Thoughts on movie we watched in class

I think that had the movie had something more interesting to look at than just a man and a slideshow I wouldn't have found myself so bored by it, as it did have a lot of intriguing information. It helped a lot that we were able to stop after a while and disect all the heavy information that was given to us during the video. One of the things that I found most interesting was the idea of creation a national connection to one large solar panel. I think that, though it is a bit unrealistic to do it on a national scale, this is a very possible situation if the tools necessary for capturing and storing solar energy were invented and implemented on a smaller communal level. Perhaps breaking the areas up by school district or something, this idea would be a lot easier if it was installed into a system that already works. I think that even after our class discussions the only thing that I am still confused about is what he predicted when he said that out economy would be rising, which for one I couldn't really make the connection between that and what he was talking about, and I find myself disagreeing with this sentiment as all one needs to do is glance at the front page of any newspaper to realize that our country's economy has been slowly collapsing for the past eight years or so. So overall I'm still slightly confused, but I think I get the general gist, and I became very interested in several of the things that he talked about, despite how concerned it made me feel for the global security over the next century.

Artist Statement

After doing extensive research on the topic of nuclear waste, we stumbled upon a relatively unheard of story about a small area in Russia that has been exposed to nuclear waste so much that it was one of the most radioactive places on Earth. We were so inspired by the different stories of the people there that we knew immediately that we wanted to include them in our movie. Very quickly, the topic changed from the problems of nuclear waste in general to an in depth expository documentary about this horrible breach in human rights. We now wish to confront our audience with this issue: Should the use of alternative energy be more important than the health of the human race? What will happen if we become more reliant on nuclear energy than fossil fuels? What if there was a possibility that what happened to the people in this small region of Russia happened to the United States? What is worse: Global Warming or the consequences of exposure to radioactivity? People really need to start thinking of others, as well as the consequences of there actions. View another person’s life as if it were your own.

Final Draft of Essay

Allie Olson
November 5th, 2009

Industrial Vs. Organic

For a long time there has been controversy over which is better for you, industrially grown, or organically grown foods. Industrially grown food is great for mass productivity and for more copious harvests. Organically grown food has the reputation for being much healthier, more environmentally friendly, and generally fairer economically to the smaller farms. Although industrial agriculture corporations deny that there is any health risks in eating genetically modified food, humans should have the right to a healthy lifestyle therefore labels should be put on all genetically modified plants and plants grown with the use of pesticides.

So far, there has not been any concrete evidence that proves or disproves that there are health risks in genetically modified foods. Some companies, Monsanto for example, that sell genetically modified properties claim that there are no health risks and that industrially grown foods are actually better for the population.

This claim is only reinforced by the Green Revolution, who brought several countries out of poverty, and perhaps even pushed the time when we would run out of food further away. Monsanto, one of the larger biotechnology corporations, even claims:

“Farmer benefits - increase productivity or reduce cost by increasing yield, improving protection from insects and disease, or increasing their crops’ tolerance to heat, drought, and other environmental stress. For many farmers, especially small-scale growers, our products help improve their lives by helping them produce more while conserving more time and inputs.” (Monsanto, 2009)

To be fair, there are both positives and negatives about growing genetically engineered foods. They can be modified to have a higher tolerance to drought, cold, and herbicides and they can even be modified to be more nutritious. However, scientists are theorizing that adding a new gene to certain foods could create a new allergen and cause an allergic reaction to those who are already susceptible. Children have already developed life threatening allergies to things like peanuts, and other relatively harmless foods. (MSN, 2009)

Another negative impact of GMOs include cross pollination. Pollen from plants that contain GMOs can spread and will inevitably infect other plants, sometimes making weeds herbicide resistant and insecticidal. Insects are also becoming immune to the gene used in corn and cotton that is used to kill off insects (UCSC, 2005).

Those who protest putting labels on genetically modified foods argue that GMO products are nearly equivalent to products without GMOs. If this is so, then what is the harm of labeling their products? In fact, if what companies like Monsanto are saying is true, if genetically modified foods are healthier, then wouldn't they want that to be known? If a consumer had the option of choosing the healthier option, and if what those companies are saying is true, they would choose the genetically modified food, especially if it was labeled as such.

Unlike genetic modification, however, there are known health risks to using pesticides. Pesticides have been linked scientifically to birth defects, cancers, neuroblastoma and leukemia to name a few. Dr. Natalie Geary, a New York City pediatrician states, “...when exposure occurs as their [children] organs and bones are still growing, it can potentially affect normal development.” (Corbet, 2008) Even with this staggering amount of evidence of how harmful pesticides are, people still continue to eat food grown with them.

