussion specifically around Russia, the location at hand, data demonstrates that there have been 3 earthquakes in Russia in the past 7 days, all of magnitude 5 or greater (Earthquake Track). It is estimated by the World Nuclear Association that approximately 20% of the world’s nuclear reactors are operating in “areas of significant seismic activity” – earthquake danger zones. Consequently, nuclear plants are usually designed to withstand seismic activity. A system called Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis is used when nuclear plants are designed, to make sure the facilities are capable of withstanding earthquakes beyond the magnitude of the strongest earthquake recorded at that site. When an earthquake is detected, a nuclear reactor will shut down. However, this system is not foolproof. For example, in Japan in 2011 after a magnitude 9 Earthquake hit, three reactors contributed to a major accident. Hydrogen created by the reaction of zirconium and water in the plant’s cooling apparatus caused two explosions, and water contaminated by radioactive material was leaked into the seawater and groundwater surrounding the plant. (Randall 2015). Clearly, the Mayak Factory is a high risk location for the spillage and leakage of toxic radioactive waste, and clearly, not enough is being done to protect the residents surrounding this area.
This data highlights the danger of the recent data that emerged in Europe regarding the Russian facility. Nuclear plants pose a high risk as it is. They need to be properly protected and monitored on the daily basis to prevent accidents that bring with them terrible consequences. On top of that comes an even greater risk when natural disasters are introduced. Action has to be taken to ensure full protection of these facilities to withstand earthquakes and prevent any leakage.

Sources:
Randall, T. (n.d.). Earthquakes and Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/earthquakes-and-nuclear-power-plants/

Andrew E. Kramer And William J. Broad. (2017, November 23). A Radiation Cloud, and a Mystery, From Russia. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/world/europe/russia-radiation-cloud.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Recent Earthquakes Near Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://earthquaketrack.com/p/russia/recent?mag_filter=5

Climate change remains a polarizing topic in the United States. However, we cannot let the politics and the debates stand in the way of attending to future risks and reducing the costs of future disasters. This starts with the government and more specifically, FEMA. The detrimental effects of being unprepared were most recently evident when Hurricane Irma swept through the Florida Keys in September. The consequences of this hurricane brought a vivid preview of the damage that climate change could inflict on the region in the years to come. The main issue is the fact that the ocean levels are rising around these low, lying islands. Although there is a common misconception that water levels are rising very slowly, it is predicted that by 2030 half of the county’s roads would be affected by flooding. It is also known that the task is extremely costly, estimated at approximately $7 million per mile of road. Other estimates state that the rising sea levels and heavier downpours fueled by global warming could increase flooding coasts in coastal communities by $23 billion per year by the middle of this century unless they start adapting now. Complicating this issue is President Trump’s administration that is largely hostile to discussions surrounding global warming. In fact, a week before Hurricane Harvey stroke Texas, the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era executive order that pushed all federal agencies to take into account global warming and sea level rising when rebuilding infrastructure. (Plumer, 2017).
There is an overwhelming amount of geological evidence regarding climate change, and what it means for our future. The records do show Earth’s climate changing over the course of time, going through major cooling and warming periods lasting millions of years. For example, geologically speaking we are currently in a cooling period and have been for the past 50 million years. This original cooling period is what led to the formation of ice caps on Antarctica 34 million years ago and is associated with lessening CO2 levels in the atmosphere. While presently CO2 is associated with human emissions, years ago the balance was controlled between the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere from volcanoes, and the mopping up of CO2 from the atmosphere by the weathering of rocks, especially in mountains. There was more volcanic activity in the past and there are more mountains now. Going back before this cooling period, Earth had a warming period driven by a massive input of CO2 into the atmosphere. It caused temperatures to rise by a further 6°C globally. Sea levels rose. Deep ocean bottom waters became acidic enough to dissolve carbonate sediments and kill off organisms. As the Earth begins to warm after a cold period, sea ice melts. There it acts to further warm the planet through a process known as positive feedback. The same goes for another greenhouse gas, methane, which is given off from wetlands that grow as the world warms. As a result, the Earth moves much more rapidly from cold to warm than it does from warm to cold. Based on this evidence, the amount of CO2 we are releasing into atmosphere is very concerning because we are likely replicating or even intensifying the natural conditions that caused Earth’s warming in the past. (Summerheyes, 2013).
The geological evidence is clear; yet, not enough is being done to prepare us for the dangers to come. Current protection programs are outdated. For instance, under FEMA’s flood insurance program, FEMA maps high risk areas and mandates homeowners in those areas to purchase home insurance. However, there is wide consensus around the idea that all of the maps are outdated and inadequate, mostly because they do not take into account future flood risks from climate change. However, FEMA can only do so much on its own, and local leaders must share some of this responsibility. Before the Trump administration stepped in, proposals were made to make states more responsible for costs post natural disasters unless they took steps for protection. For example, enacting stricter building codes so infrastructure could withstand hurricanes. This proposal has not yet been implemented, and we have been seeing major push back from states, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Another similar proposal is known as the Community Rating System. Under this system, cities can now get credit for planning for the effects of rising sea levels and in response they will receive discounts on their flood insurance premiums. Incentives like this are necessary to create a safe future with the disasters to come. However, this is not enough. The government and FEMA need to have a united front because the evidence surrounding global warming does not lie. With this united front, they need to invest money into protecting us from natural disasters and future prevention.

