A new study says the spread of animal sicknesses such as Chronic Wasting Disease in deer may
happen more easily because of the way a protein binds to soil. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A new study says the spread of animal sicknesses such as Chronic Wasting Disease in deer may
happen more easily because of the way a protein binds to soil. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Scientists have known that when an infected animal puts prions, or abnormal protein agents, in
soil the prions can stay alive for a long time. A study has looked at different types of common
soil minerals and found that a type of clay is an especially good binding agent for the prions.
University of Wisconsin researcher Judd Aiken says the link is so good that there’s a much higher
risk of the infection spreading when another animal grazes in the area:
“There was an enhancement of infectivity and we’re estimating roughly a 700-fold enhancement
of infectivity.”
Aiken says it might mean that government efforts to stop the spread of deadly animal brain
diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease in deer or scrapie in sheep may only be as effective as the
type of soil where the animals live.
Researchers are studying whether nano-sized material could purge bacteria from the digestive tracts of poultry. The bacteria doesn't harm chickens and turkeys, but it can make people sick. The hope is that using nanoparticles could reduce the use of antibiotics in poultry. (Photo courtesy of USDA)
Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:
Transcript
Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:
Life on the nano scale is so tiny it’s hard to imagine. It’s as small
as 1/100,000 of a human hair. It’s as tiny as the width of a strand of
DNA. A nanoparticle can be so small it can actually enter cells.
Nanoparticles are loved by scientists and entrepreneurs for the novel
things they can do at those tiny sizes. They act differently. They
can go where larger particles can’t.
Many companies already sell new products with nano properties. The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies says there are almost 500 products
on the market that use nanotechnology.
Some of those products are starting to show up in the grocery store.
Jennifer Kuzma is with the Center for Science, Technology and Public
Policy at the University of Minnesota. She tracks nanotech
developments in food and agriculture. She says there are some edible
nano products on store shelves right now:
“One is a chocolate shake that is a nano emulsion of cocoa molecules so
you can deliver more flavor for less of the cocoa product.”
Kuzma says that’s just the beginning. She says hundreds more nano
products, including a lot of food products, are on their way to market.
In many cases, scientists are looking for solutions to food safety
problems.
For example, bacteria in the intestines of chickens and turkeys can
make people sick when poultry is undercooked. Right now farmers treat
their birds with antibiotics. But as bacteria are becoming resistant
to antibiotics, scientists are looking for other methods to fight the
bacteria.
Jeremy Tzeng is a research scientist at Clemson University. He’s part
of a team developing what he calls intelligent chicken feed.
Basically, chickens would be fed a nanomaterial that attaches to
molecules on the surface of the harmful bacteria. Then the bacteria
could be purged from the chicken along with fecal matter:
“If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using
antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it
is really small.”
Tzeng says his research is still in its early stages. He says there
are a lot of safety tests he needs to run. They need to find out if
the nanomaterial is safe for chickens, and people who eat the chickens.
And they need to find out what happens if the nanomaterial is released
into wastewater.
“As a scientist I love to see my technology being used broadly and very
quickly being adopted. But I’m also concerned we must be cautious. I
don’t want to create a miracle drug and then later it becomes a problem
for the long term.”
There are big, open questions about just how safe nanoparticles are.
Researcher Jennifer Kuzma says there have been only a handful of known
toxicology studies done so far. She says nanoparticles might be more
reactive in the human body than larger particles:
“There’s several groups looking at the ability of nanoparticles to
damage, let’s say your lung tissue. Some of the manufactured or manmade nanoparticles are thought to have greater abilities to get into the
lungs, penetrate deeper and perhaps damage the cells in the lungs, in
the lung tissue.”
In some cases, it’s hard for the government to get information about new
nano products. Kuzma says companies tend to keep their own safety data
under lock and key:
“Some companies might send you the safety studies if you ask for them. Others may not
because they of course have interests in patenting the technology and
confidential business information.”
So the government doesn’t always know all that much about what’s
heading to market. Agencies are trying to figure out how – and even
whether – to regulate products of nanotechnology. Right now, there are
no special labeling requirements for nano products.
