The Past and Future of Bioremediation

This is a general informative paper on the topic of bioremediation.

---

The Earth’s biomass is said to be composed of sixty percent bacteria,# meaning that more than half of the total weight of living organisms on this planet is comprised of individual organisms that are so small that they cannot be seen by the naked eye without the use of a microscope. To put this into perspective, one bacterium weighs approximately 0.00000000001 grams. Approximately 1.2 million species of bacteria are known to exist, and it is estimated that more than five million are in existence.# What is even more impressive than their sheer numbers is their ability to adapt and roles in various biological functions and chemical processes. Bacteria are more than just “germs,” but rather they hold quite an important position in the ecology and health of this world. They are found in almost all types of environments on Earth, from deep-sea thermal vents to, deep inside solid rock, to the cooling jackets of nuclear reactors.# Humans have harnessed the abilities of these organisms for pest control, agricultural purposes, antibiotics, and more.


Microorganisms like bacteria are indubitably important in the functioning of the natural world. In fact, in the past century, researchers and scientists have realized that they might be the key to undoing some of humans’ errors pertaining to the environment. They have been harnessing the abilities of bacteria to treat environments contaminated with a variety of organic and inorganic compounds in a technology called bioremediation. A great multitude of bacteria of this world have boundless potential in cleaning pollutants in many different contaminated environments, and this technology should be supported and utilized whenever possible, as it is a safer alternative than other methods used for waste disposal and site cleanup.


Bioremediation in defined by experts in the field, Barry King, Gilbert Long, and John Sheldon, as a “treatability technology that uses biological activity to reduce the concentration or toxicity of a pollutant. It commonly uses processes by which microorganisms transform or degrade chemicals in the environment.”# Basically, this technology utilizes various microorganisms like bacteria to clean up toxins in the environment. Bacteria and other organisms like fungi or plants are capable of degrading a great number of organic pollutants and can be used strategically to decontaminate water systems, the soil, and so on.


The idea behind bioremediation is simple enough: the activities of living organisms are used to clean up contaminations in the environment. This, in fact, is a naturally occurring process, but bioremediation stimulates or speeds up the process. Microorganisms that already exist in nature degrade various types of waste, but they need nutrients, carbon, and energy to survive and multiply, just like all living creatures.# Where the environmental pollutants are harmful to human beings and other fellow eukaryotes great and small, these prokaryotes are capable of breaking down specified organic contaminants to obtain food and energy. Typically, the pollutants are degraded into less harmful or harmless substances such as salts, gases like carbon dioxide, and water.5 Microorganisms are either introduced to or cultured in the polluted site, and potential waste clean ups include petroleum, arsenic, chlorinated compounds,# lube oils, alcohols, fuels, some solvents, simple and moderately complex organics, nitrogen- and oxygen-substituted compounds,7 and potentially more. More research and experimentation could prove fruitful in determining the potential of bioremediation being used for a multitude of other pollutants.


There are three types of strategies used to implement microorganisms and bacteria in a bioremediation project: biostimulation, bioaugmentation, and intrinsic treatment.# Biostimulation becomes an available option when testing shows “the presence of a viable native population or community of specific contaminant-degrading microbes already in the site.”7 This is the least invasive process because indigenous microbes are merely encouraged to grow by means of the ascertaining the proper environment and resources that they optimally live at. The vast majority of bioremediation successes have implemented the stimulation of native microbes. However, when testing shows that the native populations of microorganisms will not likely improve the amount of contaminants at a site, species of microbes are purchased and artificially introduced into the soil and/or water. This process is called bioaugmentation.


The bioaugmentation method has not proven quite as effective as biostimulation because there is no single species that can overcome every pollutant. In other words, there is no one “hero species”7 that is a specific pollutant destructor. Indigenous species have an advantage over introduced organisms because they are already adapted to the environment and food. The new species typically become undetectable within a few days after being introduced. That being said, there have been some successful projects where sites have become quickly remediated through addition of purchased specific degrading microbial products. Certainly there is a lot of potential for advances in this field to make the availability of safe, adapted, or engineered organisms that have viability as well as capability to destroy specific pollutants in the field.#


Finally, intrinsic treatment might be used if biostimulation and bioaugmentation are too expensive, slow, or found not to be viable options. This method allows nature to handle the pollutant in due course. This is an approved remediation strategy that requires “regular monitoring for specific site contaminants, microbial health and numbers, and possibly other parameters as appropriate.”7 This method is often used when cleanup sites require expenditure of tax dollars or the government would rather not pay for it. Of course, if contaminants do not show a steady decline, other methods must be implemented.


