Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Montira Pongsiri, PhD, MPH, is an Environmental Health Scientist in EPA’s Office of the Science Advisor.

I was first associated with EPA as a STAR Fellow studying the risks and tradeoffs of using pesticides to control infectious diseases. Today, I’m an EPA scientist focusing on infectious diseases in the wider framework of ecosystem services, the direct and indirect benefits people derive from ecosystems.

The primary questions I am helping EPA explore are: What is the underlying mechanism of disease emergence, and do changes in biodiversity play a role?

Our research projects are unique in their interdisciplinary approach, involving ecologists, public health specialists, social scientists, and earth scientists, and also by including decision-makers early in the process to help ensure that new findings can be used to make better decisions.

At one field site in northwest Connecticut, an opossum is checked for ticks, which are removed and collected to test for the presence of the Lyme disease bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi.

One area we’re studying is Lyme disease risk (chronicled previously by Melissa Anley-Mills and Aaron Ferster). Research partner Richard Ostfeld of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies hypothesizes that a greater diversity of native mammal hosts could help decrease the risk of people getting Lyme disease. How? People get Lyme disease through tick bites, and ticks acquire the Lyme disease agent by feeding on mammals such as mice and squirrels. Not all mammals are equally efficient, or “competent,” in transmitting the disease agent to the ticks. So perhaps having a greater diversity of mammalian species, with their varying capabilities of transmitting the pathogen, could “dilute” the rates by which ticks get infected. Lower rates of tick infection equal lower risk of human infection.

There is also a connection between animal diversity and landscape condition. Forest destruction and fragmentation in the U.S. have been shown to reduce mammalian species diversity and to increase populations of the white-footed mouse—the most competent host of Lyme disease.

With the support of a new STAR grant, Ostfeld and his colleagues are testing this hypothesis by manipulating mammalian host communities in forest fragments and studying the effects on pathogen transmission rates.

When we better understand the mechanisms linking biodiversity and human disease through this and other research studies, we may be able to develop environmentally-based and behavioral approaches to both promote conservation as well as to reduce the risk of human disease – a win-win for environment and public health.

In addition to the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, other EPA research partners include the CDC, Yale, NASA Ames, UCLA, the Institute for Bird Populations, Rutgers, and the NJ Department of Environmental Protection.

This week we’re focusing on OSV Bold, one of EPA’s research ships. Two usually shore-based EPA staffers, Margot Perez-Sullivan and Margaret Ford, went out on the ship with the researchers a couple of weeks ago with one goal: come back and share what it’s like. They wrote and photographed each day, but had no Internet access at sea, so we’re posting their blog entries this week. And the EPA folks will read and respond to comments all week. We’ll resume our usual blog features next week: Question of the Week, Science Wednesday, and Lina’s multilingual musings. Let us know whether this kind of in-depth reporting floats your boat! — Jeffrey Levy, Greenversations editor.

Day 1 (9.5.08):
I’ve never been on a cruise. Never spent the night on a boat…at best it was a ferry here and there or the random tourist trap night cruise. When I found out I was invited to tag along and document science and research in action on the EPA’s Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, I was thrilled. And a little scared.

The EPA uses the OSV Bold to monitor coastal waters throughout the United States. This summer marks the Bold’s maiden voyage to the west coast and this is her last survey before returning to the eastern seaboard. The Bold has an enormous mission and its surveys are carefully planned to maximize monitoring and research year-round. The Bold is 224 feet long, has a full crew of 18 and can accommodate up to 19 scientists on any one survey.

Our west coast scientists are excited to have the research vessel on this side of the country and are taking every opportunity possible to get out to sea and conduct research and sampling surveys on the Pacific.

A team of nine scientists descended upon Eureka, California this September and began mobilizing for the upcoming Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site (HOODS) survey. HOODS is an ocean disposal site for dredged materials. West coast ports are the gateway to Asia; the Port of Los Angeles alone receives 50% of the nation’s foreign goods. These mega ships need deep ports to come into, which is where dredging and ocean disposal sites come into play. In a nut shell, sites like HOODS receive sands and sediments from local ports that need to move this material to make sure large ships can come into ports. A sediment testing program is in place to make sure that only clean, nontoxic sediments are taken to HOODS.