Works Cited:
Plumer, B. (2017, November 09). Trump Ignores Climate Change. That’s Very Bad for Disaster Planners. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/climate/fema-flooding-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Summerhayes, C. P. (2013). The Geological Perspective of Global Warming: A Debate [Letter written February 8, 2013 to Dr. Preiser ]. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/12/Geological-Perspective.pdf

Currently 46 cities in the US have committed to going 100% clean energy by 2035, and in the last week St. Louis has added itself to the list, and is among the largest cities to do so (Salter 2017). The decision of St. Louis to go energy clean is especially significant when considering its history: a community with long ties to coal. In fact, St. Louis is the corporate headquarters for the largest coal companies in the United States, including Peabody Energy and Arch Coal (Salter 2017). Furthermore, St Louis also has a history of air pollution violations with regular remediation requirements given by the EPA. Although city pledges for renewable energy are an amazing prospect, they raise two main questions: Is 100 % renewable energy realistic and are these pledges misleading.
The main issue leading to the need for renewable energy is the large emission of carbon into our atmosphere and the damage that’s following. From a geological standpoint, examining the history of the world, we are not currently in a “hot period”. Nevertheless, our actions, primarily those of non-renewable energy that release greenhouse gases into our atmosphere result in an increase of the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increase, the temperature of the Earth rises, which contributes to the warming of the ocean, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing the temperature to further rise (Natural Environment Research Council). This process is known as feedback. Not only is that generally bad and contributing to global warming, but more dangerously, it contributes to the rise of natural disasters, which we have all seen first-hand in the recent months in terms of hurricane. The warmer the oceans, the faster winds blow and that raises the likelihood of a tropical disturbance, which can of course grow into a hurricane (Siegel 2017).
To answer the two main questions posed at the beginning, sustainable energy is realistic and the pledges are not entirely misleading; however, there is a length process ahead of us and one that is more needed now than ever. The decarbonization process is going to involve an enormous amount of electrification (Roberts 2017). The clear sources of carbon free energy are the sun and wind; however, those are not reliable in the way we’re used to. In other words, grid operators cannot turn them on and off as necessary (Roberts 2017). Therefore, to balance out variations in these resources, we need to find dispatchable carbon free resources to ensure reliability. One potential resource is nuclear power, which has further controversies associated with it. Therefore, the main issue is finding resources to compensate and truly make the decarbonization process possible and reliable. The damage has already been done as seen by data showing the truth behind global warming and the natural disasters we’ve seen with our very eyes. The next steps are making the pledges into reality.

Natural Environment Research Council. (2017). What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
Roberts, D. (2017, April 07). Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies
Salter , J. (2017, October 27). St. Louis sets 100 percent renewable energy goal; now at 5.
Retrieved October 28, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/st-louis-sets-
100-percent-renewable-energy-goal-now-at-5/2017/10/27/b5053e4a-bb59-11e7-9b93-
b97043e57a22_story.html

Siegel, E. (2017, September 11). Now Is Absolutely The Time To Politicize Hurricane Irma
And Other Natural Disasters. Retrieved October 28, 2017, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/11/now-is-absolutely-the-time-to-
politicize-hurricane-irma-and-other-natural-disasters/#54317be55406

In times of natural disasters, the long term repercussions are often overshadowed by the immediately apparent ones, such as the loss of lives, destruction of homes, emptying grocery stores, etc. This can be partly attributed to the media’s focus on the more dramatic sides of the story. While the aforementioned repercussions are not to be taken lightly and are clearly major consequences to super storms and like natural disasters, we cannot overlook the long term effects that will continue impacting our Earth and society decades to come. In his article, Chemical Companies Have Already Released 1 Million Pounds of Extra Air Pollutants, Thanks to Harvey”, Steven Mufson specifically illustrates the dangers Hurricane Harvey has brought upon certain parts of Texas due to the various chemical plants and drilling sites that have been severely damaged, resulting in flooding, leaks, and toxic air pollution.