In the meantime, nanotechnology is turning into big business. Several
analysts predict that just three years from now, the nanotech food
market will be a 20 billion dollar industry.
Theories that crops, such as the corn in Illinois, will benefit from increases in CO2 might not be as good as predicted. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:
Transcript
Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:
Lin Warfel’s a fourth generation farmer in east-central Illinois. His
fields are flat and endless, the soil chunky and black and just about
the best in the world. An Interstate highway groans on one side of his
cornfield:
“In my career, early on, there was no Interstate past my farm.”
As traffic increased over the years, Warfel noticed a strange
phenomenon. The crops closer to the Interstate grew bigger than those
further away:
“They respond to the carbon dioxide. They can stay greener longer than
plants out into the field.”
OK… so, here’s a high school biology reminder: carbon dioxide, along
with water and sun, is an ingredient in photosynthesis, which makes
plants grow.
Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also the biggest cause
of global warming. So scientists thought, huh, more carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, bigger crops. They even coined a term: the “carbon
dioxide fertilization effect:”
“The effects of CO2 on crop yields are fairly well-understood.”
The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor has studied this stuff since the
1980s:
“We would expect that by the year 2050, that the increase in CO2 alone
would probably increase yields by about 10 to 15% in soybean, wheat and
rice relative to today’s yield, with nothing else changing.”
Other things are changing, like hotter temperatures and more drought.
But the predominant thinking has been that the increased carbon dioxide
will moderate those negative factors, maybe even outweigh them. A
recent study by the American Economic Review concluded U.S. agriculture
profits will grow by more than a billion dollars over the next century,
due to global warming. Most of this is based on experiments done in
controlled, greenhouse conditions, but new research done in real fields
is challenging the assumptions:
“Where you’re standing is what we refer to as our global change
research facility on the south farms of the University of Illinois.”
That’s biologist Steve Long. He runs what’s called the SoyFACE project
at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Here, Long can
actually pipe carbon dioxide gas out to the fields, and grow real crops
in an atmosphere of the future.
Long strolls out to one of 16 test plots and stop at a white pipe
sticking out of the ground:
“This is one of the pipes where the carbon dioxide actually comes up
and then it will go out into the field here.”
The carbon dioxide pipes circle a plot about the size of a tennis
court. They release the gas over the crops. Computers monitor the air
to keep the concentrations steady:
“And the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is about
380 parts per million. We’re raising that to the level which is
expected for the year 2050, which is about 550 parts per million.”
Long has grown the crops of 2050 for 5 years now. His results
shocked him. The plants did grow bigger. They survived longer
into the fall, but the yields were 50% lower than expected. And
pests thrived. The Western corn rootworm, for example, laid
twice as many eggs:
“Japanese beetle, which eats quite a lot of the leaves of soybeans, do
twice as well under these elevated CO2 conditions. They live longer. They
produce many more young. The yield increases we’ve seen could start to be
counteracted by those increased pest problems.”
Long’s results found supporters and critics when published in Science magazine last summer. Some researchers say extra CO2
could hurt agriculture more than it helps because weeds become more
aggressive.
The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor co-wrote a paper challenging the
interpretation of Long’s data. But he agrees more work needs to be
done in real-life conditions:
“The bigger questions that are now before us are the interactions of CO2 with
warming and change in precip, changes in weed communities, changes in
insect communities, changes in disease outbreak. There are a lot more
questions there than there are answers.”
Amthor says what’s at stake is our future food supply.
For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.
Researchers want to bring in parasitic wasps from China to kill the emerald ash borer (pictured) to slow the beetle's spread. (Photo courtesy of the USFS)
The federal government wants to import insect parasites from China into
the US. Rebecca Williams reports officials are hoping parasitic wasps
will control a pest that’s been killing millions of trees:
Transcript
The federal government wants to import insect parasites from China into
the US. Rebecca Williams reports officials are hoping parasitic wasps
will control a pest that’s been killing millions of trees:
The emerald ash borer has already killed 20 million ash trees.