The origin of pesticides alone should be enough to turn people off to products with pesticides on them. The use of pesticides expanded significantly following World War II as a way to reuse war-time nerve agents that were created secretly by Nazi weaponry construction. Later those nerve agents were modified to have a less dangerous affect on humans, but could still kill insects (Organic Consumers Association, 2009). If pesticides have killed humans before, why shouldn't they have a hand in death now? If companies continue to use pesticides in their products, they should be required to say so on a label. Consumers should not be fooled into thinking that just because it is a fruit or vegetable, it's healthy. There are still health risks involved with both pesticides, and genetically engineered foods, which is why a person should know exactly what they are eating before they even buy the product.

The FDA and EPA conducted research and compiled a list of the top 12 most contaminated crops from pesticides. The results were somewhat surprising. The top three crops with the highest levels of toxicity were strawberries, bell peppers, and spinach (Davies, Elderkin, Wiles, 2009). All three are widely used throughout the USA and the world, and it makes one wonder what they are really ingesting.

There are health risks involved with pesticides and genetically modified foods. The only way one can be totally sure that what they are eating is healthy for them is to buy organic foods. Not only are the foods not scientifically altered or covered in toxins, they are much healthier than other conventional produce. Organic foods can carry bacterial pathogens, but unlike pesticides they can be washed off.

“Organic produce has higher antioxidant levels than conventional, according to a recent analysis of research conducted over the last three decades.” (Corbert, 2008) Eating organically is not only healthier, it has a better taste. The only thing one would need to worry about would be finding a bug on their apple.

Another positive aspect about growing food organically is that it is better for the environment. Years of using pesticides and genetically engineering plants ruins the soil that these plants are grown in. Not only is the soil being ruined, but once the soil is no longer usable, these companies have wasted perfectly good agricultural space.

“Organic agriculture enhances soil structures, conserves water, mitigates climate change, and ensures sustained biodiversity. Through its holistic nature, organic farming integrates wild biodiversity, agro-biodiversity and soil conservation, and takes low-intensity farming one step further by eliminating the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is not only an improvement for human health (food quality) and agro-biodiversity, but also for the associated off farm biotic communities.” (IFOAM, 2009)

Having more organic farms could possibly solve several of the world's most imminent environmental problems. This is even more motivation for people to buy organic foods. If there is a higher demand, there is more interest in developing organic farms, which would eventually lower the price of organic products.

It is clear that organic foods are better for you. If the public just knew the extent of the benefits they would be more inclined to spend the extra money for it. This is why all produce should be labeled, whether pesticides are used in the process, it is genetically engineered, or it is completely organic. People have the right to know exactly what they are putting into their body, and no corporation should take that right away. Pesticides are harmful, genetically modified foods are potentially harmful, and the public has the right to know these things. If, even after they know what the consequences of eating those foods are, they still have the choice to do so, that is their prerogative. However, they should not be denied the information that will help them make an educated decision in the process of corporations trying to make money.

Citations
"Monsanto ~ Our Products ~ Benefits of Our Products." Monsanto ~ Home. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
"Benefits and Risks of GMOs - MSN Encarta." MSN Encarta : Online Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Atlas, and Homework. Web. 03 Nov. 2009.
"GMO - Negative Impacts." Home | Jack Baskin School of Engineering | UC Santa Cruz. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
Corbet, Kelly. "Why go organic? | Benefits of organic products, how to go organic." Delicious Living - Real Food, Natural Health, Green Planet | Green Living, Healthy cooking recipes, Organic Cooking Recipes, Organic Lifestyles, Healthy Dieting. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
"EPA and Pesticide Industry Pressuring Scientists to Allow Continued Use of Toxic Pesticides." Organic Consumers Association. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
Wiles, Richard, Kert Davies, and Susan Elderkin. "ET 9/96: A shopper's guide to pesticides in produce." San Diego Earth Times online. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
"IFOAM | Growing Organic | Environmental Benefits of Organic Agriculture Positive Benefits for Society and for Nature." Ifoam.org | International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.

Rough Draft Essay

Allie Olson

10/14/09

Industrial Vs. Organic

For a long time there has been controversy over which is better for you, industrially grown foods, or organically grown. Industrially grown food is great for mass productivity, and for more copious harvests. Organically grown food has the reputation for being much healthier, more environmentally friendly, and generally fairer economically to the smaller farms. Although industrial agriculture corporations deny that there is any health risks in eating genetically modified food, humans should have the right to a healthy lifestyle therefor labels should be put on all genetically modified plants and plants grown with the use of pesticides.

