Wind Energy and Green Energy: a love-hate relationship

Flickr

Wind farms are predicted to increase surface land temperature up to one degree Celsius and likewise, cool ocean temperatures up to one degree Celsius, according to a recent Nature article. These results have caused many to question the effectiveness of the green energy in replacing more conventional fossil fuels. To the dismay and disfavor of many business executives pushing for more wind turbine farms, scientists have discovered the negative meteorological effects disturbing farms located near these wind farms.  According to numerous studies, namely Mr. Somnath Baidya Roy’s1 study, wind turbine farms are reducing natural rainfall killing local crops as well as harming natural wildlife.These scientists, as well as governments, utilizing this technology are calling for more research on the subject to try and determine the concrete effects and solutions to resolve these problems while still harnessing this profitable energy source. While green-energy continues to revolutionize our nation’s energy source, wind energy is turning out to be not so environmentally friendly. Numerous scientists have conducted research showing that wind turbines, while providing viable clean energy, are negatively effecting the environment and causing more harm than good.

Flickr

C. Wang and R. G. Prinn, in their work Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms, tackle these speculations as to the effect wind farms have over climate temperatures of large-scale wind farms. These scientists used prior research to try and get more concrete data to determine the effects of these large wind farms. They conducted their research by looking at the effects of these wind farms on the greenery under and around these large wind turbines. They found that these turbines were not only affecting the temperatures directly around the farm but also affecting temperature further away. In the conclusion of their work, they found that if turbines increased their efficiency of power generation by 25-35%, this could help lower the climatic effects. The results of this study sound promising for land wind turbine farms as long as corrections to increase efficiency occur.

As concerns rise for on-shore wind farming, off-shore wind farming begins to gain interest. With talk of turbines effecting land and farming, developers of green energy have looked to find other options for utilizing and converting wind power. Installing turbines just off the coast sounds like a great alternative to land farms, and in fact, this technology appears to be more eco-friendly but there are some negative associated with it. According to studies, the creation of turbines off the coast creates a great seabed and artificial reef that support marine life and therefore help the fishing industry (Musial and Butterfield). Therefore, these turbines are not only meeting energy needs but also stimulating the local economy. However there exists a dark-side to these off-shore wind turbines. Apparently, the implementation of these turbines displaces the local marine life causing issues. This claim, however, has no empirical data to support these supposed findings and calls for more research into the matter. As of now, this alternative appears both eco-friendly and economically friendly.

Flickr

As mentioned above, there are various concerns of turbines affecting not only the climate, but also the wildlife that inhabits the areas where these wind farms are located. Bats, for example, are one of the species at risk of being killed by these wind farms. In order to get the most wind harvested, farms must remain located in wooded and hilly areas which also happen to coincide with the natural habitat for bats. According to T.H. Kunz study, “Of the 45 species of bats found in North America, 11 have been identified in ground searches at wind energy facilities”. It is evident that the fatalities are a result of the wildlife running into the rotating blades of the turbines. Likewise, these turbines run the risk of affecting migratory bird patterns. According to a study performed by David Pimente et al, the close proximity of these turbine farms in regards to protected bird sanctuaries cause serious fatalities to occur. Creating a new, “green” energy source should be a major priority, but not at the cost of harming wildlife. To combat this issue, scientists have suggested  that turbine farms relocate at least 300 meters away from designated bird sanctuaries to avoid any issues.

Throughout the articles, one main claim remains; turbines are affecting the environment because of the design of their turbine hub and rotor. Each of these studies discussed calls not only for more research, but also for new design innovations to reduce the negative environmental impact. These new innovations would also increase the efficiency of energy production of the turbines, thereby making this energy source even “greener”. Wind turbine energy shows genuine promise in the field of alternative energy production. There are major possibilities for both land and ocean turbine farms, however serious changes need addressing in order to protect against not only climate change but also to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. However, it remains clear to see that green wind energy production continues to show great results in the present while also securing the future of our world’s energy needs.

1. "Turbines and Turbulence." Nature 468.7327 (2010): n. pag. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 04 Mar. 2013.