That said, during this survey, scientists are taking samples to determine the chemistry of HOODS’ sediments to confirm that the sediment testing is accurate, ensuring the sand and sediment material being dumped from the ports meets EPA standards, meaning it’s clean and doesn’t negatively impact the ecosystem near the site. Our scientists are also documenting the presence of benthic organisms (tiny sea critters that live on the ocean floor) in and around the HOODS disposal site. The results will be put together to make sure the HOODS site is being taken care of properly. VIDEO: Scientist Brian Ross discusses the survey plan.

For our marine biologists, the benthic samples will give them a good idea of the health of the ocean floor. There is a direct correlation between the types and health of these tiny ocean floor critters and the overall ocean floor environment.

We’ve got nine environmental scientists on this survey with over 5 decades of education combined. Our nine environmental scientists are: Allan Ota, ocean disposal site expert and co-Chief Scientist; Brian Ross, ocean disposal site expert; Amy Wagner, marine biologist; Greg Nagle, chemist; Kevin Ryan, drinking water expert; Tina Yin, watersheds expert; Eugenia McNaughton, Ph.D in algae plankton and quality assurance guru; Carolyn Yale, Ph.D. watershed planner; and Chris McArthur, Chief Scientist from our Atlanta regional office.

Margaret Ford our videographer and I are on board to document the survey.

We arrived this evening and got our room assignments, a short orientation of the survey schedule and a walk around the work areas with Allan. Often, to maximize time at sea, Bold surveys run on 24-hour operations, luckily we are only on 8 hour shifts for this survey. VIDEO: See our arrival.

We are scheduled to push off tomorrow afternoon…

What did you know about ocean research BEFORE you read this blog? Very little (63%, 94 Votes) Some (19%, 28 Votes) Quite a bit (18%, 27 Votes) Total Voters: 149  Loading ...

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Melissa-Anley Mills is the news director for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. She joined the Agency in 1998 as a National Urban Fellow.

Usually I sit in a Dilbert-style cube-farm, a warm, calm, enveloping sea of beige, beige, and more beige. So it was a rare and truly delicious treat to be invited to tag along on a field visit. The mission was simple: help Dr. Montira Pongsiri communicate her biodiversity research examining the link between biodiversity, the abundance and composition of animals, and Lyme Disease risk. To do this, my colleague, Aaron Ferster, (who previously blogged about our trip) and I had to see the researchers in action. We wanted to bring this experience to others via the web, so we loaded up on the technologies that would help us do that, a blackberry for “microblogging” (or “tweeting” on Twitter), and still and video cameras.

This turned into an experiment for the communication crew – the first time someone had microblogged live to the EPA’s Twitter account from the field. The first challenge we encountered was, of course, technical: spotty cell phone service. Recording the time and saving tweets in draft mode until reaching cell coverage solved that. But the real challenge was keeping the tweets short and sweet. Twitter has a limit of 140 characters (including spaces!) for posts. But there was so much to say about what we were seeing: white-footed mice, voles, baby opossums, catbirds, warblers, thrushes and ticks, oh my!

So there we were in the forest, watching and learning, tapping away on the blackberry, capturing video and photos, and lending a hand to the researchers. You can see the fruit of this labor on EPA’s biodiversity web page. Here you can read the tweets, and see the slideshows. Soon we’ll post video clips, so stay tuned.

Let us know what you think, suggestions are welcomed. What you would like to see in future “Field Notes” or visits with researchers?

Hopefully, through the images you’ll get a taste of this exciting research. Maybe it will encourage you to consider an environmental career as a field researcher, maybe a science teacher could use this as a teaching module, but I hope one thing is clear to see, the passion and devotion that these researchers have to gather the scientific data necessary to protect the environment and public health

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Nora Savage is an environmental engineer with EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Her focus areas include nanotechnology, pollution prevention, and life cycle approaches for emerging technologies.