Long before environmental processes were regulated, bioremediation was already working towards maintaining public health. In other words, bacteria and other microorganisms have long been at work processing human wastes. Since ancient times when the Romans and others built intricate networks of sewers as early as 600 B.C.,8 microorganisms did the work of biodegradation of organic waste in the collection vats and lagoons that were constructed to prevent system backup and overload. Though the Romans thought this to be some sort of “self-purification,” in reality microscopic organisms that were not yet known to exist at that time metabolized the waste. Modern sewage systems still utilize microbial degradation of wastes.


Various federal cleanup acts in the United States began as early as the late 1800s as hazardous materials in the environment became a growing concern. The first environmental legislation that passed was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.7 The Insecticide Act of 1910, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Water Quality Act of 1965 were some early attempts to directly control pollution. With the passage of the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1962, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, there was finally a means of regulating environmental health. However, after decades of waste dumping, chemical spills, atmospheric pollutants, and various other forms of disregard for the natural world, damage had already been done and still to this day occurs, whether intentionally or not. Preventive and remedial acts were necessary in preserving the delicate landscape.


The 1970s and 1980s marked the beginning of the age of remediation as the environmental future became a fundamental topic. “The realization that terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic resources might, in fact, be finite led some early visionaries to encourage legislation that required cleanup of this ‘mess’ and prophylactic measures to further inhibit degeneration of our natural resources.”# People began to realize that if they wanted their children to have available not only the wonders of but also the resources that the environment offers, they would have to nurture the land back to health and prevent further degradation. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) greatly influenced the regulation of pollution and provided some incentive to properly dispose of wastes. Waste became a liability, and many companies did not want to focus their efforts on their primary business and would rather let qualified consultants and contractors handle waste management, treatment, and disposal. However, the CERCLA requirements for predisposal treatment, there is a term called “Potentially Responsible Party”9 which means that in U.S. industry, “as long as the waste exists, liability persists.”9 This means that if any contaminants from a business cause problems down the road, that company is still held responsible. Because this shadow of continuing liability exists, bioremediation is becoming an attractive means for waste cleanup since contaminants are completely destroyed or detoxified.


Aside from the benefits that contaminants are destroyed or detoxified and liability is eliminated, there are other incentives to use bioremediation as a means of pollution cleanup. According to King, Long, and Sheldon, the other major benefits of this technology include attractive economics, as bioremediation is often more cost effective than traditional waste disposal methods and jobs are created in the process; undisturbed environments with some methods of application; and it is universal, meaning that is can often treat water, soil, sludges, and air.# Though bioremediation is not right for every pollutant situation, when it is a plausible form of decontamination, it does great things.


The people opposed to bioremediation projects are generally uneducated about all the facts, likening the process to something from a science fiction novel hearing and nothing of the many successful remediation projects. The fact that bacteria are applied to these sites alarms some people because they think bacteria are scary.10 Many people associate bacteria with disease and sickness, but the truth of the matter is that bacteria are everywhere, and though pathogenic species do exist, thousands of different kinds live among and inside humans symbiotically as well. To put it into perspective, “There are ten times more microbial cells on or in the human body than there are cells making up the body” (Black 404). This means that there are more foreign cells on our person than makes up our person! This reinforces the idea that bacteria are not the scary “germs” that some people associate them with. Certainly they can do great things, both to the detriment and to the benefit of the human population. Bioremediation is one way to harness this power in a positive light.


Others cannot agree with the process of introducing foreign organisms into places they were never meant to be. While it is true that humans have destroyed entire ecosystems by carelessly introducing species to a foreign environment—the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, for example—the species of bacteria that are introduced in bioremediation projects are not quite so invasive, if non-indigenous species are even used at all. “After addition, these introduced microbes often rapidly decrease in number and can become undetectable within a few days.”# Introduced bacteria tend not to remain at the site once treatments are completely through. As a general rule of thumb, people should not mess with Mother Nature, but in bioremediation people are attempting to work with the Earth for mutual benefits. It really is nature’s way to a cleaner environment.


Finally, if the ethical aspect of bioremediation is not disputed, the economical benefits are. Some argue without basis that it is not cost effective or cost efficient. While it is true that bioremediation is not an overnight fix, it can potentially save a large percentage of the cost of some other treatment technology in the long run. There is always a risk in trying any procedure, but “the most that can be at stake if bioremediation proves ineffective is possibly two months of time and several thousand dollars in expense.”11 However, if it does prove successful for a particular site, it is drastically more economical than standard procedures, if money is what is important. At the very least, bioremediation should at least be considered if microbe-degradable contaminants are present.


