The aptly-named Camille Seaman’s photographs of icebergs.
New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis on how often he feels it’s necessary to quote climate change skeptics in his articles:
I quote the climate skeptics or deniers — whatever term you prefer — when they’re relevant. So when I’m doing a piece about the science itself and what the latest scientific findings are, especially if that’s a short piece, I don’t necessarily feel obliged to quote the climate skeptics the same way that if you were doing a story about evolution, a New York Times reporter wouldn’t feel obliged to call up a creationist and ask them what they think. On the other hand, the climate skeptics are politically relevant at this point in American history [in a way] the creationists are not, for example, so we have a fair chunk of the Congress … that sees political traction right now in questioning climate science or purporting not to believe it and so, in a political story or in a longer story, I usually do give some amount of space to the climate skeptics.
Image by Jonathan Stead/Flickr
Kristen Iversen spent years in Europe looking for things to write about before realizing that biggest story she’d ever cover was in the backyard where she grew up. Iversen spent her childhood in Colorado close to the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons factory, playing in fields and swimming in lakes and streams that it now appears were contaminated with plutonium.
Rocky Flats Nuclear Processing Plant (by joiseyboyy)
We pay for this stuff and it goes right into the waste bin, and we’re not capturing it the way our recycling programs are intending us to capture it. We’re just sticking it in the ground and building mountains out of it.
— About 69 % of our trash goes immediately into landfills. And most landfill trash is made up of containers and packaging – almost all of which should be recycled, says Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Edward Humes,
Plastic that has floated on the islands of Midway Atoll. On tomorrow’s Fresh Air, we’ll talk to journalist Edward Humes about the Pacific Garbage Patch — and the other gyres of trash floating around our oceans.
Great Pacific Garbage Patch (by J Gilbert)
In 1953, smog gets so bad in the shadow of City Hall that pedestrians carry rags to wipe away tears. Scientists began collecting smog particles in the 1950s to analyze what was causing the haze. The primary culprit turns out to be automobiles, not factories.
Photo: City Hall, merely across the street, is dim as Marion E. Lent gropes her way to work. Credit: R.L. Oliver / Los Angeles Times
Our Vintage Times series is presented on Tumblr with photography from the Los Angeles Times archives.
Today’s Fresh Air, Susan Freinkel on chemicals in plastics: “These chemicals act in a more convoluted and complicated way. ”They interfere with our hormones and they interfere with the endocrine system, which is the network of glands that orchestrate growth and development. And there’s some research showing that DEHP, this chemical that’s in vinyl [used in IV bags] has this property. It interferes with testosterone.” [complete interview here]
Investigative reporter Charles Fishman on the future of clean, safe and cheap water: “In the U.S., we spend $21 billion a year buying bottled water and we spend $29 billion a year maintaining the entire water system — pipes, treatment plants, pumps. We spend almost as much on crushable plastic bottles of water as we do maintaining the water system.”
Donovan Hohn talks about ‘garbage patches’ in the ocean: “When I first heard the phrase ‘garbage patch,’ I imagined something dense. I initially imagined it as a floating junkyard, and you’d have to poke your way through it with a paddle if you’re in a kayak. But it’s not like that. You can’t take a picture of it because that doesn’t exist. What does exist is a whole lot of plastic out there, but it’s spread out over millions of miles of ocean. And some of it floats on the surface where you can find it. And some of it floats just below the surface. And eventually all of it will photodegrade, so much of it is so small you’re not going to be able to see it with the naked eye.”
“You can think of Antarctica as an amazing layer cake, made from millions of layers of snow that gradually turns to ice. But a new study finds that’s not always the case. Some of the ice in Antarctica is actually forming from underneath the glaciers, instead of being piled on from the top, according to a report published online by Science magazine.” — It’s Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets