Supersize Stress Could Equal Supersize "Fries"

 

A new study from St. Michael’s hospital shows that there might be a new link to childhood obesity- the parents and parental stress. A child who has extremely stressed parents can have a BMI of 2% more and gain weight 7% faster than children with parents who don’t have a lot of stress. the reason why this happens is not, clear, but doctors have some ideas.

 

Parents who are more stressed and worn out are more likely to do a lot less physical activity because they are too tired. Also, they are more likely to buy cheaper, quicker food because it takes a lot less time and effort. Children learn from their environment, so these children are getting less exercise and more unhealthy food. If your parents have more time and less stressed, then they will be more likely to take you to the park to get more physical activity and then cook you a nutritious meal.

Also, parental stress can be rubbed off on the kids. The kids may worry about their parent’s bad mood, and eat more and sit around more. This stress can lead to above average weight gain. This is especially worrisome, because the habits kids develop in these years will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

This article had similar ideas to the article by Craig Lambert we read in class, The Way We Eat Now. The article talked about different factors that contribute to being overweight and/or obese. It talked about how people eat fast food because it is quick cheap and easy and does not add stress. Also the article spoke about how kids sit around all day, on the computer and in front of the TV. This could be from parental stress. Adults do not have time or energy to take their kids outside, or even worry about their kids physical activity. With no motivation, the children continue sitting around and eating their way to obesity.

 http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/08/parental-stress-linked-to-childrens-obesity/62974.html

Coral Jewelry is Damaging the Environment

The article, "Reefs Suffer Amid Surging Demand for Jewelry Coral" can be found on the New York Times website.  This article was written by Yuriko Nagano and published on November 12, 2013.  It contains information about how Japanese and Chinese boats have been taking coral from oceans in an environmentally damaging way to fulfill high demands for jewelry coral.

Jewelry coral is a form of jewelry that is in high demand in Japan and China, and is very popular.  This type of jewelry is made with real coral, which can only be harvested underwater in reefs.  However, the price has increased dramatically over the past few years, giving sellers of this popular jewelry high profits.  Because of these high prices, many people have begun harvesting the coral illegally in environmentally damaging ways, simply to make more money.

These coral poachers have been getting their coral by using drag nets, which destroy the entire ecosystem around the coral reef.  By doing this, they are ruining the habitat of many fish that are highly prized in Japan, such as the Japanese Amberjack and Akamachi.  Without a good place to live, these species of fish will eventually decrease and people won't be able to enjoy this type of food anymore.  In addition to fish, the poachers are also destroying the habitats of other sea creatures, and are decreasing the amount of coral in these areas.

The global price of jewelry corals per year is 5 to 6 million dollars, based on the quality of the coral.  Noriyoshi Yoshimoto, president of the Precious Coral Protection and Development Association, says,"The price of jewelry coral varies widely, depending on the shade of color, the size and the quality of the coral."  This proves that in order to make more money, the poachers would make sure they harvest the best coral possible, which could take a long time and could destroy more of the reefs than taking the coral they find first, no matter how bad the quality.  Thankfully, illicit coral fishing is being worked on by the Taiwanese government, in hopes that this business will soon be put to a stop.

I think this article makes some very good points.  The damage to the coral reefs is becoming too much, but there is a limited amount Japan and China can do about it.  The demands for this type of jewelry is excessive  and in order to fulfill their countries' needs, the governments have no choice than get more coral.  The only measure that can be done to slow down this process is stopping coral poachers from taking more coral than necessary in an unauthorized way.  This process reminds me somewhat of what is happening in South America to the Amazon Rainforest.  Lots of poachers are cutting down trees in addition to the factories that had been doing so beforehand.  This multiplies the number of trees being cut and will damage the environment faster.  

This article also reminds me of something we learned in Biology class.  We learned that an ecosystem can be ruined by way of removing just one type of organism, instead of many different types at once.  Removing or decreasing the population of coral from the coral reef environment will also lower the populations of animals that live in coral or hide in it from predators. It will also increase the populations of organisms who eat animals previously living in the coral reef ecosystem because they would no longer have a home and would have no means of protection.  With constantly decreasing amounts of coral because of coral poachers and jewelry companies, this whole ecosystem will eventually be destroyed.  