The Global Fund Votes to End Separate Funding for AMFm

Flickr

Over a million people die from malaria each year. Malaria is curable, but it is not cheap. Due to this, the Global Fund instigated the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) in 2010. This program delivered the first subsidized Artemisinin-based Combination Therapies (ACTs) to African countries. The Global Fund started and funded AFMm as a separate program in hopes of providing infected individuals more affordable ACTs. The Global Fund hopes to prevent the usage of low dose anti-malaria drugs that do nothing but increase the likely occurrence of drug resistance. In November 2012 the Global Fund voted to change the structure of funding for AMFm because the program has not proven that medicines have reached the most at risk population, children under five. The Global Fund’s grant system will now fund AMFm. The Global Fund voted correctly when deciding to move AMFm under grant funding. The AMFm program has proven costly, shown no productive results, and raised serious doubts that the subsidized medicines have reached their intended and appropriate patients.

When the Global Fund first started the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria program, many hoped that the program would help stem the malaria outbreak. AMFm’s main purpose required delivering the effective ACTs to areas of Africa that needed medicine. While ACTs have a high cost, they have proven more effective, according to WHO, the World Health Organization. So AMFm helps subsidize ACTs so that more infected individuals can purchase effective medicines and heal their malaria infected bodies. Streamlining the medicines available, the Global Fund hopes to overcome malaria forming a resistance to ACTs. When malaria forms resistance to drugs like ACTs, no other medicines currently available can cure malaria. ACTs are the best medicine to cure malaria. AMFm also opts to subsidize ACTs because when cheaper, more effective medicine is available, infected individuals will likely buy the better medicine.

While AMFm has only been effective for two years, in 2011 alone they were able to subsidize 60 percent of all ACTs. AMFm received 463 million dollars to subsidize these ACTs. The Global Fund, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, funded a study to determine the AMFm’s effectiveness during its first year. The study, published in the Lancet, pointed to the AMFm program hitting the Global Fund’s benchmarks. Access to quality-assured ACTs increased 26-52 percent in six of the eight countries examined.

AMFm has good reason to want ACTs provided at reduced rates, but medicine cannot be guaranteed to reach intended receivers. Shopkeepers buy ACTs, at a reduced rate, so that they may sell ACTs affordably. So while the availability of ACTs has increased within the countries examined in the Lancet’s study, there is no guarantee that medicine reaches sick individuals1. An Oxfam senior health advisor, Mohga Kamal-Yanni, was quoted in an article in Nature1, “You don’t need a huge independent evaluation to calculate that a huge subsidy will permit shopkeepers to buy and sell more of a drug,” she says. “Sales don’t mean anything unless you know who the sales are for.” If one has money then they can buy ACTs. No testing necessary. Now better technology enables testing before distributing subsidized medicine. The next obstacle would be determining who has the ability to test for malaria. The shopkeepers, who distribute the medicine, are not educated enough that they could accurately perform malaria testing.

Flickr

Oxfam, in a recent article, Put an end to risky malaria program, advocated ending AMFm. The first issue Oxfam had with AMFm was the lack of regulation. If someone with a fever can come and buy an ACT and take it, without being tested for malaria, this causes a potential for more drug resistant malaria. ACTs, when taken appropriately by a sick individual, are effective at ridding the body of malaria. When used too much, malaria forms a resistance and becomes a super bug. Misdiagnosis, caused by overuse of ACTs, is counterproductive. Technology has now reached a point where it is plausible to test potentially infected individuals. This way, antimalarials, such as ACTs, will only be used for definite cases. In an interview with Dr. Toby Leslie,she discusses the question of plans to reduce misdiagnosis. Dr. Leslie cited that improved awareness of malaria, better use of microscopy tests and increased use of rapid diagnosis tests can decreased misdiagnosis. Many individuals diagnosing malaria are shopkeepers who have no doctoral knowledge of what malaria looks like.

