Careers in Chemistry - Chemical Engineer, or Coolical Fungineer? (Post #6)

    One of the fields that I am very interested in for my post-secondary education is chemical engineering. There are a number of different careers in chemical engineering, as chemical engineers can work in petroleum, pharmaceutical, or food industries. One example of a career in chemical engineering is one as an analytical chemist. They run tests and analyse the quality of pharmaceutical products. By running chemical tests and observing chemical and physical properties, the chemist is able to determine the, "quality and stability of drug products" (AGCAS, 2014).

    There have been a number of great scientists who have contributed to this field. The Chemical Institute of Canada recognizes many Canadian achievers, such as Franco Berruti , the great mind behind,"Pyrolytic Conversion of Biomass Residues into Valuable Bio-Oil and Bio-Carbon Products", a revolutionary new method of recycling dangerous residues (CSChE, 2014). Other famous chemical engineers include Arthur Fry, the inventor of the Post-It note, and Mario J. Molina, a Mexican chemical engineer who, in 1995, won the Nobel Prize for exposing the danger of CFC's (which are now widely recognized as unnecessary and dangerous).

    To get into chemical engineering, you must follow a well-worn path from high school into university. Of course, getting high marks in chemistry and math is important for getting into a university Chemical Engineering program. It takes around 4 years to complete a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. You can then continue on to get your Masters' or even Doctorate, if a higher-level, more consultory career interests you. For example, if I wanted to become a chemical engineer, I would continue to take Chemistry, Physics, Advanced Functions, and Calculus and Vectors next year. If I got high marks in all of these courses, and was otherwise a well-rounded student, I would apply to McGill for its chemical engineering program. If I got in, I could graduate and then apply to a number of places. There are many employers looking for chemical engineers, such as oil sands developers out west or even nuclear energy consultants right here. Either way, a chemical engineer has a lot of possibilities once he or she has left school, and it is a great career for anyone who wants to apply what they have learned in chemistry.

Methane to Graphene: Having a Gas! (Post #5)

    Our next unit in chemistry is gases and atmospheric chemistry, and this article I found seems to fit in quite nicely. Entitled, "Meet the first lady of graphene, turning harmful gases into the wonder stuff", this Telegraph article tells the story of a scientist who has discovered a way to turn methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas, into a useful material. Gases in our atmosphere, even if they are only present as one part per million or less, can have serious effects on our health and the health of our planet. Greenhouse gases typically don't harm use directly, but have a harmful effect on the environment. Greenhouse gases form a layer in our atmosphere which allows sunlight in, but does not let heat escape. This creates a sort of pressure cooker, or greenhouse, effect, which normally keeps the Earth at a nice temperature, preventing it from becoming to cold. But when too many greenhouse gases are present, this effect is heightened, leading to global temperature increases, which can have very harmful effects. Atmospheric chemistry is very important for this reason: it allows us to monitor, assess, and predict what changes in the composition of our atmosphere will cause.
    The article starts off by explaining what exactly graphene is. It's been heralded as  "one of the most interesting inventions of modern times", due to its potential use as a semiconductor or building material (Burn-Callendar, 2014). Catharina Paukner is the lead scientist in this project, and she's discovered a way to mass produce graphene, from the methane produced by landfills and even cows. Not only is graphene rust-free, lightweight, and stronger than steel, but it also has potential for 3-D printing. (Burn-Callendar, 2014). Using plasma, Paukner can turn pumped-in methane from anywhere in the world to produce tonnes of graphene, usable in aerospace, automotive, and architectural industry. And, all this innovation has been spearheaded by one scientist, eager to change the world for the better.
    This article is obviously very exciting to me, and I think it should excite anyone who reads it. I think most people have heard the scary statistic that it's not cars that produce the most greenhouse gas, but actually agriculture, and mostly from cows. Collecting the gas from livestock and unsightly landfills is an obvious first step towards reducing overall impact on the environment.
    So I'll pass it over to you: do you think this is the best we can do, or should we try harder to reduce emissions from agriculture and waste disposal? If so, what are some ideas you have?

