Popping Bubbles

Further reflection on life, e-waste and voluntary simplicity...

I just had a long, difficult conversation with my Mom. The discussion began with her questioning my faith, why I wasn't going to church much (or at all), and so on. She was asking me, "wasn't I worried that God wouldn't bless me if I didn't go to church?" She said that God had blessed her with an extremely good life, because when she was young they were very poor, and had to wash all their clothes by hand, etc. But now she had lots of things and didn't have to work very hard, and had a very good life.

And I started to cry.

I told her that even though it seems that way, it was not a good life. A good life would be one where nobody has to suffer or be exploited for the sake of it. This life might be very simple, but it would be great. We would have a lot less things, but a lot more time for one another. And we could be truly happy knowing that all other people had the opportunity to live a happy, simple, good life too. How could a life be good if it is breaking the backs of others? How could someone be truly happy living such a life?

The answer is: through ignorance. Mom said it herself, she didn't know that's what was happening. But now that there's more information available, she tries to make better decisions. (Like to not buy a new pair of shoes just because the style changes.) And that is very good. But the fact remains that for the most part, North America is in what I like to call a "happy bubble." We are self-absorbed in our own little world, and don't think much about where our products come from, how they are disposed, or why they are so cheap. We don't question it.

When someone asks me what I do for a living, I am going to say..."I pop bubbles."

From production to destruction.

Reflection on e-waste video.



When I began watching this video I was shocked to find out the location of the city where it takes place. This heartwrenching story is happening very close to where I am taking my vacation this May: Guiyu, Guangdong Province in China. I am staying with my cousin who works at Shantou University which is very close. When I finished the video I immediately emailed her to let her know that I would be taking a day trip to see it for myself.



Something about this just made me snap inside. It's maybe the final straw of realization that I have been living at other people's expense. The only reason I am living my oh so comfortable life is because other people are suffering. I feel like everything I have is tainted. How in God's name did we let it go this far? But the more important question is, now that I know the truth, what will I do about it? And if everyone else knew the truth, what would they do about it? I think it's all too far away. Out of sight and out of mind. I'm going to bring it to them, if I can. The least I can do is take some pictures of what I've seen, and show everyone I know. I want to say, "Can you see what we're doing now? To these people? And to our environment?" 70% of the 20-50 million tons of e-waste/year ends up in China, with most of the rest ending up in other third world countries such as India and Africa. But this little trip is definitely not all that I am going to do. My life can not be the same after this. My heart just won't let it. I feel like I'm getting closer and closer to the thing that I want to do for the rest of my life; as in, my "mission," my career. At the beginning of this year I realized I wanted to be in Environmental Science, but I didn't know what I wanted to focus on. I was too interested in too many things, I couldn't figure out what was most important, I couldn't figure out where I was most needed, what I could actually help with....but somehow I feel like I'm growing closer all the time.

I can see everything now. I can see how everything is so intricately connected. As I mentioned in my last blog, I did a research paper on brominated flame retardants for Environmental Chemistry. They put them in our electronics to keep them from catching fire, but they are persistent organic pollutants...bioaccumulative, difficult to degrade, toxic...and released when heated. This means that when our televisions, hairdryers, etc. are on, BFRs are being released...and I thought that was bad. Now my heart is breaking for these people who are burning these circuit boards to get the metals off...and are breathing them in all day, not to mention the heavy metals, and other toxic chemicals, with all their synergistic effects. From production to destruction, our lifestyles are the destroyers of other people's lives.

Works Cited:

Bodeen, Christopher. China's e-waste mountain growing. November 19th, 2007. Found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article798844.ece Retrieved on: April 7, 2010.

Poop: Just another part of the Circle of Life!

Blog reflection: Where does your sludge ("biosolids") go? Does this surprise you? (Either Winnipeg or your hometown/city)

I grew up on my family farm near Roblin, MB. If you look in the bottom left hand corner you will see Roblin on the map. Follow Highway 83 North until you see the highway make a sharp left and my farm is very close to there. This is where the story of my sludge begins!

While growing up, my brother Frank and I used to always play around the "pump out." It was basically a big tube sticking out of the ground close to the forest which was a short walk from our house. When we heard the water start to come out we would run to watch it. I had no idea where the water was from at that time...if I had known, I doubt I would have played near it!

There are no sewers that extend as far as our property. I called my Dad (again!) and he explained to me about how all this works. Basically we have a mini-treatment system in our basement. The water part gets filtered and is "pumped out" as grey water. Yes. Yes, I used to play in puddles of sewage water! So as I mentioned, there is a little pond that has formed where the grey water gets pumped out. It's close to a small forest, where there are lots of trees and vegetation growing as normal. It seems that it isn't harming the environment as far as I can tell.