Reading this article has completely changed my view of where products come from.  Purchasing coral jewelry is a task most people wouldn't think twice about, but it actually is harvested by poachers or companies, and its population is slowly decreasing because of this.  The same is true for other products, especially wood.  Sometimes, the harvesting of objects cannot be decreased a lot, like coral, because the demand is so high, but anyone can help with this by not buying as much of it to lower its demand.  Thanks to this article, I will now think more deeply about where different items come from, because they could be harvested illegally or harming the environment.     

Article Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/fashion/reefs-suffer-amid-surging-demand-for-jewelry-coral.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1386639508-zTLJhoLuhULdl7/xagfz0A

Photo Link:  http://www.serranojewelry.com/coral.htm

More Problems to Come for Polar Bears

The article ‘Arctic development ‘a new menace to polar bears’’, written by an unknown author, from News.net, published on December 4, 2013, discusses how, in addition to the current climate change, oil exploration and sea traffic in the Arctic are disturbing the polar bears’ environment.  

As Canada's Environment Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, said, ‘"Today we face new challenges with the ship traffic increase and the oil and gas development.”’

The added economic activities, along with global greenhouse gas emissions, are causing the Arctic ice to melt faster.  This is a huge threat to polar bears, as ice covers are necessary in order for polar bears to hunt seals, which are their main food source.  Habitat change, like loss of ice and permafrost, would also effect female bears’ maternity denning.

Some people, like Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, believe that we should develop in the Arctic.  He tells students, ‘“We must develop (the Arctic).’”  

Meanwhile, others, like general director of the World Wildlife Fund, Jim Leape, don’t agree.  He says, ‘“We should not be allowing the development of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.”’  He adds, ‘“There is no company in the world that has the technology to contain disasters.”’

This issue relates to what we studied during our ecology unit this year.  As we learned, if one species becomes extinct, the species that was eaten by the extinct species will become overpopulated.  If the polar bears were to become extinct, seals would become overpopulated.  This would lead to many more problems.  For example, there may not be enough of whatever the seals eat to feed the growing population.

It also has to do with what we learned about Global Warming during the Carbon Cycle unit.  Just as we learned in class, this article describes how combustion of fossil fuels by humans leads to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, eventually resulting in Global Warming.

This issue is definitely controversial.  I believe they should not develop in the Arctic.  They should try to push off the extinction of polar bears, not speed it up by increasing oil exploration and sea traffic.

I feel strongly that the Arctic should not be developed.  The people who want to develop there seem to be only concerned on how it benefits themselves, not about how it will effect wildlife there, specifically polar bears.  

http://www.news.net/article/694534/

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/08/11/global-warming-link-to-drowned-polar-bears-melts-under-searing-fed-probe-2/

CO2 Increases Urchins Race for Survival

Sea urchins are fast adaptors, and they must adapt quickly in order to live in the changing ocean conditions. The article SEACHANGE Can Sea Life Adapt?  by Craig Welch, published November 2 2013 explains how and why these sea urchins in Santa Barbara are adapting. What seems to be causing this change is high-CO₂ levels in oceans.

These levels are increasing because “The oceans are absorbing a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil and natural gas.“ This means that one fourth of the CO₂ that humans and factories give off end up in the oceans.  Increasing CO₂ makes oceans more corrosive and also reduces the amount of carbonate ions which is vital in building shells and skeletons.

In result of these increasing conditions it seems that the sea urchin body often got smaller. To commercial fisher Bruce Steele this does not sound good. He brought it to scientist attention, and they did further research, but so far there does not seem like there is a solution at this moment.

It is easy to tell that the author thinks this is a serious problem and not just a conspiracy. He added many details that backed up the claim of how high-CO₂ contributes to sea urchin adaptation; including a diagram along a written explanation of water ‘upwelling’ that effects CO₂. He also added further species that have been affected with high CO₂ levels. This shows he was very firm in his belief.

