You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)
![]() |
Nature_and_Environment.99 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The Human Habitat |
{Nature_and_Environment.99.1}: ... {wren1111} Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:32:37 CDT (HTML)
I would have preferred the title be REconstructing the Human
Habitat. Nevertheless,there are some very good ideas and commentary
in this piece from The Humanist magazine.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.2}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:27:03 CDT (1 line)
Kunstler has always talked sense. Thanx for the cite Wren.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.3}: Modelling An Ecology {bshmr} Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:40:36 CDT (41 lines)
Article wanders through significant aspects of an ecological research project. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415163205.htm Animal Survival In Inherited Habitats ScienceDaily (Apr. 19, 2009) Researchers are exploring how inheriting favorable or unfavorable habitat affects the overall rise and fall of animal populations. For some animal species, inheriting habitat may play as much of a role in survival as inheriting intelligence, fertility, camouflage or other genetically transferred characteristics. ... For example, one aspect of the study involved Schauber and the team examining population spikes of gypsy moths, which as an invasive species can cause widespread defoliation in American northeastern forests when unchecked. Mice, it turns out, play a key role in preventing such occurrences by decimating the moth population at its pupae stage, which occurs near the ground and makes them easy pickings for the hungry rodents. ... Living in a hot spot, however, can also lead to other consequences, such as animals more readily passing on diseases. That looks like the case between mice, ticks and the bacterium that causes Lyme disease. The team in this case suspects the hot spot effect could concentrate the disease more readily in ticks, which pick up the bacteria from mice and together pass it on to subsequent generations. They will test this theory in the coming years with the mouse removal experiment. ... Its not that this is a completely novel idea. Researchers have been thinking about the effect of inheriting a good spot on animals in the ecology literature for a long time, he said. In our work, though, weve been actually able to apply mathematics and quantify how this works. Because its analogous to natural selection, we can use the same formulas geneticists use to understand how this spatial inheritability influences how populations grow and shrink.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.4}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:47:09 CDT (HTML)
Now, a wildlife researcher at Southern Illinois University Carbondale is helping open the door on a new, poorly understood aspect of heredity that owes more to simple fate and geography than genomes.
... we fly-in fish often each summer to lakes where we are the only
ones with peanuts for any nearby Chipmunks. Chipmunks galore around
the lakes but the ones, through fate closest to our generosity, must
have a survival advantage:-)
{Nature_and_Environment.99.5}: {bshmr} Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:22:19 CDT (2 lines)
{4}{Tonu}, I appreciated that what was a single species study is now realized as a five plus.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.6}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:19:24 CDT (2 lines)
I'm far too flippant at times -- possibly my defense mechanism -- I did appreciate the cite and the implications.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.7}: {bshmr} Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:00:57 CDT (3 lines)
{6}{tonu}, folks our age get paranoid more easily than when younger, plus less drink nails us. <G> Your original comments were germane and well received; I meant only to expand on my own take.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.8}: {bshmr} Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:31:45 CST (26 lines)
New Study Finds a Cocktail of Contaminants in Newborns by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12. 4.09; FOOD & HEALTH [quote]There have been lots of studies by agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control that have looked at what is in our blood, but the Environmental Working Group has just completed an interesting (and disturbing) new one. They looked at minority populations, which often are exposed to higher levels of environmental pollution, and they got their samples from umbilical cords, so that it represents what is in the blood at birth- this stuff all came from mom. And it is quite a cocktail, including lead, perchlorates from rocket fuel, mercury, stain repellents and teflon. It is also the first time that Bisphenol A has been detected in newborns. We won't even start about the issue of endocrine disruptors like Bisphenol A on babies, or the American Chemistry Council's position that the "mere presence of a chemical" does not prove harm; the science on lead and mercury is accepted by all, and the lead levels in some of the babies are higher that those shown to cause "cognitive function in newborns." The EWG notes: ....[/quote] Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/new-study-finds-bpa-in-newborns.php FYI, report uses geometric mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
{Nature_and_Environment.99.9}: James Files {riverrat} Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:48:13 CST (30 lines)
bshmr There is no way to minimize the concern that this report should bring to the fore, but it is also important to remember that the levels of these chemicals being found in blood were impossible to resolve. Finding higher levels of lead and mercury would indeed be extremely disturbing but finding more chemicals does not mean that there are more chemicals present but could just mean that the techniques have become more sensitive, or even that this is the first time they have been looked for. (Sorta like Hubble finding a "new" galaxy). How scary is it that people are advised to not eat fish (one of the healthiest of animal foods in terms of nutrition) more than once a week because of the contained metals? Pretty disturbing. Is it good news that fish today have less of those metals, on the whole, than they did in the '60s when I was growing up? In truth, the amount of pollution, per capita, has gone down drastically during our lifetime. The bad news is that there are a lot more people and the strain, and cumulative damage, we are placing on our planet is still increasing. The fact that the study you link to doesn't have me running around and pulling out my hair has a lot more to do with the fact that this is largely just more evidence of a fact I am well aware of (we are poisoning ourselves, our children and our planet) and not startling news. I am not attempting to minimize this study, just put it in its proper context.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.10}: {bshmr} Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:25:47 CST (3 lines)
{riverrat}, since I don't trust you as a resource, please cite other sources to substantiate your assertions. OTT, thank you for noticing the post (in this forum).
{Nature_and_Environment.99.11}: James Files {riverrat} Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:11:14 CST (31 lines)
I am not sure what it is that you are questioning. I can tell you that if you challenge something I say, I will try just as hard as you to make sure that it is right, or wrong, and tell you the truth about it. You and I are backing the same horse. The only difference we might have is how we set our priorities and that would be a discussion, not an argument, from my standpoint. If you want to tighten environmental standards and reduce industrial emissions you will get nothing but support from this quarter. If you need, I can provide a good bit of information as to the increases in detection limits. Generally speaking (I may be off a few years on some of this), in the forties, substances like bisphenol were almost impossible to analyze for unless present in concentrations of more excess of 1%. With the advent of gas chromatography in the 50's the detection limits went down to about a tenth of a percent. By the late seventies capillary GC was becoming common pushing the detection of some substances down to ppms. Metal detection lagged, a bit, and still is harder to detect than volatile organics. My statement "pollution, per capita" is not something that I have any data on, but I do know of rivers dying in the 50's and 60's, not to mention things like the Cuyahoga? near Cleveland actually catching fire. Feel free to read "Silent Spring" or follow the recovery of the Brown Pelican, Bald Eagle or the California Condor to see that we are doing better in general. That doesn't mean that we need to back off on the effort. Especially since the effect of global warming may end up having more of an impact on those childrens lives than any of the crap found in their cord blood.
{Nature_and_Environment.99.12}: annie {oceanannie} Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:08:38 CST (3 lines)
Do feel that I don't see positive reports as often as negative ones. I suppose because there are more negative reports might be one reason. I find your posts very interesting, James.
![]() |
You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)
|