In November of 2012, the Global Fund voted to remove AMFm as a separately funded program. This was a wise move because the money put into the program, while showing results, was not showing true results. The medicine not having been proven to reach the targeted population, or even children under the age of five. ACTs were also being used by anyone who could afford them. There was no regulation on the subsidized medicine. In essence, AMFm could have been funding the malaria resistance campaign. Then where would infected individuals be if the ACTs were unable to cure them? The world would be back at square one and malaria would make a stronger and more intimidating comeback.

1. Maxmen, Amy. "Malaria plan under scrutiny." Nature. 490.7418 (2012): 13-14. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/news/malaria-plan-under-scrutiny-1.11509>.

Obesity: To eat or not to eat?

Heidi Klum

Images portraying what bodies should and should not look like daily inundate people in the United States. Only a person trying to avoid the outside world and being completely reclusive could escape this societal influence. Busty Kate Upton, thin and waif-like Coco Rochas, and toned and tanned Heidi Klums barrage us, and all three individuals share a common characteristic - being skinny. Yet, America faces an obesity epidemic that grows proportionally each year. Obesity is becoming a massive national and international issue, the facts don’t lie, and we have to start paying attention and attempting to get results! Although scientists and nutritionists claim that the solution can simply be a matter of physics or physiology, it can’t be one or the other. No, both must be implemented to find a solution. Considering the hormonal influences of the body, correcting exercise and diet, and improving the modern population’s wellness overall can help us battle the overwhelming epidemic the world faces - obesity and its affiliated diseases.

Obesity in United States

Recent debates have recaptured and evoked the old ideas on handling obesity and diseases caused by this condition, and questioned whether the old ways are better than our modern understanding of this bodily condition. Nature Magazine’s Gary Taubes directly challenges the medical world in his article “Treat Obesity as Physiology, not Physics”,1 which outlines historical ideas on obesity, and argues that the current one is flawed. Gustav von Bergmann, a German scientist, stated that obesity was a regulatory disorder, or having to do with the hormonal workings of the body. American scientists discarded this idea following the war, when the fear of all things Germanic took over, and the modern idea of too little exercise and too many calories surfaced, and is still prevalent presently. Taubes supports a return to the Germanic ideas, treating the imbalances within the body to reduce fat, instead of working off the fat through exercise and diet regulation. Is Taubes’ assessment of this huge issue correct? Can the medical world effectively address obesity by only regulating the body’s hormonal productions and diseases?

While the body’s genetic or hormonal imbalances do not account for the entirety of the world’s weight crisis, physiology has a bearing on some portion of this issue. Physiology is the overall attempt of science to understand the body’s inner workings – the way each system interacts with each other, to form a wholly sufficient organism – a human being. People like Taubes use physiology to understand the endocrine system, which designates the effect of hormones on things like menstruation, the secretion of insulin, and even our modern food production (steroids used to beef up young cattle). Because the endocrine system involves the production of insulin, which regulates a person’s metabolism, the process of turning food to fuel and/or fat, it can lead to cases of diabetes, which is directly linked to obesity. 

Insulin Injections

The increase of our national obesity rates, calculated via Body Mass Index, lead to a large increase in diabetic cases. Common treatments, used to negate or diminish the chance of harm via diabetes, are taking insulin shots, diabetes type II, and exercise and diet regulation for both diabetes type I and II. Patients often take vitamins and essential nutrients in pill form, as a supplement to fuel the body receives from food. Burning off the fat is the best way to correct diabetes type II. Research has shown that even losing 5 to 10 percent of your weight (i.e. 13 pounds for a 250 pound person) could decrease the chance of contracting diabetes. Regulating food intake, maintaining regular exercise, as well as reaping the benefits of regular insulin injections, which would cause the cells of the body to metabolise food at a much more accelerated rate, leading to less fat storage, can help in achieving this weight loss.

