Posts Tagged ‘mercury’

Eating Environmentally Safe Seafood

Friday, August 8th, 2008

The nutritious protein provided by seafood can be a delicious part of your meal. Before you eat your seafood, take a moment to ask yourself if it is safe to eat for you and for the environment.

You may ask, “How can I tell if my seafood is environmentally safe?”

One must become aware of how the seafood was caught, where it was caught and what health concerns may exist.

Seafood that is farmed is usually better environmentally than wild seafood. The following examples are farm raised or caught in an environmentally sustainable method:[1]

Abalone

Arctic Char

Barramundi

Catfish

Sturgeon Caviar (US)

Clams (Farmed)

Longnecks (US Wild)

Steamers (US Wild)

Pacific Cod (Longline)

Dungeness Crab

Kona Crab

Stone Crab

Crayfish (U.S. Farmed)

Atlantic Croaker

Alaskan Halibut

Alaskan Pollock

Pacific Spiny Lobster

Rock Lobster

King Mackerel

Spanish Mackerel

Mahi Mahi (US Atlantic)

Striped Mullet

Mussels

Oysters (Farmed)

Yellow Perch (Lake Erie)

Pollock (Surimi)

Black Rockfish

Sablefish

Alaskan Salmon

Pacific Sardine

Big Eye Scad

Mackerel Scad

Bay Scallops

Pink Shrimp (Oregon)

Spot Prawn (BC)

Longfin Squid

Striped Bass

Sturgeon (US Farmed)

Swordfish (Handline)

Swordfish (Harpoon)

Tilapia (US)

Rainbow Trout (Farm)

Albacore Tuna (Troll)

Skipjack Tuna (Troll)

Yellowfin Tuna (US Atl)

White Seabass

Lake Whitefish (Trap)

Wreckfish

 

Many of the other fish are overfished, contaminated by heavy metals, or harvested by means that endanger many species. Many of the species reproduce slowly and are prone to overfishing.

Enjoy seafood, but do your part in protecting the environment. By being aware of where your seafood is obtained and whether it is caught or farmed, you can help to keep the diversity of aquatic life necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

Richard Moolick

Global EnviroBlog



Share/Save/Bookmark

A Better Way of Glowing Green

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

We’ve seen the ads on television and heard the ads on radio recommending the use of CFLs (Coiled Fluorescent Lights) instead of incandescent bulbs. While it is true that CFLs use less power and usually last longer than incandescent bulbs, it is not as green as it sounds.

A 60W incandescent bulb puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 216kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 1,000 hours. A comparable 15W CFL puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 54kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 5,000 to 10,000 hours. Switching to CFLs, therefore, would appear to save 162kWh for each hour of use. So why then am I not convinced that CFLs are the best energy-saving replacements for incandescent bulbs?

The light emitting diode is another alternative. Light bulb-sized LED arrays producing about 800 lumens use about 12W or around 43kWh for each hour of operation and lasts an average of 60,000 hours. This amounts to a savings of 173kWh over incandescent or 11kWh per hour over CFLs. So why should we spend the extra money up front (LEDs cost about 10 time as much as CFLs.) for LEDs when we get almost the same economy with CFLs?

The reason is in how they work. An incandescent light works by running current through a filament in a sealed argon bulb. The resistance of the filament to the flow of electricity causes the filament to heat up and glow. A fluorescent light works by ionizing a small amount of mercury vapor so that it emits ultraviolet light. A phosphor coating on the inside of the tube glows in response to the UV light. An LED electrically stimulates molecules in the solid state chip to high energy levels. As the molecules drop back to their normal state, light is emitted.

LEDs make more sense to use than CFLs due to the fact that a “burned out” CFL is hazardous waste and must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Throwing CFLs in the trash can ultimately lead to contaminating ground water with mercury, a potentially deadly toxic metal. LEDs don’t contain such toxic residues.

Richard T. Moolick

Share/Save/Bookmark