One relatively recent bioremediation project from 1994 to 1995 involved the cleanup of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with fuel oil, a liquid petroleum product.12 At a central California winery, a former underground storage tank held fuel oil that was used in the boiler operation at the winery. Over time, the fuel oil leaked through the wooden storage tank and accumulated in the surrounding soil. The site was a potential candidate for bacterial remediation, and so the soil was "excavated, removed, and spread out on an adjacent four-acre field."12 The case study does not specify why it had to have been transported. Twelve treatment cells were marked and constructed, presumably to test and compare different variables. After this, a series of soil sampling and chemical analysis determined the initial petroleum-hydrocarbon concentration, pH, and moisture content. Just as in science experiments, without this initial data collection, the success of the project could not be determined. After all the preliminary tests were finished, products consisting of vitamins, minerals, bioenhancement liquid nutrients, and other compounds were added to a 4,000 gallon water truck, along with "naturally occurring hydrocarbon digesting microorganisms.”# This mixture of supplements and organisms was then evenly applied to the treatment cells. This procedure was repeated three times over the summer season. Intermittent soil mixing and aeration occurred, along with additional water added to the twelve cells to maintain a reasonable moisture content. After these months of treatment, the soil was again sampled and analyzed, and the results are proof of the success of this particular bioremediation project. "After one month of treatment and prior to the second scheduled treatment.... the petroleum hydrocarbon concentration in the cells ranged from 940 to 2,600 mg/kg with an average of 1,820 mg/kg, or a 43% reduction."12 Only a month into the project and nearly half of the pollutants had already been degraded. After eleven months, chemical analysis indicated that the total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration was reduced from upwards to 4,550 parts per million to 125 parts per million. The target level for closure was 100 parts per million. Regulatory agencies granted closure to the site after further testing and results indicated that the concentrations no longer posed a threat to human health or the environment.#


In this case study, the soil was cleansed, but biological remediates have the potential to detoxify unwanted contaminants in the atmosphere, rivers, streams, and the ocean as well. Just recently in the spring and summer of 2010, bioremediates helped to clean up one of the largest accidental marine oil spills in the history of the petroleum industry.# They proved to be more effective than the chemical dispersants ejected into the oil and gas from BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and markedly less obtrusive. Because of microorganisms’ impressive abilities to digest that which humans cannot otherwise decompose, ecologists are examining the abilities of a number of prokaryotes to carry out bioremediation of various environments.# Scientists have already sequenced the genomes of at least seven different prokaryotic species, including one bacterium that is of particular interest; Shewanella oneidensis can metabolize more than ten elements in the presence and absence of oxygen. For example, it can convert soluble uranium, chromium, and nitrogen into insoluble forms that are less likely to leach into streams or groundwater. These are exciting studies and should be further endorsed. Bioremediation is not only a viable means to clean pollutants, but it also is the most harmonious way to involve ourselves in the purifying of our land.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andelin, John, and Robert W. Niblock. Bioremediation for Marine Oil Spills. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.
Arent, Lindsey. "Pollution Cleanup Goes to Waste." 1999. Wired Science. 22 February 2012. .
Arujanan, Mahaletchumy, and Tan Jung Ye. Bioremediation: Nature's Way to a Cleaner Environment. Selangor, Malaysia: MABIC, 2005.
"Bioremediation." 2011. USGS: Science For A Changing World. 21 February 2012. .
Black, Jacquelyn G. Microbiology: Principles and Exploration. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2008.
Burger, Joanna, ed. Before and After an Oil Spill: The Arthur Kill. New York: Rutgers University Press, 1994.
Chapelle, F.H. "Bioremediation: Nature's Way to a Cleaner Environment." 1997. United States Geological Survey. 22 February 2012. .
Damschen, Donald E., Dr. Lee Chee Chow, Xie Rongjing, and Christine P.C. Lim. "Bioremediation Technologies for Decontamination of Chlorinated Organics and Petroleum-Impacted Sites." 2007. Advanced Biotech. 22 February 2012. http://www.adbio.com/biorem/abstract.htm.
Campbell, Neil A. and Jane B. Reece. Biology, 8th Ed. California: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008.
Gartner, John. "Oil Eaters Slurp Up Spills." 2004. Wired Science. 22 February 2012. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/12/66017.
"Environmental Tech." Modern Marvels, The History Channel. 2 February 2007.
Farabee, M.J. “Biological Diversity: Bacteria and Archaeans.” 2010. Maricopa Education. 20 March 2012. http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/ biobookdiversity_2.html
Fingerman, Milton and Rachakonda Nagabhushanam, eds. Bioremediation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems. New Hampshire: Science Publishers, 2005.
King, Barry, Gilbert M. Long, and John K. Sheldon. Practical Environmental Bioremediation: The Field Guide. Florida: CRC Press LLC, 1998.
U.S. EPA. April 2011. A Citizen's Guide to Bioremediation [Brochure].