Scientists think the ash borer got into North America in cargo from
China. It came over without any of the parasites that normally keep it
in check.
Researchers want to bring in some of those parasitic wasps from China
to try to kill the ash borer beetles.
Juli Gould is with the US Department of Agriculture. She’s been
studying the parasitic wasps. She says the ash borer can’t be
eradicated, but the parasites might slow the beetle’s spread:
“The population is very widespread right now and we need another tool
in the toolbox to help control it.”
Gould says they’ve been running tests to make sure the parasitic wasps
won’t kill insects other than the ash borer. She says in her lab
tests, the parasites appear to much prefer ash borers over the other
insects they tested.
Brownish-orange bumps on the backs of these bees are Varroa jacobson mites, a possible cause of the disappearing bees. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)
Scientists are scrambling to find out why honey bee populations are
collapsing. Lester Graham reports, there are a lot of theories. Some
of them are getting more attention than others:
Transcript
Scientists are scrambling to find out why honey bee populations are
collapsing. Lester Graham reports, there are a lot of theories. Some
of them are getting more attention than others:
Recently, beekeepers have seen entire colonies of worker bees leave and
never come back to the hive. It’s called Colony Collapse Disorder.
Some news reports have suggested wireless phones or cell phone towers
might be throwing off bees’ navigation.
Barry O’Connor is Curator of Insects at the University of Michigan’s
Museum of Zoology. He says so far, that’s just a theory:
“This phenomenon has been seen in a lot of places where there aren’t
cell phone towers. And so it’s not the whole story if it’s even a part
of the story.”
Other theories for the collapse include stress from moving bees around
to pollinate crops, a newer class of nicotine-based pesticides, a
genetically modified corn with a built-in insecticide, or a combination
of environmental problems.
Growers say food production could drop a lot without honeybees to
pollinate crops.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A new study predicts global warming will prompt some types of climates
to disappear from parts of the world. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A new study predicts global warming will prompt some types of climates
to disappear from parts of the world. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Scientists asked that if the planet warms up, where would new climates
be created and where would existing climates disappear? Geography
professor Jack Williams heads a research team at the University of
Wisconsin and University of Wyoming.
Using computer modeling, he predicts by the year 2100,the main changes
will be in low-lying tropical areas, at the top of very high
mountains, and at the poles:
“So the warmest areas get warmer and are first to move outside the
range of what we experience at present and then the coldest areas,
also get warmer… so that these sets of cool or cold climates
disappear as we move to a warmer world.”
Williams says where climates disappear, that will put local species in
danger. He says it’s not clear what the new climates will be like.
If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:
Transcript
If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:
More people are considering buying cleaner, more fuel-efficient
cars now that gas prices and global temperatures are on the rise. The gas-
electric hybrids made by Toyota and Honda are becoming popular. And
American car companies are also jumping on board and offering alternative-
powered vehicles.
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has put much of his company’s stock in
ethanol:
“At GM, we believe that the bio-fuel with the greatest potential to
displace petroleum-based fuels in the US is ethanol, and so we have
made a major commitment here to vehicles that can run on E85 ethanol.”
E85 is a blend that’s 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline. GM’s not the only company offering cars that run on them:
(Sound of vehicle introduction)
Angela Hines is from Green Bay, Wisconsin. She’s taking notes as she looks at one
flex fuel car. The E85 only matters to her if it’s going to save her a
few bucks:
“I drive anywhere from 80-200 miles
a day for work, so yeah, gas is important.”
Gui Derochers is looking at a Chevy Silverado pickup truck:
(Grant:) “Does it matter to you that it’s a flex fuel?”
“I think it’s a good thing… flex-fuel. Particularly, we know there are some ethanol plants in Michigan coming, right? Isn’t
that what flex fuel is? Ethanol?”
Derochers works on engines and transmissions:
“You have to remember, I work for Daimler-Chrysler. But we have flex fuel as well. It’s a good thing. It’s wonderful.”
But not everyone thinks the move toward ethanol-fueled cars is
wonderful. Tadeusz Patzek is a professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. He says
ethanol is not cheaper and it’s not any better for the environment than
regular gas.
