Chornobyl Questions

1. How many explosions were there?

2. When did the explosion/explosions occur?

3. What type of cancer increased due to the iodine radiation collecting there?

Love Canal Questions

1. What were the specific tests that took place on the Love Canal's toxic levels? What were the results?

2. Have there been any reported health problems caused by it recently because there are currently people living there?

3. Where there any other places in a similar situation to Love Canal around the same time? What were they?

4. If the Love Canal were to happen in today's world, how would it have been different?

5. What precautions can be made to avoid this situation from happening again?

8-30-10 Catalyst

1.) What caused the toxic waste to begin being pushed to the surface?

The blizzard of 1977 played a big part along with the usually wet season. When the snow would melt it would seep underneath the canal and when the water rose again it brought along the chemicals that were underground, leaving this black gunk seeping from the ground.

2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?

Some health problems included; cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, disfigurements, liver disease, epilepsy, autism, and more.

3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?

The chemicals affected many different aspects of the environment. When the chemicals arose after the storm they got washed away with the other water, infecting it. So the chemicals affect everything that needs water; people, animals, and plants; in addition to everything that is dependent on that type of animal or plant. It also gets into the soil and affects the plants that way as well.

Hazards of Oil Dispersants

One thing that really stood out to me was that in the article it was saying that some of the oil was evaporating. Well, wouldn't this be a bad thing? Now not only is the oil in the sea but in the air, and when it rains the oil would move to new places and harm these locations as well. Just because it is not in the water anymore does not mean it is gone. It would get in the water ways and on the crops we eat due to precipitation. It would be in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. So I ask you, is the oil really gone?

Does solving one problem create another even larger problem?Why?

I think that this really depends on the specific situation. For example, if the original problem needs immediate attention, although it may not be as important as the resulting issues, it would be priority to attend to the first and then attend to the consequences. Although, if the first problem is just as immediate and drastic as after affects would be, I think it would be more wise to wait and search for other means of solving the situation.

Which do you think is worse; oil spill or the chemical dispersant?

I think the chemical dispersants are much worse because they are being added to the oil, so it is a combination of both which seems to be lacking knowledge, causing much of the controversy because of unanswered questions. The oil does not blend well with water and floats on the surface, so it didn't affect plants and animals that lived on the sea floor very much. With the chemical dispersants it is not going away, but just blending with the water, and therefore still there.

Chemical Dispersants

If chemical dispersants kill molecules in the oil, are there, and what other kind of, other molecules are they killing in the process?

How are animals specifically being affected by the chemicals? Does it affect their food supply, behavior, physical health?

Since BP bases most of it's business in Britain, how are these environmental problems in America being informed to Britain? Do their average customers know of this oil spill? What do they know?