boston

Removing Lead From Water With Beer Yeast | Earth Wise

July 14, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Lead and other heavy metals in water are a serious global problem that is worsening because of electronic waste and discharges from mining operations. In the U.S., over 12,000 miles of waterways are impacted by mine-drainage water that is rich in heavy metals.

Lead in particular is highly toxic, especially to children. The European Union established a standard for allowable lead in drinking water of only 5 parts per billion. In the US, the EPA has declared that no level of lead at all is safe.

Researchers at MIT have recently discovered that inactive yeast can be effective as an inexpensive, abundant, and simple material for removing lead contamination from drinking water supplies. The MIT study shows that the method works even at parts-per-billion levels of contamination.

The method is called biosorption, in which inactive biological material is used to remove heavy metals from water. Previously, it has been studied at parts-per-million contaminant levels, but the MIT study shows that it works at much lower levels as well.

The team studied a type of yeast widely used in brewing. The yeast cells used are inactive and desiccated and require no special care. Such yeast is abundantly available as a waste product from beer brewing and various other fermentation-based industrial processes.

The researchers estimate that to clean a water supply for a city the size of Boston would require about 20 tons of yeast a day, or 7,000 tons a year. That seems like a lot, but one single brewery, the Boston Beer Company, generates 20,000 tons a year of surplus yeast that is no longer useful for fermentation.

**********

Web Links

Could used beer yeast be the solution to heavy metal contamination in water?

Photo, posted September 5, 2017, courtesy of Allagash Brewing via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

January Climate Report Card | Earth Wise

March 9, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

The global climate is a complicated thing. While overall trends are relatively straightforward to understand, the details can seem confusing.

January was the sixth-warmest January in the 143 years of global climate record keeping. The global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.

Meanwhile, the United States had its coolest January since 2014, although the month still ranked nearly a degree above the long-term average across the nation. This January was also the driest January in eight years and was one of the top- 15 driest Januarys on record. That being said, there was the so-called Bomb Cyclone late in the month that dumped 1-2 feet of snow and brought blizzard conditions along the eastern seaboard and set a one-day snowfall record in Boston.

Global conditions and regional and local conditions can be very different. In the big picture, January was the 46th consecutive January and the 445th consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th century average.

And while the US had a fairly cool January, South America saw its second-warmest January on record, Asia had its fourth warmest, and Oceania had its seventh warmest.

Apart from temperatures, Antarctic sea ice coverage was the second smallest January extent in 44 years. Arctic ice was 208,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, although it was the largest since 2009.

Even as the global climate warms, local and regional climate conditions will continue to have unique and variable characteristics over the course of time. Every time there’s a bout of cold weather, it isn’t time to stop being concerned about climate change.

**********

Web Links

January 2022 was Earth’s 6th warmest on record

Photo, posted January 6, 2013, courtesy of Christopher Michel via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Coastal Northeast Is A Hotspot | Earth Wise

November 16, 2021 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Global warming is, obviously, a world-wide phenomenon. When the concept of a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise is discussed, it refers to the average global temperature and the effects that would have on such things as sea level rise and weather patterns. But the effects of the changing climate are not homogeneous. Very different things can happen and are happening in different places.

One such place is the coastal northeastern United States, which is a global warming hotspot. The region is heating faster than most regions of North America and, indeed, 2 degrees of summer warming has already happened in the Northeast.

New research led by the University of Massachusetts Amherst has determined that this heating is linked to significant alterations in the ocean and atmospheric conditions over the North Atlantic.

Several studies have found that the Atlantic Meridional Circulation is slowing down. The AMOC conveys warm, salty water from the tropics north towards Greenland, where it cools and sinks. The cooled water than flows back south as deep-water currents. As the warming climate melts glaciers in Greenland, the circulation slows down, less cooled water arrives in the south, and there is more heating of the ocean off the Northeastern coast.

At the same time, the North Atlantic Oscillation, a weather phenomenon that governs the strength and position of the winds that blow from the U.S. over the Atlantic, has tended to settle into a pattern that enhances the influence of ocean air on the eastern seaboard climate. Warmer ocean air being blown over the region has led to rising temperatures in Boston, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island.

As the average temperature of the world rises, some places will warm more quickly and others more slowly.

**********

Web Links

The Coastal Northeastern U.S. Is A Global Warming Hotspot

Photo, posted August 8, 2010, courtesy of Doug Kerr via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Benefits Of A Zero-Emissions Boston | Earth Wise

May 25, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Many countries, states, and cities around the world have set goals to become carbon neutral, typically by the year 2050. These goals are based on the desire to mitigate the effects of climate change that are steadily increasing as a result of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But reducing emissions is not just a way to combat climate change, it can also be a major contributor to improved public health.

The City of Boston has set a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050. A new study by the School of Public Health at Boston University published in the journal Environmental Research Letters looked at the consequences of eliminating fossil fuel emissions in the greater Boston area.

According to their modeling, eliminating emissions would save 288 lives a year by reducing fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. The resulting decrease in medical costs and lost and reduced work could save $1.7 billion a year in Suffolk County and $2.4 billion a year for the entire 75-square-mile zone modeled in the study.

The study looked at the amounts of two air pollutants known to harm human health: PM2.5 (particulates with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns) and ozone. They compared the current levels of these pollutants to what would be present when contributions from motor vehicles, generators, rail, industry, oil- and gas-burning, shipping and boating, and residential wood fires were eliminated.

The study focused on the City of Boston’s climate action plan, but actions taken by Boston will not take place in a vacuum. Many cities across the region are taking similar actions. The overall results will come from the collective actions across New England.

**********

Web Links

A Zero-Emissions Boston Could Save 288 Lives and $2.4 Billion Annually

Photo, posted August 31, 2019, courtesy of Eric Kilby via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Cost Of Rising Seas

October 1, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Coastal cities in the United States are grappling with the need for extensive infrastructure projects to protect against rising seas and worsening storms. The cost of these projects will be enormous, and it is unclear how to pay to them.

Boston has many neighborhoods in low-lying areas, and it is estimated that $2.4 billion will be needed to protect the city from flooding. The city abandoned plans to build a harbor barrier that would have cost $6 to $12 billion because it was economically unfeasible.

Charleston, South Caroline needs $2 billion to reduce flooding that occurs regularly during high tides. The Houston, Texas area needs $30 billion to provide protection against a 100-year flood. Hurricane Harvey caused $125 billion in damages in Texas in 2017. New York City is considering a $10 billion storm surge barrier and floodgates to shield parts of the city from rising waters.

Florida faces the greatest exposure to flooding with an estimated $76 billion in costs to address some of its problems.

At the federal level, multiple agencies represent potential funding sources, but none offer the kind of money required to address the need. This places a heavy burden on state and local governments. Various states have passed legislation related to shoreline resiliency and flood abatement, but relatively little funding has been approved. Some bond measures have passed, but the totals are small compared with what is needed.

Educating people about the costs of not doing anything or not doing enough soon enough is essential. As Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, not spending a large amount of money on resilience can result in having to spend a colossal amount of money on recovery.

**********