The Law of Unintended Consequences: GM-Foods

The law of unintended consequences states that the “actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended,” as defined by professor at Columbia University, Rob Norton (2008). In other words, every deed done for an intended result will elicit some kind of inadvertent and unexpected influence elsewhere. What seems harmless or even beneficial can ultimately be destructive in some way or another. One such seemingly positive development is that of genetic engineering. This technology has made considerable progress in enhancing food crops, resulting in increased productivity in the hopes of providing more sustenance for living beings. However, though introducing genetically modified organisms—or GMOs—into the global ecosystem may or may not fulfill the expectations of feeding the growing human population, it also runs the risk of falling victim to the law of unintended consequences. Even though some altered products are already on the market, more studies need to be funded and published before these foods are made further available for human consumption.

           

A brochure outlining the matter issued in 2001 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines genetic engineering as “the manipulation of an organism’s genetic endowment by introducing or eliminating specific genes through modern molecular biology techniques” (1). Scientists have the ability to transform and engineer the DNA of organisms to suit an intended purpose by splicing DNA from one species into a targeted species, whether it be to make an organism bigger, tougher, fatter, or sweeter, etc. The technology has successfully altered cat DNA so that felines fluoresce, changed goat DNA so that they can produce spider web silk in their milk, and scientists have even produced venomous cabbage that expresses scorpion poison genes (Moss MNN). Though it sounds like the premise of a science fiction novel, or is redolent of the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, this science has taken off and a handful of genetically modified organisms are readily available to consumers, with many more GMOs currently in production.

           

Though it might seem like scientists are merely playing games in the laboratory, testing the limits of human ability as they stretch the bounds of genetic manipulation—almost as if they are playing god, in essence—this technology goes beyond basic human curiosity and fascination. The total world population has surpassed 7 billion people, and that number is projected to double in the next fifty years or so. With all those mouths to feed, supplying adequate nutrition will indubitably prove to be a major challenge. GM foods could theoretically be the answer to a potential worldwide food crisis. According to Deborah Whitman who attended an FDA open meeting that outlined the issues involved with GMO, the benefits of GM foods are such that they could meet the need of food in this growing population. She reports that some key advantages to GMO over normal crops are increased herbicide tolerance, pest and disease resistance, cold and drought tolerance, and tolerance to greater salinities (2). GMOs are being developed to survive and thrive in adverse conditions, so they could overcome inclement weather, pesky pests, and potentially even grow year round. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirms the right that human beings have to adequate food, specifically that there be an “availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances” (qtd in FAO). In other words, as a basic necessity of life, all humans should have at least enough food and nutrients to sustain healthy living. Therein lies the overarching problem; the codicil that specifies that the food must be free from adverse substances amends the statement. Not only do all people deserve access to plenty of food, the food must be at a particular standard. As of yet, there are very few published studies done on animals pertaining to GMOs, and published research on human studies is virtually non-existent. In other words, there is absolutely no definitive way of knowing for sure what kinds of long-term or short-term effects GMOs have on humans. GM food will not be the answer for any food crisis problems if it causes mutations, disease, allergies, or other unfavorable effects. It may very well be an adverse substance that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights specifically mentions.

           

According to the FAO brochure, GM corn and soybeans that have been modified to resist insects and/or herbicides are available for public consumption (11). Today, 45 percent of U.S. corn and 85 percent of U.S. soybeans are genetically altered. Because of the enormous subsidies put on corn and soy, there is a huge surplus on these crops. In turn, some form of these foods can be found in almost any kind of processed food, from tomato sauce to cereal to fruit juice. Around 70 to 75 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients (Young). In other words, GMO foods are already prevalent in the public market. 

           

So why is the matter of genetically modified organisms even an issue? If people are already exposed to these products, why not continue advancing this technology, manipulating organisms to meet humans’ own needs and desires? To answer these questions, one must consider the law of unintended consequences. Not even bearing in mind the environmental, agricultural, or ethical implications that might possibly arise with the drastic manipulation of an organisms’ genetic code, there will in all likelihood be some kind of effect on the human body with exposure to these GMOs, at least if the few animal tests published are any indication. In an article titled “Genetically Modified Foods,” Doctor Steve Windley states that “there is research to say that GMO foods negatively affect the immune system and inflammation in animal studies” (1). One example of published research that supports the claim that GMO has proven to have ill effects on animal health was Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s study concerning GMO potatoes. His work showed that exposure to these modified potatoes led to a greater prevalence of damage to the intestinal tracts of rats with other changes to the liver, brain, and testicles compared to rats that were fed unmodified potatoes (Windley 2). The unintended consequence of the GM potatoes was the negative impact on the rats’ health; what was meant to be nourishment turned out to be quite toxic. If there is a definite correlation between GM foods with negative animal health, there is likely one between GMO and human health.          

