in this article  bio-engineers have discovered a way to transmit messages from cell to cell. they took the bacterium M13, a bacteria that doesn't damage your body, but instead "sets up shop" inside you, it eats the food that you eat and it sends texts indiscriminately. the bacteria can send messages to other cells and due to its non-lethality bio-engineers took its key attributes and "reprogramed" it and therefore created what might be a "biological internet". with this new discovery, they were able to successfully transmit messages cell to cell. with more study on this subject biologists and bio-engineers could create multicellular communities to accompish important tasks. the M13 takes strands of DNA that bio-engineers can use those DNA strands and make what is basically a communication channel and it essentially creates an internet for cells.   With this scientists can tell cells to stop growing, start growing, etc. and with this they can potentially stop cancerous cells and other diseases that include cellular mutations. the range of the M13 can be up to 40,000 base pairs and so far they have been able to transmit a message as far as 7 centimeters! cellularly speaking this range is very long. soon if this field is practiced scientists could make biosynthetic factories where they can make complicated fuels or large masses of microbes. Effectively, we’ve separated the message from the channel. We can now send any DNA message we want to specific cells within a complex microbial community,” said Ortiz, the first author of the study.  


i think that with this research is going to be extreamely helpful in the medical field as well as to create new biofuels that are completely renuable . not only will it help in those areas but it can also help in making new and improved technologies for this . i think that this research is going to be worthwhile for the new medicines, fuels, and at this day and age it will be very helpful since it can offer people new jobs. 

should this research be funded even though we know so little about it, or its consequences?
how worthwhile will it actually be since we are getting so close to stopping cancer and diseases related to it?
should scientists continue studying the M13 or try to find a potentially more efficiant bacteria?

Water pollution

Water pollution is a large set of adverse effects upon water bodies (lakes, rivers, oceans, groundwater) caused by human activities.

Although natural phenomena such as volcanoes, storms, earthquakes etc.
also cause major changes in water quality and the ecological status of water, these are not deemed to be pollution.
Water pollution has many causes and characteristics.
Increases in nutrient loading may lead to eutrophication.
Organic wastes such as sewage and farm waste impose high oxygen demands on the receiving water leading to oxygen depletion with potentially severe impacts on the whole eco-system.
Industries discharge a variety of pollutants in their wastewater including heavy metals, organic toxins, oils, nutrients, and solids.
Discharges can also have thermal effects, especially those from power stations, and these too reduce the available oxygen.
Silt-bearing runoff from many activities including construction sites, forestry and farms can inhibit the penetration of sunlight through the water column restricting photosynthesis and causing blanketing of the lake or river bed which in turns damages the ecology.


      My Summary.......

      Water pollution can be found in lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. Volcanoes, storm, and earthquakes are not deemed to be or can be polluted.. Run off water can come form forestry and farms which may be  polluted. Organic wates such as seeage and farm watse can have severe impacts on the eco system. Pollution is when grabage, sewage, or any trash is thrown or put into the water. This can also include metal, oil, food, and solids.




Links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/w/water_pollution.htm


Questions

What should we do to prevent water pollution?

Alaskan Drilling Dispute

      
Article:

            


           The Obama administration will go ahead with more drilling in Arctic waters, though at a pace that allows for more research before additional permits are granted.
The administration will hold new lease sales for oil companies to drill in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas just north of Alaska, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters.The plan is apparently designed to please both environmentalists and drilling advocates, though it risks irking everyone.

Of ice and oil in Alaska

Industry types would prefer a much faster timetable to get the drilling going, while many opponents want it halted permanently.
The administration is hoping the move will defray criticism that it's not moving fast enough to allow more domestic energy production.
But that seems unlikely.
"Only now that excuses are running out are they moving forward as slowly as possible," said a spokeswoman for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Obama has attempted to take a middle-of-the-road approach to energy development throughout his presidency.
He's resumed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (BP) disaster, plans to allow drilling in the Arctic, and has done little to restrict hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- in domestic oil and gas fields despite fears that the process is contaminating ground water.
But the number of permits issued and acres available for drilling have generally been lower under Obama's administration than in George W. Bush's administration, which preceded it.
On Tuesday, Salazar said it's "highly likely" the final permits for Royal Dutch Shell's (RDSA) Arctic drilling operation, set for this summer, will be issued shortly.
Shell won its Arctic leases during the Bush administration, but its final permits to drill have so far not been granted by Obama. Sources expect the final OK to come this week.

Sources:

            Article: http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/26/news/economy/arctic-drilling/index.htm
            Picture: http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/monopod-oil-platform-3221-pictures.htm


My Summary:

       Obama's administration is going to do more drilling in the Arctic, but is trying to please environmentalists as well by slowing the pace and making permits harder to recieve. This plan may be met with failure if BOTH sides are still completely against the idea. This risk poses a hard position for the Obama administration, so they attempt to "defray critisism" that it isnt moving along quick  enough.
            The drilling could cause another major disruption of the ecosystem surrounding it like BPs mishap in the Gulf of Mexico, wiping out or killing many of the indigenous species. On the other side of the arguement, you have problems such as less energy to go around, not that it would affect everyone, but less oil means higher fuel prices, which doesn't help our already slow climb out of the recent recession.
             All in all, it is not an easy decision for the Obama administration, and I do not envy his position, but something must be done so that the drill site's environment stays in equlibrium and we recieve the much needed energy.


Question:

          What is your stance on the subject? Do you think some kind of compromise can be made?