Green Breakfast Shakes

The physiology approach is applicable for those who have an endocrine system impairment, but it cannot account for the growing BMI of those who do not have a deficiency or hormonal imbalance, a large portion of our present population. While treating the hormonal imbalances does work, it can only mend the effects of obesity to a certain extent. Exercise, the physics of the matter, and getting enough nutrients and vitamins, but not too many calories, is necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Most people, nowadays, overeat, though some have eating disorders that cause a lack of valuable and essential nutrients. Under-eating is discouraged just as much as overeating is advised against. Neither will give the body what it needs to function at it’s highest level. Various methods are used to suppress overactive appetites. Modern medicine uses things as small as pills and nutritious shakes, to even go so far as to perform a surgery, such as gastric bypass, which causes the stomach to ‘shrink.’ These things, in addition to regular and consistent exercise (recommended at least a half hour per day; a total of 2.5 hours per week), will keep the body fit and active, providing the essentials and keeping the body away from obesity, diabetes type II and the other diseases associated with the two (heart disease, metabolic conditions, hypertension).

Warrior's Pose

Obesity is a crisis in our nation and our modern world. It is linked to multiple other diseases and recognized as the backing cause of a multitude of deaths. Heart disease and diabetes, two leading diseases linked to obesity, currently rank among the top ten leading causes of death. We cannot address this issue through one or the other, physiology or physics, hormonal regulation or exercise and dietary regulation. We must address it through merging the two - physiology and physics coinciding to create an effective cure. If the causes of obesity are both hormonal and related to human activity, then the treatment must also relate to both. Only then will we see results.

1 Taubes, Gary. "Treat Obesity as Physiology, Not Physics." Nature 492.7428 (2012): n. pag. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/news/treat-obesity-as-physiology-not-physics-1.12014>.

Crop Concerns

Agricultural jobs compose 60 percent of the sub-Saharan African workforce, yet there remains a 30 percent malnourishment rate and lingering questions concerning why so much physical effort produces so little yield.  We can simply attack the current global issues using the easiest, most immediate, and often lackluster, option.  However, these immediate options will not work to rehabilitate farming in sub-Saharan Africa, where famine and poverty remain prevalent problems.  Farmers often implement chemical fertilizers, a common lackluster option, to increase crop production quickly and easily.  But Africa, and all other agriculturally active countries, deserve ongoing research for other more environmentally and economically sound techniques.  The region’s short term use of chemical fertilizers  may drastically improve agricultural production numbers.  However, in the long term, this creates a dependency on methods that were expensive and damaging to the environment.  In addition, the answers cannot simply be black and white; it must also take into account some more deeply rooted issues involving cultural and traditional values.

Flickr
Learning organic & sustainable farming methods in Kenya.

On the most basic level, chemical fertilizers are dangerous and not ideal for any area, Africa or elsewhere.  There is a heavy environmental impact looming from the use of these unnatural substances.  In 2001, the World Bank initiated the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in order to more fully analyze what may be ahead of us.  Firstly, these fertilizers are major contaminants in the already-scarce resource that is water.  If they are overly used, the density of the nutrients inside the water sources will likely become much too high.  In short, the life forms such as algae would grow at much faster rates and mess with the current balance of the underwater ecosystem at the expense of its other inhabitants.

But more importantly, since these fertilizers are nitrogen based, there is a large fear of the dramatic rise in fossil fuel emissions.  The vast use of fossil fuel-based products is a controversial topic today in all of its facets, as it is reported by most scientists to cause climate change.  Kenneth Cassmann, environmental health expert of the University of Nebraska, argues with his data that such effects coming from nitrogen are even greater than those as a result of carbon emissions.  This is a very telling statement, because the high amount of carbon emissions already poses a huge global predicament--another issue to discuss on another day.  But with the increased use of a substance more potent like nitrogen, current predictions for climate change could be flat-out incorrect underestimates.  That doesn’t help anyone.

I would be the first to agree that such widespread famine should be attacked from all sides, even if that means some negative side effects.  However, such effects cannot simply be pushed to the side in this case.   Recent studies have shown that the impact of global warming, climate change, and other environmental changes are supposed to be the greatest within the African region.  Based on certain computer models’ data, the future can expect a change in rainfall patterns that will therefore affect food availability in the future and lead to further desertification, glacial melting and deforestation.  Unfortunately, without a lot of foreign aid, sub-Saharan Africa does not hold the financial resources to even attempt to address solutions.  Not to mention, they currently only contribute a mere 4 percent towards total world greenhouse gas emissions!  These present and future realities must be a call to reconsider the true meaning of a short term vs. long term plan.  Frankly, there just is not enough time to contemplate the issue without worsening the environmental situation across the globe, but more severely in Africa: the continent of interest in this case.