           

The validity of Dr. Pusztai’s study has been put into question and publicly attacked by critics. Supposedly, the potatoes in question were modified only to test the methodology and were never meant for human or animal consumption (Whitman 7). Still, the study should raise red flags in the scientific community and stimulate further research. Even if the results were inconclusive, the fact that a GM product triggered a negative response from a live specimen provides a clue that perhaps the technology is flawed. Doctor Windley appears to be very tentative about making GMOs available for human consumption. In his article, he poses a number of questions that scientists could explore and consumers might consider: “Can the bacteria and viruses used to alter the DNA in these plants also affect the bacteria in our gut? …. Will the bacteria our guts take in start making its own pesticide in our GI tract? Will these plants start making a totally new protein that is indigestible or harmful to us?” (1). The list of every possible effect is endless. There are so many conceivable concerns to reflect upon and ponder before genetically modified foods can possibly be considered as safe, with no adverse effects. In other words, many of these questions are testable and should therefore be investigated since it directly relates to individuals’ health.

           

People are basically acting as human guinea pigs on a worldwide experiment testing the effects of GMO on human health. In reality, this global experiment should actually be held in a science laboratory. If GMO is to be considered a viable solution for a potential hunger crisis, scientists must be funded in order that they can respond to the plentiful questions surrounding genetically modified organisms and human health. Altering the genetic material of any organism is no small affair; it is like changing the very identity of the phylogenetic kingdom it belongs to. Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein overstepped the bounds of science in becoming the creator of a being that never should have lived, and scientists must be weary not to overstep their bounds. This technology can never be justified if the GMOs become the equivalent to Frankenstein’s monster—though it desired to do good, it left a trail of horror and foreboding in its wake. Manipulating the natural biological laws of the world is risky, even if it is supposedly intended for a purpose of good. We must be wary of a technology that has effects not backed by scientific method. The law of unintended consequences will punish those who do not consider the whole picture, and it will even go further to punish those who do and those who are oblivious to the matter. Ignorance is no alibi in the court of the natural law. GM technology is a lucrative business and may appear to be a promising solution to the impending food crisis at hand, but without the backing of accredited scientific research, there is no justification in feeding genetically modified foods to the populace. Genetically altering foods and animals may seem like a brilliant idea now, but we should not turn a blind eye to the potential unintended consequences it could have.

Works Cited

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment. Rome, 2001. Online.

Moss, Laura. “12 Bizarre Examples of Genetic Engineering.” Mother Nature Network: Improve Your World. 2012. Green Technology Research and Innovations. 7 May 2012.

Rob Norton. "Unintended Consequences." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. 1 May 2012 .

Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful.” CSA Discovery Guides. April 2000. Community Sustained Agriculture.

Windley, Steve, MD. “Genetically Modified Foods.” Pure Health MD. 2008. Pure Health Corporation. < www.PureHealthMD.com>

Young, Saundra. “Safety of genetically engineered salmon debated.” CNNHealth. 2010. CNN. 15 May 2012

mon/index.html>

Earth’s Most Precious Resource: Water

This is an essay outlining some worldwide water issues that I wrote after watching a documentary called Flow. Mostly, I just can't stand to see my last post and needed to something new on here... 

--

If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water, wrote the American philosopher and literary naturalist Loren Eiseley in 1957—and certainly water has a certain mystical power about it in this world we live in. Nothing evokes the same kind of intense emotion as does the sublimity of a waterfall in spring cascading down a towering rock face, or the rippling reflection of the sunset on the pulsating ocean water. Practitioners of various diverse religions elevate water to something that is sacred and an integral part of various important ceremonies, from the water baptisms of Christian denominations that are said to wash away sin and cleanse the spirit, to the Asthi Visarjan ceremony that the Hindu practice where they spread the remains of deceased loved ones into the holy Ganges river, or the ancient Mayan people who believed that natural wells led to the underworld (Stanmeyer 80). Water blesses our lives.

           

The human fascination with water is beyond skin deep; we have a connection to water that begins at the core of our very being. Just as the Earth is composed of approximately two-thirds water, so too is the human body (Kingsolver 44). From the moment we break free from our mothers' wombs in the fluid-filled amniotic sac to the day the rains wash away our remains and return us to the soil, water is relevant for the duration of life. It not only nourishes us, keeps our cells alive, and hydrates our parched lips from day to day, but it also is used recreationally, economically, and religiously, as previously mentioned. It cleans, sanitizes, and renews vigor. Nothing compares to the satisfaction of a long, hot shower after going a few days too long without one. With so much water covering the world, people tend to use water as if it there is a never-ending supply of it. Unfortunately, this is just simply not the case.

