Careers in Chemistry: Toxicologist

So what is a toxicologist? they're job is to analyze the impact of toxic chemicals and radiation on humans and the environment. Which includes creating labs and field studies to collect information for determining what an entity's impact might have on us. The different areas of toxicology are...

         (From http://www.prospects.ac.uk/toxicologist_job_description.htm)

• isolating, identifying and measuring toxic substances or radiation and any harmful effect they have on humans, animals, plants or ecosystems;
• planning and carrying out a wide range of experiments in the field or laboratories, looking at the biological systems of plants and animals;
• analysing and evaluating statistical data and researching scientific literature;
• writing reports and scientific papers, presenting findings and, in the case of forensic work, giving evidence in court;
• advising on the safe handling of toxic substances and radiation, in production or in the event of an accident;specifically within the NHS, studying the effects of harmful chemicals, biological agents and drug overdose on people and advising on the treatment of affected patients;liaising with regulatory authorities to make sure you're complying with local, national and international regulations.

I choose this as the career to research into because it relates in almost everything we were learning this semester including atmospheric and gasses stoichiometry, masses stoichiometry, labs, chemical reactions, and solutions and solubility. Toxicologists focus on the effects on living organisms from chemicals or determining whether these chemical may have any of these effects. It can have a good effect on our environment and there are many Canadian toxicologists who our world gains benefit from. 

Prof. John P Giesy is a Canadian environmental toxicologist who's studies are now being used across the world. He studied the effects on our environment from chemicals such as PAHs, halogenated hydrocarbons, including chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and -furans, PCBs and pesticides. He discovered the phenomenon of photo‑enhanced toxicity of organic compounds, such as PAHs. Don't think hes that important yet? He has recently received $106,257,239 from agencies around the world to conduct his research because of the effect it can have.



This kind of job may not seem like the most exiting, (even when I saw it I didn't expect it to be my choice.) but I feel that it is one of the most important. Because toxicologists are able to see what is invisible to us. They go out and search for the problems that are happening or are about to happen, they test if chemicals are good for the environment, and they even examine medication before it goes through testing which avoids a whole lot of problems. It may not seem like an exiting job, but without them where would we be?

References

Prospects.ac.uk,. 'Toxicologist: Job Description'. N.p., 2014. Web. 20 June 2015.

Smith, Yolanda. 'What Is Toxicology?'. News-Medical.net. N.p., 2010. Web. 20 June 2015.

Usask.ca,. 'Prof. John P. Giesy, Ph.D.'. Web. 20 June 2015.

Wikipedia,. 'Toxicology'. N.p., 2015. Web. 20 June 2015.

Flask and globe: http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/training-needed-environmental-toxicologist-41389.html

Jar with powder : www.healthcareworkersalary.com

Test tubes: http://graduate.carleton.ca/programs/chemical-and-environmental-toxicology-phd/

Were almost there!!! (Two meanings.)

We have almost made a car that can sustain itself with no emissions. We have all heard the problems that come with the amount of CO2 emissions that come from making that electricity. The fact is that the car is only efficient as the area that it is in. Of course it still is more efficient than regular petrol cars, it still can require the same amount of CO2 to produce the amounts of energy for an electric car. Electric cars need even more energy to make because of the complexity of the batteries used to charge them. The overall effectiveness depends on how green your country is. If they have lower carbon emissions for electricity then you will have lower carbon emissions for your electric car.

From 'Electric Cars Aren't Green' Article.

 

If you want to be green, research must be done on your province/country before seeing whether buying a electric car would be better or worse for the environment. Using only petrol might even be better because the electricity used to power your car makes ever more CO2 emissions then a petrol powerd car. But why am I saying this without the technological solutions that arise from these problems? because were not there yet... Ok now we are. The solution is coming from the magnificent Tesla company. Tesla created the model S which is known to be the first luxury/sport electric car that is within a reasonable price

(Tesla Model S [Also my wallpaper] http://wallpapers111.com/tesla-model-s-p85d-wallpaper/ )

Tesla has recently released The Powerwall which is essentially a large battery which is mounted to your wall, someone might think "what the heck will that do." but I was also completely unaware of its benefits until Elon Musk explained it at the release conference. What it can do is store power whenever you are not using it such as store power from the afternoon and use that power during peak times to save money. But the real benefit from it is being able to store electricity from solar panels which allow you to use them for more high voltage uses such as powering your whole house or the benefit that i'm going to use, Powering your car. With this you can fully run your car with zero emissions and charge it when you get back home from work.