So far, there has not been any concrete evidence that proves or disproves that there are health risks in genetically modified foods. The companies that sell genetically modified properties claim that there are no health risks, that industrially grown foods are actually better for the population. This claim is only reinforced by the Green Revolution, which brought several countries out of poverty, and perhaps even pushed the time when we would run out of food further away. Monsanto, one of the larger biotechnology corporations, even claims:

“Farmer benefits - increase productivity or reduce cost by increasing yield, improving protection from insects and disease, or increasing their crops’ tolerance to heat, drought, and other environmental stress. For many farmers, especially small-scale growers, our products help improve their lives by helping them produce more while conserving more time and inputs.”

To be fair, there are both positives and negatives about growing genetically engineered foods. They can be modified to have a higher tolerance of drought, cold, and herbicides, they can even be modified to be more nutritious. However, scientists are theorizing that adding a new gene to certain foods could create a new allergen, and cause an allergic reaction to those who are already susceptible. Children are already developing life threatening allergies to things like peanuts, and more otherwise harmless foods. Those who protest putting labels on genetically modified foods argue that GMO products are nearly equivalent to products without GMO's. If this is so, then what is the harm of labeling their products? In fact, if what companies like Monsanto are saying is true, if genetically modified foods are healthier, then wouldn't they want that to be known? If a consumer had the option of choosing the healthier option, and if what those companies are saying is true, they would choose the genetically modified food, especially if it was labeled.

Unlike genetic modification, however, there are known health risks to using pesticides. Pesticides have been linked scientifically to birth defects, cancers, neuroblastoma and leukemia to name a few. Dr. Natalie Geary, a New York City pediatrician states, “...when exposure occurs as their [children] organs and bones are still growing, it can potentially affect normal development.” Even with this staggering amount of evidence of how harmful pesticides are, people still continue to eat food grown with them. The origin of pesticides alone should be enough to turn people off of products with pesticides on them. The use of pesticides in agriculture expanded significantly following World War II as a way to reuse war-time nerve agents, that were created secretly by Nazi weaponry construction. Later those nerve agents were modified to have a less dangerous affect on humans, but still kill insects. If pesticides have killed humans before, why shouldn't they have a hand in death now? If companies continue to use pesticides in their products, they should be required to say so on a label. Consumers should not be fooled into thinking that just because it is a fruit or vegetable, it's healthy. There are still health risks involved with both pesticides, and genetically engineered foods, which is why a person should know exactly what they are eating before they even buy the product.

As it has been stated before, there are health risks involved with pesticides and genetically modified foods. The only way one can be totally sure that what they are eating is healthy for them is to buy organic foods. Not only are the foods not scientifically altered or covered in toxins, they are much healthier than other conventional produce. “Organic produce has higher antioxidant levels than conventional, according to a recent analysis of research conducted over the last three decades .” Eating organically is not only healthier, but it also has a better taste. The only thing one would need to worry about would be finding a bug on their apple.

Another positive aspect about growing food organically is that it is better for the environment. Years of using pesticides and genetically engineering plants ruins the soil that these plants are grown in. Not only is the soil being ruined, but once the soil is no longer usable, these companies have wasted perfectly good agricultural space.

“Organic agriculture enhances soil structures, conserves water, mitigates climate change, and ensures sustained biodiversity. Through its holistic nature, organic farming integrates wild biodiversity, agro-biodiversity and soil conservation, and takes low-intensity farming one step further by eliminating the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is not only an improvement for human health (food quality) and agro-biodiversity, but also for the associated off farm biotic communities.”
Having more organic farms could possibly solve several of the world's most imminent environmental problems. This is even more motivation for people to buy organic foods, if there was a higher demand, there would be more interest in developing organic farms.

It is common knowledge that organic is better for you, but if the public just knew the extent, maybe they would be more inclined to spend the extra money for it. This is why all produce should be labeled, whether pesticides were used in the process, it was genetically engineered, or completely organic. People have the right to know exactly what they are putting into their body, and no corporation should take that right away. Pesticides are harmful, genetically modified foods are potentially harmful, and the public has the right to know these things. If, even after they know what the consequences of eating those foods are, the still choice to do so, that is their prerogative. However, they should not be denied the information that will help them make an educated decision in the process of corporations trying to make money.

Master Media Project Proposal

Allie Olson
Adam Southgate
10/08/09

Master Media Proposal

It's one of the worst nuclear disasters, and one of the best kept secrets from the general public. For over thirty years it was kept a complete secret until the Cold War ended in 1989. The Mayak nuclear storage tank explosion took place over thirty years before Chernobyl, and up until that point was the largest nuclear disaster the world had ever seen and nobody even knew about it.

