Environment

I have done masters in engineering studies from Auckland university, NZ in civil and environmental studies. Also done a project on water sample study by auckland city council.

You could do a head-water impact study based on historical water levels including rainfall, flooding impact, total area of marshlands wildlife, flood plain agriculture, water quality and turbidity. Depending on your time frame, chromatographic analysis of constituents of contamination or naturally occurring suspensions based on level, rainfall, flood control measures, surrounding land use (ag, industrial, residential, etc.)

2. Secondary sanitary treatment utilizing artificial cycling mashes has become popular in the US as a solution to high nitrates causing algael blooms. My own observation of these projects is that the TDS and heavy metals have not been completely addressed by the plant species in the marsh and the solids digestion and sludge de-watering. I believe that there is huge potential in further research in this area using natural methodology instead of manufactured filters.
http://www.fratticci.com/varie/epa.pdf
http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/Constructed_Wetlands_all/cwiw.html
http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/094wet.html
http://devplw.library.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/sdi/vbook/browse?type=lcsubc&key=Constructed%20wetlands
http://www.cefns.nau.edu/Projects/WDP/resources/treatmentsyst/Wetland.htm
Because NZ appears to be committed to a bio-friendly economy for soil and water quality, one of these projects would probably even make the wire news if it was to be instituted.

All the best.

There are no environmental issues using solar power is there? None at all?

There are some issues, but it is by far the cleanest possible solution. There are potential pollution issues with some of the chemicals used in the manufacturing process for both the solar cells and batteries. Mining for raw materials almost always adversely affects the environment.

There will be less sunlight hitting the plants and animals in the areas that solar cells are deployed. Although if done properly this shouldn’t be an issue.

The issue is caused by industry and personal choices.
The effects may have major implications for the economy, health care, immigration, disaster relief, and the availability of water, food, and energy.
Deciding how to respond involves decisions on personal and societal mores and values.
The solutions must encompass industrial policy, transportation policy, regional planning, energy policy, international relations and collaboration, and so much more.

Since it’s such an all-encompassing scenario, starts with people and ends with effects on people, and since most of the human scope of the effects are not studied or addressed in the course of environmental science, why does it get tucked away as an "environmental" issue? Most of us see the "environment" as being something outside of "us." Sure, the environment will change along the way, but isn’t the issue far broader and greater, and ultimately more about our choices, and the effects those will have on us?
My guess is that it’s a calculated political move to marginalize support for responses to global warming. Environmentalists embrace it, while everyone else is glad it’s off their plate. Environmentalists can lead the charge tadn the rest of us can wait to see how it turns out. Isn’t that why after 20 years none of the other disciplines is responding (architecture, regional planning, etc)? It’s not their problem.

This is what prompted me to ask the question:

"Disaster preparedness is not an environmental problem." It is a hallmark of environmental rationality to believe that we environmentalists search for "root causes" not "symptoms."

The Death of Environmentalism
Global warming politics in a post-environmental world
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

Maybe we’re all missing the point by arguing about the causes instead of focusing on the responses?

And what if you’re wrong? Then you’re just wasting time and resources.

How do you know it isn’t going to be colder 5 years from now?

I’m doing a speech for school and tried some research but I’m having some trouble finding this. thanks =D

It’s impossible to tell. There’s species of animals on earth right now that haven’t even been discovered yet, there’s no way to tell if something has gone extinct without us even knowing about it.

You may be able to get some numbers on polar bears, try searching on that.

I have a sheesha bar and i open at 7pm every day. I was meant to get a visit from the environmental health service but i do not know if they will come out after 7pm. Is it possible they would pay a visit to my sheesh lounge after 7pm?

Sadly I cannot offer a definitive yes or no to your question. Maybe you’ll get one, but how would you know it was true? Better ring them up, pretend to be somebody else and attempt to glean the info from the source.

With a little luck, they’ll leave you alone. Health regulations today are so excessive, it’s not funny anymore. People know well enough that the system is stupid. They avoid the bad places all by themselves. After all, there would be no penalty if I got a sandwich which tasted of bleach, because that’s supposed to be a good thing, but if your bare hand touches it, I can sue you. Where’s the logic? In India you can get beautiful snacks cooked for you at the side of the road in filthy little stalls, but it makes no difference to the food quality, which is generally tremendously good.

Meanwhile, we have all these allergies because we live in pristine environments with no germs at all, so the slightest thing messes our immune system right up. Go figure.

I’m 26 and have strong grades, I have a bachelors of science degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from UC Davis and a masters of science degree in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University. I currently manage a branch of a small consulting firm in California and have about 7 years of consulting experience and deal with CEQA and Land Use attorneys all the time and constantly unimpressed. I have always thought about going back to law school, but I don’t know if it would be worth it.

If I go back should I go back Full time? Part-time? Night School?

I feel you have a strong belief, want, and a lot of experience to become this type of lawyer. Since law school is 4 years I think, you should go back full time. That way, you’ll get it done sooner.

Hope this helps!

Thinking about taking the two year course in school. How brutally hard is the Math and Science?

You’re tazed bro. Get a job in a factory.

HEY can you help me with this???

—

Keeping in mind that any energy plan for the future of the United States must include a variety of sources and processes, please pick two fossil fuel sources and three alternative sources in order to put together a plan you would like to see in the next 30 years. Include the following:

a.Cost of each source, both economic and environmental
b.Advantages and disadvantages of each source
c.Any physical or climatic conditions that would favor your sources

You must also briefly describe how you would transition from the fossil fuels to the three alternative sources, and if not what would be your defense for keeping one or both of the fossil fuels sources.

—

THANKS!
HEY! This actually isn’t homework and I don’t HAVE to do it! It’s for studying for the environmental class next year! GEEZ!

You should do your own homework or take the F that comes from not doing so. The world suffers more from "global cheating" than from anything else.

I’m doing an assignment for economics (we are studying environmental economics at the moment) and I need to find some externalities for the mining industry, preferably in Western Australia, but I’m guessing they would be quite similar around the world.

though similar each area in the world is different
the conditions left after the flood, eathquakes volcanoes etc
leaves different rock structures and minerals for mining
i can only guess about western Austrialia
you have to look up what type of mines/minerals being mined are there

example, coal, iron, copper

coal mining goes into the deapth of the earth in tunnels, extracting the coal and refilling the beds removed with ’side diggings’
other types of mines are surface scaling off levels of rock

so you have to be aware of the type of mining and how it is done.

positive is recieving the product of that particular mine
negative can vary from environmental looks changing
to poisonous gas released or produced in the mining
erosion of the earth etc

David in Jesus amazing grace and thanks

they should’ve taken it seriously a long time ago……people just don’t think about the future, they only think about what now……