Fish Food for the Soul

Up until the last few years, I didn't have to worry about where my fish came from because I didn't eat them. My recent affinity for our underwater friends has made me think more deeply about the sustainability, or lack thereof, of the fishing industry. In the last 50 years, poor fishing practices have caused an incredible decline in fish abundance. As a result, the industry actually earns $50 billion/yr less less than it could. Our lack of foresight endangers the future of big fish, particularly those that are difficult to farm.

"The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.” - Dr. Daniel Pauly

It's up to us to make the right consumer choices. Instead of eating Atlantic bluefin tuna whose population has been reduced 90% since the 70's, masticate on some yellowfin/blackfin tuna, albacore, or wahoo (that's what you'll be saying when you try it). Replace Chilean sea bass (fishing of which threatens many other species) with Alaskan sablefish, aka black cod.  Farm-raised shrimp and sturgeon are great alternatives to their wild counterparts. For more subs to popular seafood, check this out.  Below are some notes to guide your seafood/sushi decisions.

Thanks to Greenpeace's supermarket seafood sustainability scorecard, Target was honored for their eco-consciousness, and retailers like Trader Joe's and Costco were motivated to increase the sustainability of their stocks.

Sustainable Seafood Guidelines (courtesy of the Monteray Bay Aquarium). Download regional pocket guides here.

Sustainable Sushi Guidelines

Damned Dams

Dams have been supplying water and controlling floods for hundreds of years. But what happens with they fail?

In 1889, the Johnstown dam in Pennsylvania broke, killing over 2,200 people. Above is an illustration of the break and a picture of the devastation. Currently, roughly 5% (or 4,400) of dams in the US are considered safety hazards.  Fixing these dams would cost billions of dollars, money that we don't have. Therefore, in order to deal with these comprised dams, officials have reduced holding levels and developed evacuation plans.. After the Gulf oil spill, I'm not convinced these interim measures are enough. A huge unexpected storm (the result of climate change, of course) could open the floodgates.

From an environmental standpoint, the construction of dams was a horrible idea. They disturb essential habitat and block paths for fish like salmon, which swim up river to reproduce. They disrupt natural erosion and sedimentation cycles, destroy wetlands, and alter temperature regimes.

However, dams made place for cities to flourish, and if they were to break, thousands of lives would be at risk. Also, the billions of gallons of water released from a break would not only carry an enormous amount of debris and sediment but also accumulated lead, mercury,  PCBs, nitrogen, and (guess what.) invasive species. The environmental consequences could be devastating to areas downstream, and a return to the ecosystems of old may be impossible. However, it has been shown that dam removal can help restore wetlands, temperatures, and salmon pathways.

So, do we remove the dams? Do we wait for something to happen? Or, do we fix them?

Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag...Ready to Start Again?

going with the green chem theme. (Thanks Rosh!)

A Pipette Tip Has the Lifespan of a Mayfly

Pipette tips in stunning blue

I recently purchased a 1000 bag of pipette tips, the disposable plastic tips to micropipettes. They're one use only. In order to make 25 standard solutions, I can use upwards of 50 of these little guys. Multiply that by years of lab work by millions of people around the world and what do you get? A crapload of oil-based plastic waste that's either landfilled or worse, sent to an incinerator as hazardous waste. In some cases, these tips are sterilized before use, which requires high temperatures and even more petroleum.

The case of the poor pipette tip brings me to question the wastefulness of science research in general. The concept of green chemistry implores engineers and chemists to design more sustainable processes. However, the research required to establish these processes is wasteful in and of itself. The term "environmental researcher" is an oxymoron. We're hypocrites. We use chemicals derived from petroleum, metals that have been mined, and one-use vials and test tubes: all of which are delivered in excessively padded boxes 4 sizes too large.

An issue with university research, in particular, is that students are constantly moving into and out of labs. What happens to the leftover chemicals? They sit in cabinets until some curious person sees that the faded brown label sporting an expiry date from 10 years ago. My first thought, whenever I see one of those bottles, is that I'm going to die, either from the fumes or from an explosion. "RIP Ritu Gopal: young life taken by poorly inventoried lab cabinet." Why do these chemicals sit around for so long? One reason is that no one needed them. Another is that unless someone's lab is well inventoried, supplies can be forgotten and the items repurchased, creating a surplus of various glassware and chemicals.

With the exception of forgotten materials, the biggest reasons for wastefulness in research are safety and accuracy. The question is, where can we make the compromises? Safety is priority #1 and always will be, and there's no point to research if the results aren't valid. What do you think are some ways to safely reduce our waste? Is it possible?

Here are some resources I found. The search didn't turn up much:
MIT's list of green suppliers
Basic advice for greening your lab
From a wider perspective

If you have access to NU VPN or a subscription to Science, definitely check this out: This Man Wants to Green Your Lab

Thanks Brooke for giving me the idea to vent my frustration.

Eyes are Opening to the Potential of Sludge

Sludge from wastewater treatment plants is often dried and landfilled. But why? It's carbon rich. It's nutrient rich. It holds endless possibility. Finally, New York City is giving it a chance.

By allowing acetogenic and methanogenic microbes to digest the sludge, biogas (methane+CO2) is produced

What are some things sludge is good for?

FERTILIZER: sludge has high levels of nitrates, phosphates, and sulfates, which are essential for crop growth. Billions of dollars are spent on these types of fertilizers every year. Note: Direct application of sludge to fields can cause contamination of ground and surface waters.

ENERGY: Through anaerobic digestion (see diagram), sludge can be converted to methane gas. Energy can also be obtained by incineration.

ALGAE/BACTERIA: Biological mechanisms of obtaining useful products, such as energy, often require the nutrients that sludge provides.