The sludge from my family is held in a tank in our basement for a few months until it gets full. Then my Dad calls the Town of Roblin septic people, and they bring their big truck and pump it out. After that my Dad didn't know much else except that it went to the lagoon and got "the cell treatment." So I had to do some digging of my own! Online I found the license for the "Wastewater Treatment Lagoon," which is a little way south of Roblin and is used for treating wastewater and sewage from its citizens. I found out that it is an "engineered wetland." This is a designed, man-made lake with clay and soil on the bottom, vegatation that is planted and natural, emerging plants, wildlife and water. There are also poplar trees plants around to absorb moisture. It is supposed to simulate a natural wetland habitat which naturally treats wastes! There are 4 cells and the wastes are moved from one to another. By the time they reach the final cell the wastes are naturally purified and the effluent is spread on farmland for fertilizer. So this is where my biosolids ultimately end up... on farmland.

I honestly do not find this surprising or disturbing. It seems like the most natural thing in the world. I was discussing the practice of spreading our "effluent" on the land where our food is grown with my lab partner for Environmental Chemistry class. She seemed genuinely disgusted! She got a horrified look on her face and said, "....I did NOT know that..." Haha! I thought it was funny. Maybe I have been desensitized from growing up on the farm. My Dad has always used decomposed cow poop as fertilizer too. He has several huge hills of poop in a field in various stages of decay. After several years the hill is just dirt, and he spreads it on the fields for fertilizer. We use it in the garden where we grow our own vegetables too. This is the completely natural lifecycle going on! It is not at all disgusting. But, if you live all your life with pavement beneath your feet and a night sky filled with streetlights instead of stars, there is no way to find out what a huge, complex, and wonderful circle of life you are a part of!

I'm glad that they are properly decomposed before being spread onto the land, and thrilled to hear that it's done in a way that lets nature do its job. The movie "Crapshoot" that we watched in class showed sludge being mixed in these huge metal tanks, but the lagoon treatment seems so much more natural. I am wondering if all the harmful substances are removed though. Heavy metals are a concern. Also I just finished a research paper on brominated flame retardants (for Enviro. Chem with my "disgusted" lab partner!) and I read that BFRs can be contained in the sludge then spread onto the land, allowing them to be distributed more widely in the environment. BFRs are very difficult to degrade because they are very stable compounds (many are aromatics). I am hoping that several years in the lagoon treatment cells would remove them, but much more research needs to be done on this topic.

I have now discussed composting toilets with my boyfriend as a result of all this waste disposal inquiry. He is not very thrilled with the idea of storing "crap" in our basement! He would be 100% on board with the half flush-full flush toilets though. In any case, I have quite a few years left to convince him....if we even get a house at all. That is the problem with renting an apartment or condo...you have no say on any of the environmental features of the place. Right now they are installing new windows in all the suites at my apartment. They are not the high-efficiency ones, and nobody consulted ME about it... Even though we don't own the place we are still paying quite a bit of money to live here, so I feel like the tenants should be consulted on what renovations need to be done and how! My letter to the owners about starting a community garden on the grounds still hasn't come back yet. But I am determined to start a garden and composting program to complement it! When it goes through we will all be able to put our organic kitchen scraps to good use...we take nutrients out when we grow the food, it's only natural to put them back....and yes that includes poop no matter how strange some think it may be!

Works Cited:

Manitoba Government. (?) Town of Roblin Wastewater Treatment Lagoon License. March 18, 1998. Found at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/archive/1998/licences/2313s1.html Retrieved on: April 6, 2010

Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services

Summary of Selection 20

The rate of resource collapse is increasing as recovery potential, stability, water quality, and biodiversity are decreasing in our oceans. These trends are still reversible if we act quickly. As biodiversity increases, so do ecosystem productivity and stability. However, ocean issues are very complex and vast, making them hard to understand. Experiments have shown that an increase in diversity of primary producers and consumers increase productivity by 80%, and increase resource use and stability by ~30%.

In coastal ecosystems, a decrease in biodiversity led to a decrease in stability, and an increase in the likelihood of collapse, decline and extinction of other species. It also led to the decline of fisheries, nursery habitats (ex. wetlands), and filtering services. These all impact water quality, which increases algae blooms, fish kills and depletes oxygen. Also the ecosystem was more vulnerable to flooding and invasive species.

The Global Catch Database through United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, monitors ocean activity. Their stats show that 83% of fisheries catches are from large marine ecosystems (LMEs). Yields have been greatly decreasing- possibly leading to collapse. Non-collapsed areas showed high diversity. If fisheries are closed and the area examined again after a few years, there are increases in biodiversity. This shows that it is possible for an aquatic ecosystem to recover after collapse. Also responsible fishing can begin again, as well as tourism.

There are serious consequences for decreases in diversity. The negative relationship patterns can be seen on large scale studies. We need sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and a creation of marine reserves to ensure the aquatic ecosystems are safe. This will increase productivity and reliability of goods and services. If there is no action, our food security, coastal water quality, and ecological situation will be in danger.