I became interested in science after learning about the scientific method: observe, develop a hypothesis, and test—if it holds you have a theory! If not, alter the hypothesis and try again. I used this process when I was a kid to discover that addressing an envelope backwards would get my letter delivered without a stamp. Woodsy Owl (‘Give a hoot, don’t pollute’) showed me the importance of protecting the environment and reducing pollution. The EPA merged these two interests with nanotechnology and a career was born!

Nanocrystals can have different colors depending on their size. Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory.

Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, observe and control at the atomic and sub-atomic level, where new material properties arise that are unlike those of the same material at a larger size. Take gold, for example. The kind used in jewelry is yellow, not very reactive, and melts at 1200°C. At about three nanometers gold is red, very reactive, and melts at 200°C.

How is this related to the environment? First, nanotechnologies can help protect the environment. New nano-compounds and engineered nano-materials can quickly and inexpensively detect and remove pollutants, even very small amounts located in difficult-to-access areas. Utilizing nanotechnology can lead to more efficient manufacturing processes, cutting down on toxic materials used.

We are also aware of the potential for unintended consequences. For example, our use of certain chlorinated compounds to improve aerosol dispersions harmed the ozone layer.

My job is to help tap the potential benefits of nanotechnology while developing a better understanding of the potential trouble they might also bring, and consequently eliminating or minimizing it.

How? By looking at the “life cycles” of new materials and products. By that I mean considering the product from a holistic perspective, including the acquisition of raw material, its manufacture, its use, and eventually its disposal or recycling. My goal is to advance the science that helps determine the exposure potential at each stage, assessing potential hazards, and developing ways to eliminate or reduce them.

Nano Sites:
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The Adventures of Nano

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Matthias Fripp is a doctoral student in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. His work is funded by an EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Research Fellowship.

Before I started my studies, I thought that graduate students were free to study any topic they liked. That’s true in principle, but in practice we need to find funding for our research. Fortunately, I was granted an EPA STAR fellowship in 2006, allowing me to pursue a question I consider particularly important: how much wind and solar power should we use in the electricity system in upcoming decades?

Over the last couple of years, I’ve gathered data on the amount of power that could be produced every hour at potential wind farm sites and solar power facilities all over California. I’ve also collected information on existing power plants and transmission lines, and forecasted the cost of building new wind, solar or conventional power plants or transmission lines in the future.

Next, I built a computer model that determines which combination of new and existing power plants and transmission lines will give the least expensive electricity between 2010 and 2025, while also ensuring that the state has enough power every hour. I also use this model to see how much our power bills might change if we work seriously on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The results of this research are exciting. I found that wind and solar power are available at complementary times in California, so we can use them together to make a more reliable (and cheaper) power system than we could if we just used wind or solar alone. I also found that even if we didn’t care about greenhouse gas emissions, we should still plan to use a lot of wind power, because it is beginning to be less expensive than power from natural gas plants. Finally, I found that there is no sharp limit to the amount of renewable power we could use in California: power bills rise slowly as we build more and more renewables, but emissions could be reduced substantially with little or no extra cost.

The EPA STAR fellowship has made a huge difference, freeing me to focus all my efforts on this work, and providing the resources to do it right.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Darius Davis is a summer intern in Cincinnati, Ohio.

I recently graduated from Withrow University High School and plan to attend Ohio State University in Columbus, OH in the fall of 2008. I will be studying Chemical Engineering with a minor in Pharmacy.

This is my second year interning at EPA through the black employment program. I feel that this program has not only opened up many opportunities for me, but allowed me to get a hands-on experience in the science field. The last two years I have worked in two different areas at the EPA. The first year, which was my junior year in high school, I worked with microbiology and this year with drinking water. While in the microbiology area, I worked and did experiments with E.coli bacteria. The name of this experiment was UV Disinfection on E. coli Bacteria. I really enjoyed working in this area because there were many chemicals involved and we used a lot of different machinery in order to carry out the experiment. This year with drinking water was also very interesting. I was able to work with a database and observe a lot about the copper pipes, which were sent in from various locations throughout the country. I was then able to make reports about the pipes and what we observed from them. The objective was to figure out why the water that ran through these pipes were forming holes in the pipe and what could be done to prevent the holes from forming within the pipe. While at EPA, I was also acknowledged for my once in a lifetime achievement of receiving the Gates Millennium Scholarship. This scholarship covers ten years of my college education through my doctoral degree at the college of my choice with ALL expenses paid, including one year of study abroad.

