Environment

Here’s a story that I’ll be referring to the next time a government announces a massive cull to ward off a disease: researchers at the University of Georgia have published a paper claiming that killing animals in the wild to thwart an epidemic can actually increase the severity of the disease. Yes, this does run counter to the intuition of wildlife managers, but these guys used something called math to work it out, and it turns out that thinning out a herd can increase the resources available to the rest, reducing the death rate and increasing the birth rate, while at the same time killing older animals who might have developed an immunity to the disease. Their theory is supported by the fact that the badger culls in England, fox culls in Europe, and elk culls in North America have all resulted in worsened outbreaks of the diseases they were meant to contain. This is probably not at all the same, but when I increase my pie consumption, the grocery store seems to increase its pie inventory. I’m waiting for a follow up paper on that one. Link to press release, Link to PDF of paper.

{ 0 comments }

Dave Noisy reports that breast cancer may be more common in farm workers than in workers in other industries. It’s not clear if there’s a distinction between animal and vegetable farms in the study, although pesticides and growth hormones are both mentioned as possible causes of the increased cancer risk, along with common elements such as diesel fumes. As consumers, we often don’t think much about the conditions involved with manking many products we take for granted, and food is no exception. While there aren’t any definite conclusions made in the study, a vegan organic diet would likely reduce the toxic impact on the people who work to fill your plate. Link.

{ 0 comments }

darrek reports that a Chicago art dealer and his partner have been caught dealing in items from endangered species. This wasn’t an “oops, was that made of ivory? Silly me” kind of thing, either: the pair were caught at the airport with stuff they’d purchased in China, and as part of the settlement they had to turn over $500,000 worth of illegal goods. Poachers are scum, but they’re not as bad as the people who make poaching economically attractive. So what’s to be done when US federal agents have two of these dorks in custody? Well, besides losing their merchandise, there’s a small fine (yes, when you’ve got a half million dollars in illegal inventory, $12,000 is a small fine) and some community service and probation. There will be no jail time, and instead of a stern warning, all this article does is advise others of a lucrative business with a relatively low downside, provided you ignore the whole “pushing species towards extinction” thing. Forget the fur district for a moment. It’s time for AR and environmental activists to start shopping the exotic art galleries and blowing the whistle on stuff like this. Link.

{ 0 comments }

kunsjoi notes that Iceland is taking their “scientific” whaling operations a step further by beginning to export whale meat to another country. I believe their scientific hypothesis is that by doing so, they’ll make money. My scientific hypothesis is that they’re buttheads. Critics of the plan believe the action to be illegal, but this is the problem when the commercial whaling moratorium is governed by a body of countries who kill whales – I hear the commission is working on new letterhead that incorporates their revised slogan of “nanna nanna boo boo.” Link.

{ 0 comments }

Dagda Samildanc sent in the scariest (and longest) story about the future of marine life you’ll read in the first half of this week (I’d project further, but the news only gets scarier when it comes to the oceans). Weeds are sprouting that can cause rashes and boils on contact with human flesh, and in the wake of overfishing and sewage and farm runoff, the only sea creatures that are thriving are the jellyfish, which some think will be part of the standard diet in a generation or two. I’d like to think that at least this would get people off of the fish habit, but I’m not so sure. Of course, it’s not this bad in every body of water in the world, which is exactly why it’ll get worse. Can anyone think of a course of action other than reducing reliance on marine products and buying organic produce? Link.

{ 0 comments }

graham notes that many European food giants including supermarkets and fast food chains have pledged to boycott illegally grown Amazon soya in defence of the Amazon rain forest. While rainforest beef has been under public scrutiny for many years, and companies are gaining awareness that clearing out trees for soy crops is also bad, this is the first big move I’ve seen that takes the food chain into account. Under the agreement, the companies will instruct their food suppliers to not source any feed containing Amazon soy beans that were grown in fields that were illegally cleared. It all sounds a bit confusing with room for lots of loopholes (OK, beans are out, as are animals who eat the beans, but what about animals who eat the animals who eat the beans?) and it’s currently a Europe-only thing, but as with any of these initiatives, it’s a (slow) start. If you want to speed things up a bit, a great way to do that is to switch to a plant based diet – it’s not hard to find out where your food comes from when it goes straight from the ground to your mouth. Link.

{ 0 comments }

I suspect there’s a vegan working in Norway’s publc affairs office… Warren Ellis posted a link regarding a whale watching expedition loaded with about 80 tourists that got a slightly different than advertised show when a Norwegian whaling ship showed up and shot the whale right in front of them. Link.

{ 0 comments }

Magic Stones sent in a story about the drugs you’ll find in fish, although these ones weren’t put there by the fishing industry. Well, some of them were, but other drugs came from you and me. See, when we take medications, the leftover drugs that our bodies don’t use get flushed down the toilet. Water treatment facilities aren’t designed to handle the contaminants, so they end up getting put back into the waterways. In a recent survey of the St. Lawrence River, researchers found traces of pain relievers, prescription drugs, and even caffeine. Now, this was a survey of the water, not the fish, so I’m sure fish eaters have nothing to worry about. After all, it’s not like fish breathe the stuff every day or anything… Link

{ 0 comments }

Steve_L sent in the latest round of lunacy surrounding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to control water pollution from factory farms. In the latest proposal, farms may need to get permits if their activities impact local water sources by, say, pouring thousands of gallons of manure into a river, but it’ll be up to the farms to determine if their actions require a permit or not. I wonder if people still apply for jobs at the EPA because they have a passion for the environment, or if maybe it’s just a good gateway to high paying private sector jobs with farm groups. Link.

{ 0 comments }