But perhaps we are focusing on the wrong aspect of this issue--or rather, ignoring the less-obvious but still heavily-impacting factors in addition to the ones I addressed before.  There is a reason for the ‘culture’ in the word “agriculture.”   Meaning, cultural norms often play a critical part in the overall success or mediocrity of a widespread farming system.  Thus far, activists aim their efforts to boost Africa’s agricultural production mostly towards men, since they are supposedly the “heads of households and the ones best positioned to engage in commercial farming”.  However, not only does this ignore about half the African population, but it also sets aside the fact that it is the women who typically cultivate the food for their families in the sub-Saharan region.  Statistics show that in Ghana, a sub-Saharan nation, women produce 70% of the food crops, make up 52% of the agricultural workforce, and put in 90% of the labour for post-harvest activities.  The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) conducted a study within their own nation, finding “many valuable lessons and promising approaches” that come with gender equality in agriculture.  Knowledge of history tells us that we cannot change culture in a flash, but we must consider this a significant portion of the whole picture before making any single decision.

Flickr
Ethiopian farmland.

Although nature.com1proposes that these chemical fertilizers be used only in the short term, current patterns show that this notion is impractical: an empty promise.  The central problem is that implementing chemical fertilizers would cause any society to become dependent upon them, just as our agricultural system has done in the United States.  After all, these “quick and easy” (though expensive and perhaps unhealthy to humans, studies show) solutions may positively affect a massive hunger problem.   But Dr. Robert Watson, the World Bank’s chief scientist, illustrates the pitfall: “We can move in a direction where we destroy our natural heritage or we can move in a direction where we improve both human well being and maintain our natural heritage. We’ve got choices and have to decide which future we want.” As long as the United States and other first world nations attempt to stray from such chemical fertilizers, seeking cheaper, greener and more effective methods, it is only fair that we pay the same respect as we try to help an area that is in such dire need of a sustainable solution.

So even after all this contemplation of the great issue that is sub-Saharan famine, the bleak 30 percent malnourishment rate remains to exist. Troy M. Null of Rollins College sculpts a hopeful idea to us as we consider solid answers to the multiplex topic. “Picture the following scenario: a startup farmer gets a micro loan and insurance to grow native and/or robust crops, using seeds in a backpack that were selected by international research organizations...she could become successful enough to expand, and with fair competition she could sell off her surplus and inspire others to follow in her example.” In the end, the controversy about using chemical fertilizers concerns this--a brighter (or duller) future for sub-Saharan Africa. The choice, in many ways, lies within our hands.


(1) "Food for Thought." Nature 483.510 (2012): n. pag. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 30 Jan. 2013.

Genetic Privacy

Flickr
DNA extracted through cheek cells.

A study at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, led by Yaniv Erlich1, shows that an individual could be identified using his/her sequenced genome. Erlich and his team created an algorithm that enables them to identify an individual. After receiving a genome project participant’s genetic sequence, who also submitted their family pedigree, Erlich and his team identify both project participants and family members. Although many see this as a grave privacy invasion, utilizing individual’s genetics information has resulted in many positive medical discoveries. As an uncommon practice, an average citizen, does not have the means to use genetic information to discern an individual’s identity. Therefore, making an individual’s genetic information publically accessible may be a privacy violation, the low likelihood that this would bring much harm causes the benefits to outweigh the negative aspects.