Although he had his point clear, the use and placement of his back up explanations made the article confusing. The author put the other species explanation in a place where you are not sure of which species he is talking about, the sea urchins or one of the others. Also the placement of the diagram and explanation of upwelling made the ending choppy and hard to follow.

This article reminded me of the movie The Lorax that we have watched in class. Once the pond next to the Thneed factory was polluted the fish had to leave. The fish could not live in the polluted water so in order to survive they have to leave. In the sea urchins case they cannot walk away from their home like the Humming Fish, but their way of surviving is adapting to the increasing levels of CO_2.    

Also, in class we have learned a lot about the carbon cycle and what humans contribute to it. Burning of fossil fuels release more carbon into the atmosphere, creating many negative effects like the one in this article. We have learned that there are ways humans can help decrease this problem like using less energy, and having factory emissions modified. If we had taken more precautions the sea urchins may not have needed to adapt as quickly.

This topic took me back to elementary school days, learning about the evolution of man. Even though sea urchins are not changing as slow and dramatically as man did, they are still adapting and evolving to their environment.  If a rise of CO₂ can permit such a fast change of the sea urchin, imagine what will happen when even more environmental problem arises.

 

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/nov/2/can-sea-life-adapt/

 

 

Rising Seas: Submerged Cities

The article Rising Seas: How They Change Our Coastlines from National Geographic Magazine addresses the growing issue of the rising of sea levels due to global warming. We saw last year during hurricane Sandy the devastation that flood waters and strong currents can bring upon coastal communities. Well, this may be a glimpse into the future due to the growing heat of our planet. The sea level didn’t change that much for almost 2,000 years, the real change started in the 19^th century when the earth began to get warmer. We have begun to slowly alter our planet with fossil fuels and flooding like seen during Sandy could become less unusual for coastal areas. As a result of releasing CO² and other fossil fuels into the atmosphere we have raised the Earth’s average temperature more than one degree and the sea level 8 inches over the past century. What we have done cannot be reversed, even if everyone in the world stops burning fossil fuels now, the existing gases would heat up the Earth for centuries to come. In May, the concentration of CO² in the atmosphere was at 400 parts per million, which is the highest since about 3 million years ago. Global warming influences the sea level in two ways. One is thermal expansion, water grows in volume as it heats up, and the second is that the ice on land is slowly melting. Primarily mountain glaciers have been melting so far, but scientists are concerned about the giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists have determined that both Greenland and Antarctica together have lose about 200 billion metric tons of ice annually, which could cause the sea level to rise about 3 feet by 2100. “In the last several years we’ve observed accelerated melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica,” says Radley Horton, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York City. “The concern is that if the acceleration continues, by the time we get to the end of the 21^st century, we could see sea-level rise as much as six feet globally instead of two to three feet.” If we were to melt all the 5 million cubic miles of ice on Earth, which would probably take more than 5,000 years, the sea level would be raised about 216 feet, the average temperature on earth would be about 80 degrees, and deserts would expand greatly. Many coastal cities could be under water such as Boston, New York, London, Venice, Beijing, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and just about the entire state of Florida.

               I, as many others do, see this as a big problem. We may think that this isn’t going to affect us because all of this is going to happen in 5,000 years and we will all be dead. But, it will affect us now. Sea levels have already started to rise and the temperature has already begun to increase. We learned in biology that CO² can’t be created and can’t be taken away, it just changes form. Right now, we are burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate and unnaturally increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We can’t reverse what we have already done, but we can put an end to the fossil fuel burning. If we find alternative sources of energy, we can stop this problem from getting even worse. We all want our future generations to live in a cool, green planet instead of a dry, hot one.

Fish Are Becoming Sluggish Swimmers

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/corals/coral-22.jpg

The article “Reef Fish Find It’s Too Hot to Swim” was posted on ScienceDaily on November 27, 2013. The author of this article was not listed.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131127110613.htm

We've all experienced those scorching summer days that make us want to lay on the couch all day. It seems that humans are not the only creatures with this reaction to high temperatures. This article describes the results that researcher Dr. Jacob Johansen collected regarding large reef fish and the change in their behavior due to ocean warming.