I feel that working at the EPA really broadened my horizons on what all goes into making the environment a better place to live. This experience also made me more confident with studying the sciences when I attend college. Anyone who is ever offered an opportunity like this one should definitely take advantage of it, because in the end it will all be worth it!

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. More Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the lead science writer-editor for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Previously, he has worked as an exhibit writer for a zoo, a first-mate on a whale watch boat, an elephant trainer, and as a stage hand for a travelling magic show.

I have a close friend who is a talented fiction writer. Occasionally, we good-naturedly give one another a hard time about our chosen crafts. “You get to make stuff up—how can anything be easier than that?” is my rhetorical reply whenever she points out what a painless gig I have as a science writer at EPA.

While I can’t speak for other science writers, I might just have to admit that what I do is easier than creating fiction. There never seems to be a shortage of fascinating stories unfolding at labs and field sites wherever researchers or engineers are running experiments, gathering data, or building the next prototype. And I’ve got the added benefit that my personal interests—the environment and human health—dovetail perfectly with EPA’s mission.

Come to think of it, I might be kind of spoiled.

I’m not the only one who has noticed there are a lot of good science stories being generated at EPA. If you’ve followed “Greenversations,” you’ve probably noticed the strong current of science that runs through many of the posts. Regular contributors include Robert Lackey, a senior EPA scientist who writes often about salmon restoration from EPA’s Western Ecology Division lab in Corvallis, OR; and Sandy Raimondo, a research ecologist from EPA’s Gulf Ecology Division lab in Gulf Breeze, FL who recently wrote about environmental research and sailing.

It’s a trend. The wealth of good science stories here at EPA has led me and my fellow Greenversations bloggers to declare that Wednesday posts will now be for science. “Science Wednesday” will feature experiences related to environmental science, brought to you by scientists, engineers, researchers, and perhaps the occasional science writer from across EPA.

Future posts will include entries on a long-term study on urban stream restoration, EPA’s ecological research programs, investigations on suburban runoff and the impact of pavement and parking lots, coral reef monitoring, research on the state of the marine environment, and many, many others on environmental science.

“Science Wednesday,” because you really can’t make this stuff up.

About the author: Dr. Robert Lackey is a senior scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. He has been involved professionally with West Coast salmon issues for 44 years and was awarded EPA’s highest award, the Gold Medal, for his salmon work.

One of my favorite fictional characters is detective extraordinaire Joe Friday. Joe demanded and provided “just the facts” as he sleuthed his way through the gossip and hearsay to winnow out the truth. Scientists responsible for informing the public and policy makers about ecological policy issues should attempt to do the same — just the facts — the straightforward, sometimes unpleasant realities.

A case in point: The 2008 collapse of salmon runs along the West Coast is being chronicled in major national newspapers, with headlines proclaiming “Disaster Strikes West Coast Fishermen,” “Worst Salmon Runs in History,” and “Agencies Baffled by Unexpected Salmon Collapse.”

Let’s apply Joe Friday’s “just the facts” approach to the wild salmon situation to see what society might expect in the future.

Fact 1: Wild salmon in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia are in serious trouble. Most runs in the Western U.S. are at less than 10% of their pre-1850 levels. Over two dozen are listed as threatened or endangered, with many more likely to follow unless something changes.

Fact 2: Meager salmon runs along the West Coast are nothing new. The decline in wild salmon numbers (PDF) started with the California gold rush in 1848; causes include water pollution, habitat loss, over-fishing, dams, irrigation projects, predation, and competition with hatchery-produced salmon and non-native fish species.

Fact 3: If society wishes to change the future for wild salmon, something must be done about the unrelenting growth in the human population level along the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia). By 2100, there could be 200 - 250 million people in the region: a quadrupling by the end of this century — barely 90 years from now.