Link to article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11273843/Meet-the-first-lady-of-graphene-turning-harmful-gases-into-the-wonder-stuff.html

Fluoride: A Solute Solution? (Post #4)

     Fluoride has been a subject of much debate in recent years. Not the chemical itself, but its inclusion in many municipal water supplies. Your whole life, you have been drinking fluoride whenever you have a glass of tap water. But  how does this actually affect you? I found an article online entitled, "Expert Testimony: How Your Drinking Water May Be Damaging Your Brain", which was a very…interesting article, leading me to question what was actually truthful in the article. But first, this article reminded me of what we've been learning in chemistry. We've talked about solutions quite a bit recently, and our tap water is indeed a solution. Everyone knows that there are natural minerals and chemicals in our water, but there are also additives, like fluorine. In fact, our tap water has between 0.7 to 1.2 mg of fluorine/L (Ontario Dental Association, 2011). This is a very unsaturated solution, and using very simple math, I discovered that there is only 0.7-1.2 ppm of fluoride in our water (mg/L and ppm are the same). 
    This  article states that fluoride damages the hippocampus and leads to increased aluminium intake (Joseph Mercola, 2011). It goes on to praise the steps that some small towns are taking to get rid of the fluoride in their water, while continually bashing every town or city that does add it to their water. The article is poorly sourced, linking to studies or articles that examine the effects of large quantities of fluoride, not the small amount we consume daily. It concludes with a "Donate" button that allows readers to donate to the Fluoride Action Network, a group of people against the use of fluoride in our water.
    I kept my summary of the article short because it is not worth repeating. This article showed everything wrong with pseudoscience and how people are willing and able to ignore actual scientific facts and allow themselves to be scared. Fluoride is not a very toxic chemical; it takes 5 to 10 grams of sodium fluoride to kill an adult human (Ontario Dental Association, 2011). A solution with only 0.7 mg/L is nowhere near that harmful, and I don't think that people understand how unsaturated of a solution our tap water is. With some basic knowledge on solutions and solubility, anyone should be able to look at this article and see the glaring holes.
    But perhaps I'm wrong. Do your own research, and decide for yourself. Should we continue to add fluoride to our water?

Link to article:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/01/water-supply-fluoridation.aspx

Sand and Salt Science: Sand Up Against Snow A-salt (Post #3)

    Salt: the bane of our shoes in Canadian winters. But did you know that the salt used on our roads and sidewalks is carefully measured and mixed by professionals? The article "The perfect mixture: the science of salting, sanding roads", released by The Record News, explains how and why it's important. In school, we've recently learned that the quantity of certain chemicals can have a huge effect on  reaction or physical change. One limiting reagent is always present, a chemical or substance that is used up, thereby stopping the reaction. Carefully measuring these quantities is important, to assure that a reaction does not spiral out of control. Balancing chemical equations can also help understand how much salt is needed when de-icing roads. In this case, a chemical reaction is not exactly taking place, but the melted ice is dissolving the sodium chloride. Water with dissolved salt has a lower freezing point, so the ice takes longer to freeze, or never does.

    The article explains how different cities and towns use different ratios of sand to salt in their mixes. In colder temperatures, more salt must be used, as preventing refreezing is key. But in cities where the temperature is too low for salt to be of any use, more sand is used to provide traction. However, the cities often fail to consider the environmental impact of the salt they are using. A spokesperson for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation says that when salt is put on roads, it "impacts water quality". She goes on to say that, especially in areas around road salt storage piles, waterways are impacted by salt runoff. 

    This is article is very interesting to me, as someone who has to commute for more than an hour to get to school. The safety of cars on roads is extremely important, but so is the local environment. Of course, humans are always going to choose the quick fix (salt) over a long-term change (fewer cars perhaps?). Salt seems to be pretty necessary in Canada, but I believe we could definitely improve or at least investigate the impact we are having on our environment when we use it.

    So, my question to all of you is this: Is salt harmless enough to continue to use, or should we investigate alternatives? The cost, ease of use, and impact of any alternative must be considered.