http://knowtechie.com/the-tesla-powerwall-wants-to-power-your-entire-house-501/

But wait... What about the power that is used to make the cars that was mentioned before. They solved that too!! (partially) Since batteries are one of the main problems Tesla has been dealing with they have created a factory that achieves what their whole main goal is... Net Zero Emissions. Thats right, not only does the GigaFactory run on itself, it is estimated to generate 20% more energy than it uses by running the whole factory off of solar panels. This company will never stop amazing me and I believe they will soon reach their goal of having Net Zero Emissions across everything they do.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/gigafactory

References

DeMorro, Christopher. 'Tesla Gigafactory Could Produce 20% More Electricity Than It Needs'.CleanTechnica. N.p., 2014. Web. 16 June 2015.

Epa.gov,. 'Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 June 2015.

shrinkthatfootprint.com,. 'Shades Of Green: Electric Cars' Carbon Emissions Around The Globe'. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 June 2015.

Teslamotors.com,. 'Tesla Gigafactory | Tesla Motors Canada'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 June 2015.

Teslamotors.com,. 'Tesla Powerwall'. N.p., 2015. Web. 16 June 2015.

Wilson, Lindsy. 'The 'Electric Cars Aren't Green' Myth Debunked'. shrinkthatfootprint.com. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 June 2015.

The important key differences of tap water and bottled water in Ontario.

Before you read this article, what do you think? Is tap water better? or is bottled water because it is probably cleaner? This is a question in which a person must include a large amount of different factors in their decision. Especially inside of our area where there is new proposed water regulations for Ontario. We will be looking at environmental and chemical factors only to determine what is best for us at this time.

Bottled water is said to use better filtering techniques then in tap water. It has even been shown that drugs have been found in our water ranging from muscle relaxants, anti-depressants, and even cocaine. This is said to be only a small amount but it is considered an environmental concern. There has also been problems such as E. coli being found in tap water and access amount of fluoride in Canada.




Bottled water is considered a food product and they are not subject to have any minimum amount of contaminants. Because of this there can be any problems such as access chemicals or just bottling tap water. Companies such as dansai and nestle have been caught doing this in the past. And there are numerous amounts of problems that relate to the bottling of water that can deter someone away from buying it. For instance...

Bottles used to package water take over 1,000 years to bio-degrade and when incinerated they can produce toxic fumes.

Around 80% of water bottles are not recycled. They are in landfills or exist as litter.

It is estimated that it takes 3 litres of water to produce 1 litre of bottled water.

Tap water in Ontario is about to have new regulation that will make a significantly better quality of water. The numbers are as follows.

(From http://thewaterproject.org/bottled_water_wasteful)
Lower the standard for Arsenic from 0.025 to 0.010 mg/L;
Lower the standard for Carbon Tetrachloride from 0.005 to 0.002 mg/L;
Lower the standard for Benzene from 0.005 to 0.001 mg/L;
Lower the standard for Vinyl Chloride from 0.002 to 0.001 mg/L;
New 1 mg/L standard for Chlorite;
New 1 mg/L standard for Chlorate;
New 0.1 mg/L standard for 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA); and
New 0.080 mg/L standard for Haloacetic Acids as an annual average of quarterly samples.




With this much change, and with the use of water filters, the quality of water can be so much better then what is expected. certain filters which use ion-exchange resins can reduce up to 80% of fluoride and chlorine from our water. Even in other areas it is still considered better to drink tap water but with all these new benefits that are available, in Ontario the combination of this with a water filter is the best option for you, and the environment...

Do you believe that re-branding tap water should be illegal? or should it be considered better because they are up to municipal standards for our water.

Should bottled water have its own regulations? if so, should they be lower or higher than our municipal standards?