Fact 4: If the human population levels increase as expected, options for restoring salmon runs to significant, sustainable levels are greatly limited. Consider the demand for houses, schools, stadiums (PDF), expressways, automobiles, malls, air conditioning, drinking water, consumer goods, golf courses, and sewer treatment plants. Society’s options for sustaining wild salmon in significant numbers would be just about non-existent.

Whatever policy makers propose to do about the 2008 collapse of West Coast salmon runs, these four facts cannot be ignored. Policy makers should demand from scientists realistic and honest assessments (PDF) of the current and future conditions for salmon.

Joe Friday was a tough, no-nonsense professional. Those of us who provide the public and policy makers with the best available information about salmon ought to follow his lead: “just the facts”.

About the author: Sandy Raimondo is a research ecologist with the Office of Research and Development in Gulf Breeze, FL. She joined EPA in 2003 and models potential effects of toxicants on organisms and populations.

A few months ago I joined a crew on a sailboat that competes in the local yacht club races. I’ve never been a huge water person, much more of a mountaineer than a sailor, but since I live on the Gulf coast I decided to harness the side of nature that’s in my backyard rather than dwell on what wasn’t. Since moving here I’ve given sea kayaking a whirl and tried to learn how to surf, but sailing definitely suits me better – I don’t eat sand nearly as much as I did trying to surf, and my body thanks me for it. But it’s also the invigoration that goes along with a boat keeled on its side, cutting through the water, powered by something that you can’t see. Or maybe it’s the Jimmy Buffet.

Anyway, sometimes I think environmental research is a lot like sailing. Not in the sense that it’s a breeze, or that you sit in your little vessel and let something else push you a long, although sometimes you actually do get to move downwind and head straight toward your goal. But much more often you have to tack back and forth against the wind, constantly changing directions to get to your eventual finish. But since the finish is a buoy, it’s not really concretely fastened. These days, new environmental challenges blow in before we can address the ones that popped up last year. Its one of those things that might be frustrating if all you want to do is sail downwind. But if you like the adrenaline rush of hanging off the side of the boat to keep yourself level while your direction and speed are determined by which way the wind is blowing, then environmental research is a good place to be.

About the author: Jeffery Robichaud is a second generation scientist with EPA who started in 1998. He serves as Chief of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch in Kansas City.

Ever heard of a guy named Lew Zealand? He was the Muppet that threw boomerang fish (I expect a cut of your winnings if you ever go on Jeopardy and this bit of trivia pays off). I thought of Lew because it is field season again and on the Missouri River we have our own airborne fish. They are Asian Carp, a particularly troubling invasive species that have infested waters and pose a potentially devastating effect to the Great Lakes. They were introduced into the catfish aquaculture business in the 1970s but during floods these “prisoners” escaped their ponds into the Mississippi River, and have been on the run ever since. YouTube has a lot of great videos of them in action.

In Region 7 we administer our Regional Ambient Fish Tissue (RAFT) program where samples are analyzed for contaminants such as mercury, pesticides, and PCBs. States use the data to post fish advisories. Our biologists (including Lorenzo pictured here) end up with nets full of carp because they often are the most abundant fish in the Missouri River. If you talk to some of the old timers fishing along the banks they will tell you the odd-looking paddlefish were more abundant in years past. Paddlefish face many challenges from human-induced changes to the river such as dams, loss of habitat due to channel straightening, and illegal harvest of eggs for use as caviar. Now they count flying fish as enemies since the more abundant carp out-compete the paddlefish for food.

As comical as the spectacle of jumping fish may be, invasive species are a serious threat. A plant may look pretty and an animal may seem cute, yet they may wreak devastating damage when introduced into a non-native setting. In 1884 a single Australian released twenty-four European rabbits on his property for hunting purposes. Within ten years those 24 had turned into over 2 million, and started the delicate ecology of Australia into a downward spiral causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage each year and bringing a $30,000 fine for anyone found harboring their own long-eared friend as a pet. For those outdoor enthusiasts among you, consider scanning your State Conservation Department’s website before you head out on vacation this summer. Find out what you can do to make sure you don’t unknowingly take home a hidden hitchhiker.