           

For such a simple chemical compound, water certainly inspires tremendous attention, and this is because it completely drives the biological world. Two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen make a molecule that turns out to be the fundamental key to Earth's fitness for life, a composition so vital to survival that every life form is dependent on the chemical. Any basic chemistry class will cover materials that illustrate the unique properties of water, going into detail about its extremely polar nature and capacity to perform strong hydrogen bonding (Campbell 47). This is the very reason that water is dubbed the “universal solvent.” Water has a high specific heat, allowing a relatively stable temperature enabling life to live in aquatic and marine environments. Cohesion and adhesion allow plant life to transport water and dissolved minerals from the ground and carry it against gravity to quench every leaf and limb above the ground (Campbell 47). Even without understanding the basic chemistry behind the molecule, one can determine the remarkable qualities of water through mindful observation. What other common substance exists in the natural environment in all three physical states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas? Water is fog, ice, rain, sleet; it is the lake we swim in, the snow we ski down, the glaciers we marvel at, and the steam we breathe in as we boil a stew on the stovetop. Water is all around us, and the abundance of water is what makes Earth habitable. However, its abundance also makes it very susceptible for overexploitation.

           

Though it may seem like water is an infinite resource, the truth of the matter is that only about 2.53 percent of Earth’s water is fresh (Ehrenman 1), and of that 2.53 percent, nearly two-thirds of that is unavailable for use because it is locked up in the form of glaciers and permanent snow cover (Royte 174). The remaining 0.85 percent suffers from pollution and mismanagement, meaning that the approximately seven billion people of the world (not to mention the trillions of other organisms who reside with us) subsist on a relatively small amount of fresh water overall. So how is it that despite such a limited supply the world possesses of drinkable water, pollutants like industrial trash, chemicals, human waste, fertilizers, pesticides, and so on consistently make their way to our freshwater supplies? Only human carelessness can cause this needless effluence of contaminants. According to the World Water Development Report, there are estimates that “some 2 million tons of waste per day are disposed of within waters” (Ehrenman 2). Two million tons signifies an incredible amount of toxins exposed to the water we drink, and that means that a large percentage of populations that lack an improved water supply depend upon a polluted water source. In turn, millions die from water sanitation-associated diseases annually.

           

Why is clean water so scarce after so many millennia of it feeding the biological world? The same water has been recycled in our atmosphere for millions of years, so any given glass of water we drink could have hypothetically at one point been a part of the blood composition that coursed the reptilian body of a stegosaurus millions of years ago. Water is ancient and has fed the Earth for a long time. Along with the pollution, overuse and drought deplete some water systems to the verge of exhaustion in many places. More than that, clean drinking water is used like it is as free as air. And it virtually is in places like the United States. According to Cynthia Barnett of UTNE magazine, "our water is so subsidized that many Americans pay less than a tenth of a penny for clean freshwater delivered right into our homes" (Barnett 2). Water is inarguably even more precious than petroleum, but we spend nearly nothing on it compared to the nearly four dollars per gallon we pay for gas. In a way, this is how it should be; water is one of the basic necessities of life, and therefore people should have ready access to clean water. Unfortunately, the low cost equates to low priority for the masses.  It makes it easy to take water for granted. People think nothing of dumping gallons of water on their lawn, running the washing machine, or flushing the toilet. Backyard pools eat water like kids eat candy, and there is even more water loss because according to an article in National Geographic Magazine, “U.S. swimming pools lose 150 billion gallons to evaporation every year” (Garrett 150). Pools are by no means a necessity of life, but people have become accustomed to this certain lifestyle. Cynthia Barnett, author of “Blue Revolution,” illustrates this indifferent attitude when remarking on the continued use of water when it was scarce. She says that "even when drought conditions cut federal water deliveries to California farmers, Granite Bay residents continued to consume water as if it were as plentiful as air" (Barnett 1). At a time when farmers—the people who make food for the masses and could benefit everyone with water usage—when they are limited in water supply, the affluent enjoys the vanities of life.