Flooding specifically can cause impressive geomorphological changes that may be permanent. Floodwaters have the potential to spread mud, disease, and invasive species (Hunter 2017). During Hurricane Harvey, BASF, a chemical plant that produces herbicides, struggled to contain rainfall, resulting in containment tanks overflowing chemicals into surrounding grounds. The flooding lasted three full days and a test of the leaking waste water “indicated that there were trace amounts of nonhazardous process chemicals in the discharge water” (Mufson 2017). Although there were no dire consequences with this specific incident, policies must be implemented to prevent suck leaks from taking place. In a similar incident that occurred at Exxon Mobil’s Beaumont oil refinery, oil flowed over a 10- foot levee and spilled onto a nearby county road due to the rising Neches River (Mufson 2017). The surrounding chemical plants were standing on high enough ground to remain dry, but yet again the potential danger arising from this situation is too close for comfort.

Many of these issues can be avoided with greater awareness and investment put into hurricane predictions. Floodplains and coastal plains can be visualized geologically because flattish deposits of clay, sild, and sand have been left behind from previous floods. Furthermore, geological maps can show why flooding will not necessarily occur in every part of a valley floor. For instance, certain river terraces can act as natural obstacles to flooding, and their higher parts may remain dry. Geological and geomorphological studies of floorplans can lead to a better understanding of how rivers will behave and how sediment will be transported if a flood does occur leading to better preparation for a hurricane, as well as damage prevention. (NERC 2017).

Investing money into these studies will further society in two ways: boost our economy as well as protect us from harmful environmental pollutants. The President of the American Chemistry Council, Cal Dooley, stated that it is perfectly acceptable for a facility that shuts down to flare any excess gasses. Flaring large amounts of gases, beyond levels ordinarily permitted by the EPA results in thousands of pounds of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide to be released into the atmosphere (Mufson 2017). Nitrogen dioxide reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone, and contributes to breathing problems and acid rain. Rates of flaring have skyrocketed shortly after Harvey hit because of all of the leaks and flooding in the plants were causing shut downs and the flaring of excess gas.

Although our current forecasting abilities as proven by recent Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are much better than decades before, there is great room for improvement. For example, while in the case of Irma computer models were accurately able to foretell the widespread impacts on Florida, they couldn’t directly state whether the storm would make landfall along the east or west coast, leading many residents for flee into Tampa and into harm’s way (Busalacchi 2017). Combined, Irma and Harvey will probably cost upwards of $170 billion, rattling our entire economy. In addition to that, inflation is expected to go up because of Harvey’s devastating blow to Texas oil plants and the resulting jump of prices. However, despite this huge cost, the government has cut hurricane forecast improvement programs from $13 million to less than $5 million (Busalacchi 2017). Increased research funding would enable us to gain new insights into when and where a hurricane is going to hit, and exactly what sort of effects we could expect, resulting in the best preparation for chemical and oil plants, as well as residents of the area. Ultimately, hurricanes are a threat to our national security and economic development and we need to treat them as such by investing more money into geological studies. This will lead to chemical plants being more prepared for the hurricane’s blow and prevent the havoc that occurred in Texas earlier this year.

Works Cited:

Busalacchi, A. J. (2017, September 19). Perspective | Hurricanes are
menacing our economy. We have to invest in better prediction.
Retrieved October 22, 2017, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-
gang/wp/2017/09/19/hurricanes-are-menacing-our-economy-we-have-to-
invest-in-better-prediction/
NERC. (2017). Geology and flooding. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/engineeringGeology/shallowGeohazards
AndRisks/flooding/research.html
Hunter, D. (2017, September 28). Disaster Geology: Hurricane Force.
Retrieved October 22, 2017, from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/disaster-
geology-hurricane-force/
Mufson, S. (2017, September 04). Chemical companies have already released
1 million pounds of extra air pollutants, thanks to Harvey.
Retrieved October 22, 2017, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2017/09/04/chemical-companies-have-already-released-
1-million-pounds-of-extra-air-pollutants-thanks-to-harvey/