Johansen stated, “Global warming is reducing the swimming ability of most fish.” This means that, due to the warmer climate, fish are choosing to swim less.  Fish rely on swimming to survive in the aspects of hunting and finding mates. If aquatic animals continue to decline in their amount of swimming, it could be a serious threat to the environment of coral reefs. Johansen described the fish’s behavior as “lethargic”. There’s a lot less swimming taking place, and the little amount of swimming that takes place is executed at a much slower rate.

Because fish are swimming slower and within smaller ranges this threatens the future distribution of species. If the fish only allow themselves to swim at a certain rate for a limited amount of time, they can’t get very far. This causes certain species to clump up in certain areas so that they can reproduce easily without having to swim long distances.

Professor Morgan Pratchett said the decline of swimming "may directly influence where we will find these species in the future and how many we are able to fish sustainably." I’m predicting this to be a problem because the human race has proven itself to be very good at cutting back on destructive behavior.

I think that this article shows a terrible truth to global warming. We will try to adapt to the drastic change in temperature, but that doesn’t mean other species will be as accepting to the change. If we continue on effecting the environment as we are now, there are unlimited aspects of life that will be negatively affected. 

Who would have guessed that fish, who live their lives in bodies of water, would suffer from the rising temperature.

The article finishes with a list of doctors experimenting to see if the fish will be able to eventually adapt to the new temperatures, or if they’ll have to move the fish to cooler waters. This will be a temporary fix that brings up this question: what happens when we run out of cooler waters?

Could Coral Really Survive This?

The article "Corals Surviving Ocean's Pollution" by many organization research on December 2nd can be found on Science Daily:http://www.sciencedaily.com

Coral is a living just like us human beings or your pet dog. The fact that it had survived the pollution along the Gulf of California and the coast of the Mexican Pacific was amazing to many including scientists. This article tells how corals are able to adapt to some circumstances even after many biologists thought not. From head of the research, Eduardo Balart Páez said "The first models indicated that the coral reefs would disappear midcentury, but our study reveals that corals are adapting to the ocean's acidification that has increased since the industrial revolution". It is said that it is unlike many other marine species to adapt nowadays but this coral has proved us wrong.

Samples of this coral aged at 22 years were taken to be observed. The biologists have found that the acidification in the oceans are stunting the corals growth but not so much that we need to worry about right now. As said by Balart Páez "This marine organisms are healthy, for the moment, because of a bigger energetic expense given by a genetic adaptation, however as the acidification levels rise there can be a disturbance in the sexual proportions". He is saying that this specie is okay for now but could be endangered in the long run if this world continues to go along as they are now. The impact was different from males and females but not as dramatically as you would think.The studies showed that there would need to be more research done in order to fully know what is going to happen to certain coral species.

I believe that this article can come as good or bad considering what part you take. The good would be many coral species fighting off the pollution from the ocean waters, but that pollution could get to them in a matter of time. As said before, there would need to be more research over time to analyze the growth and protection of the corals. The studies helped biologists find out more information about this marine specie and could learn more with more research and studies.

First I would like to start off by saying that we should try our best to not pollute anything especially the oceans on our world. There are many procedures that need to be held out to clean the oceans and it can take many years to completely eliminate the pollution in oceans. Pollution in the water like oil breaks can kill many species if not taken care of properly. It is not that hard to recognize what is happening around you and people need to take in to consideration that they could kill many organisms by one foolish act.This article gave a lot of good information on how biologists do their research and how they analyze their work. It gave an insight on how scientists all around the world use common language and think about the same as anyone else would.

This reminds me of how we were learning about acid rain and how that could participate into the ocean and be part of the problem the coral's growth is stunting slowly. The pollution could get evaporated into the air if not cleaned up in time and pollute somewhere else in the world. Overall the pollution in the world needs to stop.