Life and Death of the Salt Marsh

Summary of Selection 10

All along the eastern coast of North America is a long strip of green salt marsh. The border shifts as the tides move in and out. There is a wide variety of wildlife. Healthy marshes smell like salt and grasses, in a healthy marsh the hydrogen sulfide smell is very faint. The matted plant roots and mud make the ground spongy, and it becomes muddier as you move towards the coast as there are fewer roots beneath. At high tide the grasses poking out of the water are places where animals hide from the water.

Damage to the marshes occurs when they are dredged, filled, polluted and build upon. They have benefits to us left in their natural state. Some damage is necessary as roads are build so people can visit and enjoy them and for boat launches. Excessive building brings up the old battle of development vs. conservation. The salt marshes should be preserved as any other natural masterpiece or National Park (for example, the Everglades).

Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment

Summary of Selection 31

Families share environments as well as chromosomes. Cancer trends are seen in families, even among adopted children, show that cancer is related to much more than just genetics. This is Sandra Steingrabers story. She was adopted, and MANY people in her family have/had cancer, including herself. She had bladder cancer, which is cause by the substitution of a base in DNA. Bladder carcinogens are aromatic amines, which are found in cigarettes, rubber, dyes, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Usually your body would detox these compounds, but slow acetylators have a more difficult time with this. Over 1/2 of Americans and Europeans are alow acetylators. Less than half of bladder cancer cases come from aromatic amines from smoking. So it's likely that people are uptaking these toxic contaminents from other sources- the air, water and our products. We don't know what the synergistic effects on our bodies.

Cancer research focuses on genetic/hereditary links to cancer, even though these are rare. We need to recognize that genetics may make people more sensitive to environmental carcinogens, but are not the ultimate cause. Focusing on genetics really only gives us information on something we can do nothing about!

Rachel Carson's final legacy was to fight for recognition of an individual's right to know about poisons introduced to our environment and the right to protection against them. We must examine our past, present, and future to find out what we have been exposed to. We should ask questions about what kind of body burdens we carry from our past. In the present we should take the human rights approach. We should stand up and say that our current system of regular use, release, and disposal of toxins is intolerable. And we need to recognize that we do not all bear equal risks- factory workers, people living near disposal sites, etc. are in greater danger.

The lowest estimate is 2% of people die from cancer due to environmental cancinogens. This works out to 10,940 people per year. This is more than the amount of people who die from hereditary breast cancer; accidental firearm accidents; and lung cancer by second hand smoke. All of these last 3 causes of death have HUGE campaigns, laws and research being invested into them. Why should environmental carcinogens not? We should be using the Principle of Least Toxic Alternative. This states that "toxic substances will not be used as long as there is another way of accomplishing the task." A departure from ZERO use should be preceded by a finding of absolutely necessity. Society assumes these substances will be used, the only question is how much...but this way of thinking is very distorted.

Why Political Questions are not all Economic

Summary of Selection 33

Our devastated environmental landscape can be seen in 2 ways. Some see it exactly as is - environmental degredation. Others see efficiency, utility, and the satisfaction of wants. Is their vision true? Is this a miracle just like the vision of the Lady of Fatima?

Viewing environmental problems as problems of distribution consider people only as consumers. The value of a thing is based on people's "willingness to pay." But we are not only consumers. We are when we are getting what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens to achieve what is best for the community. These goals are not always consistent! For example, an individual might speed, but wants the police to enfore laws against speeding. How should public finance represent these 2 different roles of people?

As illustrated by the American textile Manufacturer vs. Donovan case, the law does not need to justify its standards on cost-benefit grounds. The Occupational Health and Safety Act proteccts employees from workplace hazards including exposure to toxic substances. But in the case of the American Petroleum Institute vs. Marshall the Supreme Court weighed the benefit of workers health against the cost to the company, and decided that the company's costs were greater; therefore the safety threshold should be lowered. This does not treat workers as "ends-in-themselves" (holding intrinsic value), but as merely a means for the production of overall utility.

There are competing conceptions of what our society should look like.
1) Worker quality and environmental degredation should be protected as long as benefits of protection balance the costs.
2) Neither should be treated as a commodity to be traded for other commodities.
This conflict should be solved by legistlative debate, not cost-benefit analysis.

Values are not subjective, merely statements of preference, attitude or emotion. But cost-benefit analysis treats them this way. This effectively makes whoever can pay the most "right" on any particular issue- no matter how irrelevant, stupid, uninformed or irresponsible that particular issue might be. The Kantian view is that some values are more reasonable than others. Objective standards of reason and criticism must apply. Should public policy be efficiency/weath maximization based, or should policy be justified or refuted on objective grounds? Environmental questions involve more than just economic principles, but also moral and aesthetic. Society is more than a market system, we must take our place as citizens and stop living solely as consumers.