https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181121073214.htm
Mercury is a chemical element that proves toxic to human health if they were to come into contact with it as it negatively influences the development of the brain and the nervous system. Mercury can spread very easily through nature through the process of the food chain. This is why fish often contain high amounts of mercury. Water being contaminated with mercury is a high cause of environmental damage. This article states how researchers have discovered a new way of cleaning mercury from water through an electrochemical process. This process involves attracting the mercury ions to an electrode and thus removing it from the water. The electrode is energy efficient as it only attracts mercury ions to it, therefore it does not waste capacity on attracting harmless minerals in the water. The researchers said that this process and technology could be further developed and applied to increasing the purity of water and minimizing all waste within it.
Questions
1. What do you see as the better solution? Removing toxic mercury from the water or stopping the problem at the source (stopping big businesses from dumping mercury into the water in the first place)?
2. How do you think that Rachel Carson would answer question 1?
3. Can you think of a better use for this technology than just cleansing the water of just mercury?
It is easy to say that stopping the mercury problem at the source is a better solution, but I believe that would be very hard to actually achieve. Large companies often get away with dumping toxins for political and economic reasons, so I think that removing toxic mercury from water is a more realistic solution. I think Carson would have called for stopping mercury at its source, because mercury is the cause of many neurological problems and health issues in humans, and also has a very strong impact on the environment, much like DDT. If this technology could be applied to other toxins or remove chemicals from soil erosion and run off, it would be very helpful to the environment, as well.
ReplyDeleteIdealistically, I believe that stopping the problem at the source would be the better solution, but, like Megan has commented, this is perhaps an unattainable goal, at least in the short-term. In order to combat this toxicity, we must use both solutions, removing the mercury from the water while also encouraging cleaner waste practices. I believe Rachel Carson would advocate for a similar solution, as she never stated that pesticides should be eliminated entirely, but that their use should be minimized. Perhaps this technology could be used in other places where purification is necessary, such as eliminating other toxins or purifying other substances.
ReplyDeleteAs Megan and West stated, I think that while it is important to continue the work being done to eliminate mercury poisoning at its source, it is crucial to be realistic and acknowledge that it will not be a seamless transition. For that reason, it is very beneficial to have this new method to combat the issue. It is very impressive that it is able to remove 99% of mercury in the water. I think Rachel Carson would argue that it is very important to continue to fight against companies who carelessly dumb mercury into water, but I believe she would also embrace the benefits of this new technology. Although this technology is relatively new, I think it be further developed or altered to address other issues involving toxins or contamination. It will be interesting to see how far scientists can develop this technology and what other uses they can find for it.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has pointed out, in an ideal, perfect world, we would directly stop the source of mercury pollution, but as reality is seldom ideal, we have to look for more pragmatic solutions. To combat the issue immediately, we need to implement strong filtering practices, and perhaps in the long run, we can implement cleaner, efficient solutions to waste management. Carson would most assuredly argue in favor of these longterm environmentally friendly solutions, but she would also understand the need for an immediate solution born of pragmatism. The current solution works well enough for the time begin (as it eliminates a staggering 99% of mercury).
ReplyDeleteAlthough difficult, I believe the better solution would be to focus on stopping the source of the problem. It is great that scientists are researching for solutions to reverse the effects of mercury contamination, but it is not stopping or addressing the core of the problem. Stopping the business aspect of it and hindering them from dumping mercury into the water would cause less disaster in the first place. I think Rachel Carson would agree with this as she blames big business and suggests a cause of this disaster could be that we live in an "era dominated by the industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged" (13). The mercury problem reminds me of the oil spill crisis. The Obama administration put in effort to prevent oil spills, but efforts were still carried out to clean up the oil. So, possibly one solution can stem from scientists and the other from businesses, making me think it would be the collaboration of the two to solve the mercury crisis. But maybe this technology can also be used to help smaller communities, such as targeting lead (or other heavy metals) in water to help the Flint water crisis.
ReplyDelete