           

The quest for the perfectly green lawn is another prime example of the frivolity of human beings. Grass is carefully sown, fertilized, and nurtured, then trimmed, manicured, and mown, often several times a week. It is said that maintaining grass uses up more water than any other crop in America, including grain, corn, soy, et cetera. Golf courses are a mode of needless water-waste. For example, in Florida, “3,000 gallons are used to water the grass for each golf game played” (Garrett 150). The cost per game per person of water is outrageous. Why strive for a green lawn in an environment where it cannot grow naturally? It would make more sense to ornament a lawn with local fauna for the landscaping, but people want what they are used to. That mentality has to change before we can work on a solution.

           

According to Peter Gleick president of the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan environmental think tank, there are two paths we can take to solve the water problems. It seems we could pursue the hard-path solutions which “focus almost exclusively on ways to develop new supplies of water, such as supersized dams, aqueducts, and pipelines that deliver water over huge distances” (Royte 173), but Gleick and others agree that less drastic solutions are at hand. The soft path is “a comprehensive approach that includes conservation and efficiency, community-scale infrastructure, protection of aquatic ecosystems, management at the level of watersheds instead of political boundaries, and smart economics” (Royte 173). The latter seems like a very simple solution, but unfortunately it necessitates that individuals sacrifice a handful of life luxuries. Hypothetically, this method requires small changes and relatively very little effort. One effort in Albuquerque, New Mexico has already begun a water revolution, where “a growing number of residents and building owners funnel rainwater into barrels and underground cisterns” (Royte 173). Most everyone in the city uses low-flow toilets and showerheads, and greater water recycling methods. Realistically, many people will rebel at the idea of foregoing twenty-minute showers, luscious green lawns, and other desirable nonessentials. These sacrifices really do make a difference though. As an example, in Albuquerque, such water saving efforts as these have reduced the domestic per capita water use from 140 gallons a day to around eighty since the mid-eighties (Royte 173).  Small changes can have a big impact.

           

There are regions all over the planet where people fight over water as if it were gold. In response to the growing water crisis, some corporations are beginning to take advantage of a situation that is desperate in many regions of the world. In theory, water privatization appears to be a great solution to a mounting problem. Private firms would deliver an infrastructure that would better regulate water management than would the government because it would be “more efficient, effective, and equal” (123), according to Mingqian Li in an article from Asian Social Science called “Walking on the Tightrope”—Can Water TNC Tackle Drinking Water Crisis in Developing Countries. There would be an emphasis on providing drinking water for the low income group, but there would have to be a balance found because “there is a risk that privatization activities are often characterized by focusing on short-term economic gains without thinking of social justice and human rights protection (Li 123). In other words, it all comes down to money, as always. According to Li, “from an economic perspective, it can be viewed as private goods with a significant profit" (123). People will always need water, so water privatization would be a lucrative and secure business. However, where there is money to be made, that will often come first before doing the right thing—i.e. allowing people to have access to a basic necessity of life. Especially when large corporations are involved, corruption is almost expected. Corporate authorities do not have to interact with the people directly, and therefore it is easy to forget humanity.

           

If water is potentially in peril, we must nurture it back to health. Rather than marking water as property or a birthright, we should let Ecuador be an example when it comes to interactions with the environment. It has become “the first nation on Earth to put the rights of nature in its constitution so that rivers and forests are not simply property but maintain their own right to flourish” (Kingsolver 49). This means that just as people have the right to be free from intentional harm, so too does the environment. Under these environmental laws in Ecuador, citizens may file suits on behalf of an injured watershed because its health is ultimately crucial to the common good. We live on a planet that is home to billions of human beings, and this is our house in the vast solar system. As respectful tenants of Earth we have a responsibility to maintain the upkeep of our home. We should not let the situation become desperate before taking action. As Benjamin Franklin mused, when the well is dry, we know the worth of water. We should appreciate its worth even when it is plenty. No water, no life. Period.

Works Cited

Barnett, Cynthia. Wet Dreams: Water Consumption in America. March/April 2012.

Campbell, Neil A. and Jane B. Reece. Biology, 8th Ed. California: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. 46-52.

Eiseley, Loren. The Immense Journey. New York: Random House, 1957.

Kingsolver, Barbara. “Fresh Water.” National Geographic April 2010: 37-49.

Li, Mingqian. "'Walking on the Tightrope'--Can Water TNC Tackle Drinking Water Crisis in Developing Countries." Asian Social Science May 2011: 122-31.

Royte, Elizabeth. “The Last Drop.” National Geographic April 2010: 172-6. 

Stanmeyer, John. "Sacred Waters." National Geographic April 2010: 80-95. Magazine.

Northwest Washington Hikes: Damfino Lakes

Do you know the wonders of the northwest? Have you visited every nook and cranny of the rolling foothills of Mount Baker, the lush forests and rocky beaches, and everything in between?

Well, neither have I.

There are so many places to explore, and though it is quite impossible, I look forward to discovering every single one.