References

Crowe, K. (2014). Drinking water contaminated by excreted drugs a growing concern. [online] Cbc.ca. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drinking-water-contaminated-by-excreted-drugs-a-growing-concern-1.2772289 [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Nrdc.org, (2013). NRDC: Bottled Water. [online] Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/chap3.asp [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Saxe, D. (2015). Ontario proposes new Drinking Water Standards. [online] Environmental Law and Litigation. Available at: http://envirolaw.com/ontario-seeking-comments-new-drinking-water-standards/ [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

The Water Project, (2015). Bottle Water is Wasteful. [online] Available at: http://thewaterproject.org/bottled_water_wasteful [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Pouring Image

http://www.businessinsa.com/bottled-water-sa/

Tap Image

http://townofmorris.ca/public-notice-discoloration-of-drinking-water/

Let's build a rocket, why not? (Quantity precision and efficiency)

Oh no.. Not rocket science. Anything but that... Well too bad because that is what we are doing. There are many factors of chemistry and physics that you must focus on for this but we are mostly looking at the chemistry side. The most important part of rockets is the efficiency of them. They have just enough of all chemicals to use. Any small amount of ignorance can lead so much wasted materials and have a large impact on how our rocket might fly (Or not). To know how to find the right amount first we have to understand rockets.

We are creating a monopropellant rocket for an orbital maneuvering system that is meant to slow a space shuttle to escape velocity after an orbit. In case you didn't notice theres no oxygen in empty space. In order to have a reaction we need an oxidizer N2O4, 8,174 kilograms of methylhydrazine is being used as fuel, we need to find the amount of oxidizer we need and add 15% of reactant to that amount to account for anything that may be lost.

The types of calculations we learn in class are perfect for the greatest amount of efficiency and to have precise measurements because any small factor can throw off a spaceship and ruin a whole mission (Thats why NASA uses them, we got the same amount that they did.). In any experiment, lab, spaceship engineering center, or even when baking. Every number is important and impressive numbers can have terrible results.

This is the mars climate orbiter which costs over one-hundred and twenty-five million dollars. It was recently thrown off course 100km and crashed which ended the whole 296 day flight. Why would such a thing happen when everything is so precise and perfect. It is the most unbelievable mistake you are ever going to know. One side of development used the metric system, while the other used the english system. 

Hopefully NASA learned their lesson from this mistake and will never make a mistake like this again. Hopefully you won't either when you are designing a rocket or conducting a science lab or you will have a lot of problems.

References

Lloyd, R. (n.d.). CNN - Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - September 30, 1999. [online] Cnn.com. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/ [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Wikipedia, (2014). Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Wikipedia, (2015). Mars Climate Orbiter. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Wikipedia, (2015). Monomethylhydrazine. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Trees not doing good enough... Make better ones!

As we are inside what is known as the Anthropocene (The Age of Man) We have made what might look like a little impact based on what we can see in numbers. On all the land of earth. 90 gigatons of CO2 are expelled from the ocean each year and 120 gigatons of CO2 are expelled from the rest of earth each year but what about humans?  only 9 gigatons are expelled from us each year, why do we make such a difference. The reason for that is nature compensates for itself and has been doing that for years. Humans do not. Nature has even attempted to compensate by taking an extra 5 gigatonnes per year but that still isn't fixing the problem. Now we are emitting extra carbon dioxide and we have been doing that for years

Sea levels are rising faster and faster, some wildlife is moving further up north, rain and snow has increased across the globe, temperatures are increasing, and there are even worse problems coming to us. Sea levels are expected to rise 7-23 inches by the end of the century, hurricanes and storms are going to become stronger, floods and droughts will become more common, diseases such as malaria will spread, and ecosystems will change. Acid rain is also a problem in which the water in the air has carbon dissolved in it to make carbonic acid which then dissociates and releases a H+ ion.

CO2 (carbon dioxide) + H2O (water) → H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

H2CO3 (carbonic acid) → H (hydrogen +) + HCO3 (hydrogen carbonate - )

All of this is due to the extra amount of carbon dioxide we humans are pumping out. Finally you may ask, How can we fix this? If nature cant fix our problems we will have to do it ourselves. Trees are not powerful enough to take all of the oxygen that we put out but don't worry, Klaus Lackner built better ones. He is the director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University and he has created artificial trees. These trees are 1000x more powerful per leaf when compared to regular trees and they don't need any sunlight to work. They work by having a resin of sodium carbonate on them which stores the carbon in the form of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). which can be rinsed off using water vapor.

Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate) + CO2 (carbon dioxide) + H2O (water) → 2 NaHCO3 (baking soda)

A regular tree can absorb up to a tonne of carbon dioxide by the time it is 40 years old. This tree can do that in one day. Ten million of these trees would remove 10% of our global emissions PER YEAR. A job which would take ten billion trees to do per year. These trees seem to be extremely efficient and they would take the form of a pine tree.

Do you think that the resin on the trees will eventually wear off or will it last longer then we need to. Will we be needing to replace trees or add the resin again to each tree?

Do you believe that the cost for each tree will be worth what we get out of it? If the resin or material is expensive should we still buy it or wait for a cheaper alternative?

(Sources will be fixed)

Carbon Diagram

Design by Robert Simmon June 16, 2011. In article "The carbon cycle" by Holli Riebeek at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Prototype image

Photo by Justin Strauss/thecityatlas.org

Sucking CO2 From the Skies with Artificial Trees BBC future

By Gaia Vince, 4 October 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies

The Carbon Cycle

By Holli Riebeek, June 16 2011, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Tree Facts

By NC state univercity, http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm

Carbon Capture Technologies that Could Help Fight Climate Change

Earth Island Journal, BY Richard Schiffman, January 29 

2013, http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/carbon_capture_technologies_that_could_help_fight_climate_change/

The solution with only positive effects... That the world is not using.

tetrachloroethylene is a chemical that is most commonly used in dry-cleaning solutions, spot removers, and carpet and upholstery cleaners. The molecular formula for this chemical is C2Cl4 (Or CCl2 = CCl2). The chief scientist of environmental protection for the New York Attorney General’s office labels this as a neurotoxin and it is considered a possible carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. This chlorocarbon is a central nervous system depressant and can enter through the respiratory system or skin. It dissolves fats inside the skin and can give someone a nine times higher chance of developing Parkinson's disease. Although it is unlikely, If this chemical reaches a temperature over 315°, it can oxidize into a highly poisonous gas known as phosgene which has been used as a chemical weapon.

This chemical is no longer made in Canada but it is still imported from other countries. When soil is exposed to this chemical, the properties such as its high density and toxicity at low levels causes it to become harder to remove than oil spills. It has been detected almost everywhere in Canada which includes in our air, soil, and drinking water. In 2002 alone, six kilotons were imported. The improper disposal of this chemical is what is causing this to appear everywhere in Canada's soil, air, and rivers. 

The scary thing is that people do not understand how dangerous this chemical is. Residents who live close to dry cleaners and any facility that uses these chemicals are reporting dizziness, loss of coordination, and other symptoms. Because of all the negative effects, the EPA in the United States ordered that by the year 2020, tetrachloroethylene can no longer be used in residential buildings. Canada has listed this as a toxic chemical that will have negative long term effects but have not taken any action against it.

The complete solution for this with dry cleaning would be to use "wet cleaners". They are the safest and most Eco-friendly alternative. Everything that comes from wet cleaners can be poured down the drain and there is no need for any special chemical recycling. What bothers me is that this method is cheaper then using typical dry cleaners and yet more people are using dry cleaners rather then wet cleaners. What causes this is that almost every company will put "dry clean only" on their delicate products when almost all of them are actually able to be cleaned by a wet cleaner.



The question I have is why is nobody accepting this technology when it has no negative effects at all. Does anyone believe they have a reason for this or why there is barley any dry cleaners that have a least one wet cleaner machine?

References

Ec.gc.ca, (2013). Tetrachloroethylene - Pollution and Waste - Environment Canada. [online] Available at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/toxiques-toxics/Default.asp?lang=En&n=98E80CC6-1&xml=6CEC27AA-B6C0-4021-9839-B6854977C06D [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Epa.gov, (2015). Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) | Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site | US EPA. [online] Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/tet-ethy.html [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Sholl, J. (2011). 8 Hidden Toxins: What’s Lurking in Your Cleaning Products?. [online] Experience Life. Available at: https://experiencelife.com/article/8-hidden-toxins-whats-lurking-in-your-cleaning-products/ [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].

Steinemann, A., MacGregor, I., Gordon, S., Gallagher, L., Davis, A., Ribeiro, D. and Wallace, L. (2011). Fragranced consumer products: Chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), pp.328-333.

Wikipedia, (2015). Phosgene. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene [Accessed 15 Jun. 2015].