Patzek says each gallon of ethanol burned might emit less greenhouse gas
into the air, but you have to burn more fuel to go the same distance:
“So, mile for mile, emissions of CO2 are exactly the same for gasoline as
they are for ethanol. Because they are proportional to the energy stored in
the fuel.”
When it comes to gas mileage, Patzek calls claims that ethanol is any
better then gasoline an imaginary economy… and he’s not alone. When Consumer Reports magazine tested a Chevy Tahoe that runs on gas mixed
with only ten percent ethanol, the truck got 14 miles per gallon. But
it got less than 11 miles per gallon when the ethanol content was
raised to 85%, as in E85. That’s a 27% drop in fuel economy with E85.
Consumer Reports concluded that to go the same distance, you wind up paying more than a dollar
extra per gallon on E85 then on regular
gas.
Patzek says it’s not a good deal for consumers or for the environment:
“You emit less because you have oxygen but you burn more, so it comes as a wash.”
Patzek says ethanol has other environmental costs. To grow the corn needed to make it, farmers have to use more fossil fuel-based fertilizers, tractor fuel, and then more fuel to truck the fuel to gas stations.
Even so, many scientists say ethanol still provides an energy benefit over fossil fuels and some auto engineers say ethanol cars
are just a stop-gap measure until a better technology comes along, but Patzek disagrees with that logic:
“So, you’re saying the following: why don’t we have a terribly bad
solution and call it a stop-gap solution because it’s politically
convenient. I’m saying is, if I’m an engineer, I have to, essentially, if I’m honest with myself and others, do I want a
better technological solution or do I want to say, let’s do probably the worst possible solution
that delays other solutions 10-15 years into the future… while the
world is running out of time?”
Patzek says the real reason American car companies are moving toward
vehicles that run on E85 is that the federal government rewards them
for it.
GM and the others get extra credit for meeting fuel efficiency
standards just for making cars that can run on E85, even if those cars
aren’t more fuel efficient.
Patzek knows he’s become unpopular among many farmers, engineers,
scientists and politicians who want easy answers. He wants people to
start reducing their energy-use rather than waiting for technological
magic bullets.
Some industries are working with government to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People who are worried about their personal CO2 emissions can buy carbon offsets, but there are dozens of programs, making it confusing. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Whether you fly, drive or just turn on the lights, you're responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Some people are buying carbon offsets to balance out their emissions. (Photo by Lester Graham)
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Transcript
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Whenever you drive, fly, or ride, you’re emitting carbon dioxide. And it’s not just the way you get around. It’s also any time you turn on lights or plug into an electrical outlet. More than half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from power plants that burn
coal and that’s another major source of carbon dioxide.
It’s a problem because carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas.
The vast majority of scientists agree all this carbon dioxide
that people produce is trapping heat in the atmosphere and making
the planet warmer.
David Archer is a climate scientist at the University of Chicago:
“The problem with fossil fuels is that the cost of that climate
change isn’t paid by the person who makes the decision to use
fossil energy so it’s sort of like a bill we’re leaving to future
generations.”
Some people say there’s a way to pay that bill now. About three
dozen companies and nonprofits have sprung up in the past few
years. They’re selling carbon offsets.
The idea of a carbon offset is to balance out the carbon dioxide
that you emit. In theory, you can do this by investing in
something like tree planting or energy projects that don’t emit
greenhouse gasses, such as wind or solar power.
First, you can go to one of the group’s websites and calculate
your carbon footprint. That’s all the carbon dioxide you produce
by driving, flying, and so on, in a year. North Americans have
especially big footprints.
The companies assign a price per ton of carbon that’s emitted.
You can decide how much of your carbon-emitting you want to
balance out. Then you type in your credit card number and voila… no more guilt.
Well, that’s the idea anyway.
But what if you buy a carbon offset
but you don’t change your behavior? If you keep driving and
flying and using electricity just as much as before, or maybe
more than before, you’re still a part of the problem.
“You’re absolutely still emitting the carbon. The idea is that
you’re balancing it out through reductions elsewhere.”