However, this has been a summer of very little hiking and camping. Blasphemy, I say! Between work and attending nursing assistant classes, house-sitting and taking care of critters, there seems to have been little time to take a few days off to enjoy one of my favorite activities in the world.

So I finally set some time aside for a lovely escapade in the mountains. Thank god.


Three friends and I, as well as two adventure woofs took off on a beautiful, sunny afternoon, sleeping bags and lots of snacks in stow. Damfino Lakes and beyond was the destination. On the drive, I sang Beatles songs and the two guys debated about Dungeons & Dragons. This topic would be a common occurrence during the trip.

"...and the vampire would call his minions to do his bidding"
"What is the likelihood that a Mindflayer could..."

The air is so clean out in the wilderness. Intoxicating.


The trail began with a steady uphill path, enveloped in green vegetation. About .7 miles in you have the option of going left to (Canyon Ridge Trail), but we stayed to the right towards Damfino Lakes. The trail is well marked.

We saw several groups of people, as it is a very popular trail. All were friendly and adored Clif and Sophie, the two dogs leading the way.*

A mile in are Damfino Lakes, which for some reason I imagined as higher up and made up of glacier water. Not so. My friends and I were keen on the idea of jumping into that glacier lake in our nudey pants in the evening, a dreadful tradition we happily uphold. However, a lovely pond-like lake is what we found. Watch out for skeeters!


Lovely wildflowers spotted the overwhelming greenness.**



Also, this is one of my favorite colors:


The vibrant green against a vivid blue... Ah! So beautiful. The path crosses a vast meadow on the side of a mountain. You'll see the first views of what I believe is Church Mountain and other smaller peaks. This path was punctuated with remarks like "I wish I could cast repel vermin" or perhaps "gust of wind."


The last stretch was an uphill battle, and let me tell you--I was feeling my summer without hikes. The burning in my lungs felt right. How sad is it that I was having issues climbing those stairs? I am ashamed, I tell you. Very ashamed.

These thoughts subsided when we reached the peak of a hill along High Divide trail. Amazing! Three-hundred and sixty degree views of Mount Baker, Mount Shuksan, the Rockies to the north, even Rainier in the distance! This is Lingfei drinking in the surroundings.


That reminds me: This was Lingfei's first camping experience! I wish the bugs hadn't been such a bother, but they were not as bad as they could have been. We decided this was the perfect spot to set up camp, despite the rocky ground. You could not beat the views. Look! Rainier:


Lingfei and I set up the tent as the boys gathered some fallen limbs for a campfire, and then we ate supper in temporary dwelling. Scrambled eggs, grainy toast and cheese, bananas, granola bars, and mango-bean salad was on the menu. Mealtime is always so satisfying when you're camping because you're so hungry that everything tastes delicious. Mmmm.

Woohoo, family portrait!


So we ate, then went to make the fire. Well, honestly the boys did most of that. Let me tell you, Alex makes the best fires, blazing and angry. Beautiful.


Did I mention we went camping on a full moon? No?? There she is rising over Shuksan!


I can't believe I forgot to mention that. The night-sun illuminated the countryside, bright as a bulb. Oh, that's a terrible metaphor. It doesn't do justice. Bright as a... "lustrous shining globe of beauty." I had to ask Alex how to describe it--He did much better. The night intensified his and Chris's imaginations.

Alex: "What would you do if a ..."
Chris: "Probably just ignore it until it went away..."

They're funny.

The four of us slept snugly in our three-man tent, and unfortunately Sophie and Clif had to sleep outside with the insects. Luckily, a slight breeze blew the flies and mosquitos away for the most part.

The sunrise in the morning was as spectacular as the moonrise the night before, and she brought with her a blanket of blue. Pure, intense blue. The downhill hike back to the car took much less time than the way up. Obviously. The dogs took a dip in the lakes. Sophie is the queen of swimming, and Clif always loses on the way to the stick, but they share. It's cute.


I definitely recommend this one. Serene. Easy. Accessible. One more picture!


From Bellingham go east following the Mount Baker highway. Travel 31 miles to the Mount Baker Service Center*** where you can purchase a parking permit (only five dollars), then travel two more miles on the highway turning left on Canyon Creek Road. Follow this well-maintained back road for 16 miles. After the bridge, be sure to stay left at forks in the road. The trailhead is marked and there is a privy.

This is a dog-friendly trail. Don't forget doggy bags!

As always, pack out all wastes.

*Perhaps I am making that up because I am biased--They actually startled several people on the way. Attack dogs!
**Did I mention the northwest is very green? I think I've pointed that out too many times.
***You may want to stop in and fill up on water, use the restrooms, etc.