According to Eryn Brown’s Los Angelos Times article, keeping genetic data private concerns many. Companies may use genetic information to “drop benefits or discriminate against workers.” This would evidently hurt certain individuals who are looking to be employed. For example: discrimination against those who have a history of any type of life-threatening disorders or diseases because of the chance that they would not be a reliable and stable worker for a company. Simply having genes for a certain type of ethnic group could cause discrimination as well. People should evaluate candidates based on their abilities, not their genetic history. It shouldn’t be a factor in the employment process because our genes can’t be altered in any way; humans can’t choose the genes with which they are born. Besides, having unfavorable genetic differences doesn’t actually imply that a person will develop whatever disease his/her genes express; it just means that the risk is higher. To alleviate this issue, the government passed a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act back in 2008, which “protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health. [This] law prevents discrimination from health insurers and employers.”

Erlich Lab
Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Yaniv Erlich succeeded in discerning the several individuals’ identities using their sequenced genomes in a lab, but an average person would not be able to do this. This process requires in-depth knowledge of math and science. According to Nature’s article called “Genetic Privacy, “Erlich’s team wrote an algorithm that infers an individual’s pattern (a haplotype) of genetic markers called short tandem repeats from the nucleotide sequence of his Y chromosome. The team then searched genealogical databases to find the names of men with corresponding Y-chromosome haplotypes. The team confirmed the correct names by cross-referencing the possible last names with public records of people of similar ages and locations.” This does not sound like something any ordinary person would be able to do. According to Dr. Jeffrey R. Botkin, an associate vice president for research integrity at the University of Utah, it is hard to imagine what would motivate anyone to undertake this sort of privacy attack in the real world.” There has not yet been a case of anyone purposely trying to identify someone else using their genetic information. Therefore, the public should not be overly concerned about everyone having access to databases filled with genetic information; the chance that someone would use it or be able to use it to commit a crime or hurt someone else is slim.

In addition, allowing the public to have access to individuals’ genetic information could actually benefit society. This notion can bring us back to 1987, the first time a suspected rapist in Florida was convicted using DNA testing. This method has been used since then to solve cases and even exonerate those who were falsely convicted in the past. It is never fair for one to be punished for a crime he/she did not commit, and we can effectively confirm uncertainty in these cases using genetic data. This objective way of solving a case solely relies on hard fact, not on opinion or emotion. Even the high court declared DNA a “vast genetic treasure map.” DNA samples can code for far more than other identification methods like fingerprinting. It can code for “family ties, some health risks and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.” This information can be extremely valuable when used in court cases. The National District Attorneys Association believes that DNA sampling “serves an important public and governmental interest.” Although complete access to people’s genetic information can be a breach of their fourth amendment rights, using it in a way that would actually benefit them far overweighs the negative aspects.

Public access to genetic information also benefits people genuinely interested in their family history and ancestry in regard to diseases. One may want to know his/her chances of being diagnosed with some type of illness based on past cases within the family. Genetic information “complete[s] family trees.” This could potentially save lives and/or merely educate a person interested in his/her background. Research projects like the 1000 Genomes Project, have “collect[ed] genetic information from people around the world and post[ed] it online so researchers can use it freely, includ[ing] the ages and place of residence of participants.” DNA sequencing has made it possible to discover which genes code for which diseases. One out of twenty babies in hospitals’ newborn intensive care units live with a disease. There are many who have died without doctor’s being able to figure out the cause, in the past. Now with new technology and the possibility of sequencing genomes, we can avoid that unfortunate issue. This method of diagnosis costs a lot, but with the chance of being able to save lives, we should overlook that aspect. According to Dr. Kingsmore of Children’s Mercy’s Center for Pediatric Genomic Medicine, “[p]roviding a definitive diagnosis somehow brings closure...[i]t is something they can name.” The New York Times article suggests that “just knowing the answer can be a comfort,” Dr. Kingsmore found that “families greatly valued having a diagnosis.”

Understandably so, some people completely oppose the idea of publicly accessible genomes: there are privacy concerns and other issues that can come along with allowing everyone to have access to genetic information. However, there are a number of benefits that shouldn’t be overlooked, especially when one’s life is at risk. DNA sequencing has helped, is helping, and (I believe) will continue to help society. This major breakthrough has changed lives and promises to do even more in the future.

1. "Genetic Privacy." Nature 493.7433 (2013): n. pag. Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-privacy-1.12238>