The Mayak chemical plant was built in the Urals region of Russia to fulfill Stalin's goal to create weapons grade plutonium for atom bombs. The project was completed in 1949, the same year the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear bomb.

In 1957, a storage tank of highly radioactive nuclear waste exploded, exposing at least 217 towns, and 272,000 people to chronic levels of radiation. Though this was only half the size of Chernobyl, the Mayak storage tank was not the only medium of radiation that the people of the Urals region were exposed to.

Between the years of 1948 and 1956, radioactive waste was poured directly into the source of drinking water for many villages, the Techa River. This alone exposed another 124,000 people to dangerous levels of radiation.

Even fifty years later, this region that contains both Mayak and the Techa River is one of the most radioactive places on earth and around 7,000 people still live in the area. Towns in or near the area are shown to have 25% more genetic abnormalities than the rest of Russia, and have cancer rates more than twice the Russian average.

Even with the staggering evidence Russia is faced with, the government still continues to expose the area with nuclear radiation. Just recently, the Russian government passed legislation that would allow other countries to import nuclear waste to Mayak that would then stay at the plant forever. Even though none of the countries that ship their nuclear waste to Mayak would allow the Mayak plant to continue operating on their soil, they insist upon dumping their nuclear waste there anyway, although it continues to endanger thousands of lives.

For our master media project, we plan to make a sound recording of a voice over of a letter written by one of the victims to the Russian government, with various pictures shown to emphasize the importance of this issue. We also plan to play the sound of a heartbeat in the back ground. The media piece will start out silent, with simple yet profound facts stated on the screen then go to the voice over, we may have a couple depending on what our creativity leads us to, and then end with some emotional quote from one of the stories like, "I don't know long I have to live", or something like that, and before that shows on the screen, the sound of the heartbeat will stop.

We are both really excited about this project because of how unknown the issue is, and our essential question will be whether or not the Russian Government should continue to allow other countries to dump their nuclear waste in that region.

If you look at it one way, the region is already contaminated, so it's really preventing other regions from being contaminated, and there is a high profit to be gained from renting out space for nuclear waste. However on the other, more humane side, thousands of people will be exposed to this radiation, and the additions to it will only prolong the affects for generations to come. Essentially, they're killing people who aren't even born yet. So obviously our stance is that they should not continue to contaminate the area.

Essential Question: Should the Russian government continue to allow nuclear waste to be dumped in this region?

Thoughts on "The Food Issue: Farmer In Chief"

I thought that this was an extremely interesting and eye-opening article. Michael Pollan made a lot of connections between the US agricultural system and the way we as citizens live our lives that were very intriguing, that I had never thought of before.

One of the things that I liked about the article was that Pollan was able to connect the American Food System to things like climate change, the health care crisis, even foreign and trade policies. Things that are not obviously connected to food to the general public, yet they still are affected so greatly by the system that we use today.

Pollan has brought to light the delicate state of our system, and how it is barely hanging on by a thread. One of the quotes he used I thought was especially thought provoking. He quoted the secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson who said, "I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

This one thought, reminded me of previous famine crises that have happened, one in particular that happened in Ukraine when the Soviet Union started a genocide there during the 1930's using food as their weapon, and creating a forced famine to starve their enemies.

I think that one of the best suggestions Pollan made was to switch the system from running off of fossil fuels, which seem to be the root of most of our modern problems, to sunlight. This does seem nearly impossible to me, because of how dependent the modern world is on fossil fuels. This would mean that agricultural transportation trucks would have to run on bio-fuels, become hybrid, or electric even, there would need to be more man power and less processing plants, and the few processing plants that are needed would need to run on solar power or something.

However, despite the difficulty of implementing these solutions, I do appreciate that Pollan has actually thought of solutions, rather than just rant about the problems of the world and then leave it at that. Leaving us with more problems, more questions, and even less solutions.

I believe that the only thing that I wasn't fond of in this article was that Pollan includes a lot of different statistics, but he lacks the sources of these statistics, how do I know that he isn't completely lying? Of course, I am able to trust his judgment from his credentials alone, but it still would be nice to know where he got these facts from.

Trevitt

I thought that he was pretty cool, he had a lot of innovative ideas. I did wonder what kind of legal problems he might have run into, or if there has been an idea to implement his organization in San Diego.

I also wondered if the Governor ever expressed any interest in his project, because I do know that one of the Governor's goals is to make California more earth friendly and whatnot.