Tom Arnold is a cofounder of Terrapass. It’s a carbon offset
company:
“Now this isn’t the optimal solution of course – you should stop
driving. But it’s a good way that we can get you involved in the
dialogue and help you reduce emissions somewhere else.”
And you can get a little sticker for your car to show you’re in
the offsetting club. But Tom Arnold admits there aren’t a whole
lot of drivers of huge SUVs buying offsets.
“We have this nice little SUV sticker – it’s pretty expensive and
a horrible seller. Most of our members already drive passenger
cars, very efficient cars. They’re just looking for a tool to
balance the rest of their impact out to zero.”
Erasing your carbon footprint sounds pretty positive, but there
are quite a few critics of the carbon offset industry. They
point out there aren’t any agreed-on standards for what an offset
is, and prices are all over the map. So it’s not always clear
what you’re getting for your money.
Mark Trexler is president of Trexler Climate and Energy Services.
He’s a consultant who reviews the groups selling carbon offsets.
He says you do have to ask questions about what you’re buying:
“Am I putting my money into something that wouldn’t have happened
anyway? Because if somebody would’ve built that windmill anyway
or if they would’ve done whatever it is you’re putting money into
anyway, you’re really not rendering yourself climate neutral.”
Trexler says there are certification programs in the works so
consumers can know more about what they’re buying. But the people
who are buying offsets now say it feels like they’re making a
difference.
Kate Madigan bought offsets. She started thinking about it when
she was awake at night worrying about the world her new baby
would live in:
“Some people say oh, global warming, it’s going to change the
world in 100 years, but I’ll be gone by then. But I think that’s
a horrible way to look at things because we’re leaving the world
to a lot of people that we love.”
Madigan says she doesn’t think carbon offsets alone will really
solve the problem. She says she thinks it’ll take a lot of
harder choices too, like driving less and using less electricity.
Supporters say that’s the real power of offsets. It’s getting
people to talk about the role they play in global warming.
A baby slender loris, native to Sri Lanka. It has excellent night vision. (Photo courtesy of Zoological Society of London)
The pygmy hippopotamus is native to West Africa. (Photo courtesy of Zoological Society of London)
The Bactrian camel. Only a few fragmented populations in northwest China and southwest Mongolia remain. (Photo courtesy of Zoological Society of London)
The aye-aye, the world's largest nocturnal primate. It's found only in Madagascar. (Photo courtesy of Zoological Society of London)
Scientists at the London Zoo have launched an effort to save some of the oddest animals on Earth. Rebecca
Williams reports most of them aren’t well-protected:
Transcript
Scientists at the London Zoo have launched an effort to save some of the oddest animals on Earth. Rebecca
Williams reports most of them aren’t well-protected:
We all know about rhinos and pandas, But there’s also the hairy-nosed wombat, the golden-rumped
elephant shrew and the pygmy hippo. Most of them have faces as strange as their names.
Jonathan Baillie is the project’s lead researcher. He says the animals that made the list are both one of a
kind and on the verge of going extinct.
“The solenodon is a creature that’s like a giant shrew that injects venom into its prey, the long-eared
jerboa’s like a miniature kangaroo that lives in the Gobi Desert, and it has enormous ears. The reason
they’re so different is they represent entire lineages so they have few close relatives and that’s why it’s so
important we conserve them because if they’re gone there’s just nothing like them.”
Baillie says many of the animals are small, and have flown under the radar of other conservation efforts.
Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
About thirty scientists and religious leaders have teamed up. One of them is Calvin
DeWitt. He’s president of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists. DeWitt
says when the partnership was first discussed last year, he thought there would be tension
between the researchers and the religious community:
“In fact the opposite was found, there was a tremendous concord between the secular
scientific people and the evangelicals. The concord was the agreement that we had to
move forward fully to care for the creation.”
DeWitt says the scientists pushed for using the term “creation,” as a way to include both
people and the rest of the biosphere.
But another group of evangelicals says the partnership creates a false impression of
growing consensus in the religious community about global warming.