Link to article: http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20110123/the-perfect-mixture-the-science-of-salting-sanding-roads

Tailings Ponds: A Cautionary Tale (Post #2)

   A new process is being tested to reduce the toxicity of tailings ponds from oil sands production, talked about to great lengths in the article "New Solar Process Could Speed Up Tar Sands Cleanup", by Gas 2, a clean-driving blog. The proposed method involves the chemical reaction of the toxins, chlorine, and sunlight. We have learned a great deal about reactions in chemistry class, and this is an exciting new real-world application. In this case, single-displacement and decomposition reactions are being used to try to clean tailings ponds.We have learned, in notes and experiments, that the addition of energy can trigger a chemical reaction. In this new  "solar process", sunlight (or the UV rays in sunlight) provide that triggering energy that causes a beneficial reaction to take place.
    This blog post/article excitedly claims that a new process is being used to reduce the toxicity of harmful tailings ponds by 75-84%. Usually, it takes around 20 years for a tailings pond to be able to be reclaimed, while it continually releases toxins into the surrounding ground and water table. It works by adding chlorine or bleach to the water in a tailings pond. The sunlight then hits these chlorine particles, causing them to form "hydroxyl radicals", which are much more efficient at getting rid of the toxins in the water. Then, the sunlight causes any remaining chlorine to decompose, minimizing any extra toxicity adding chlorine to the water might have caused. However, the one problem is the main cause of the chemical reaction. Because sunlight cannot fully penetrate through a pond, it only reacts with the chlorine near the top. The next step is to innovate some sort of inexpensive mixing device that circulates all the tailings around. Then, the water can be run through wastewater treatment at a pre-exisiting facility, and be released back into the water table.
    I am very excited by this article. I have had many opinions about the petroleum industry over the past few years, and this seems to promise a very effective counter to the extremely harmful tailings ponds created by the extraction of oil. In addition, the fact that the water is safe enough to go through one more process then be released back "into the wild" is very promising. I'm skeptical of this seemingly miraculous solution, but perhaps it is simple enough to work. I will end with a larger picture question, one that we as Canadians should be asking ourselves constantly.
    As citizens of the country with some of the largest oil sands in the world, providing jobs for thousands, which should come first? Our economy or the health of the planet?

Link to article:
http://gas2.org/2014/09/25/new-solar-process-speed-tar-sands-cleanup/

Formaldehyde: Bad For Your Hide (Post #1)

    I recently read an article on NPR, entitled "E-Cigarettes Can Churn Out High Levels Of Formaldehyde". In chemistry class, we have recently discussed reactions to great lengths. Certain chemical compounds react with other chemical compounds in unusual and interesting ways. For instance, sodium will react with water and create a great deal of heat. In our own bodies, formaldehyde bonds with amino acids, but not in an immediately noticeable way. In fact, such small amounts of substances are hard to observe, but bonding takes place nonetheless. Formaldehyde bonds with amino acids, the building blocks of our body, to form a harmful toxin. This illustrates a way matter can react to form something totally new.
    The NPR article warns E-Cigarette users of unforeseeable and unknown danger in the vapour they are breathing in. Up until this point, E-Cigarettes have been viewed as infinitely healthier than cigarettes, simply because the number of toxins in the vapour is less than the number found in cigarette smoke. Researchers say that the amount of formaldehyde found in E-Cigarette vapour is ten to fifteen times as much as the amount found in cigarette smoke. The article aims to inform the readers of a potential threat, and to warn that E-Cigarettes are not miraculous, carcinogen-free alternatives to cigarettes.
   I found this article to be very thought-provoking. Like most other people, I previously believed that E-Cigarettes were a perfectly healthy alternative to cigarettes, but I am now reconsidering. The biggest question raised here is the legal implication of these new findings. Can E-Cigarettes even be sold if their vapour is filled with a known carcinogen, the same one we use to preserve corpses? I'm not sure. But something's going to happen sooner or later, and I'd rather have more research done sooner.
   So: should E-Cigarettes be tested more before they continue their wide release? Or are their benefits over cigarettes too much to throw aside?

Link to article:
 http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/21/378663944/e-cigarettes-can-churn-out-high-levels-of-formaldehyde

Reference List (Bibliography)

Post #1:

Stein, Rob. "E-Cigarettes Can Churn Out High Levels Of Formaldehyde". NPR.org. National Public Radio. 21 Jan 2015. Web. 8 Apr 2015. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/21/378663944/e-cigarettes-can-churn-out-high-levels-of-formaldehyde>

Wadsworth, Augustus and Mary C. Pangborn.The Reaction of Formaldehyde With Amino Acids. New York: Department of Health. Print.


Post #2:

Meyers, Glenn. "New Solar Process Could Speed Up Tar Sands Cleanup". gas2.org. Important Media. 2014. Web. 15 Apr 2015. <http://gas2.org/2014/09/25/new-solar-process-speed-tar-sands-cleanup/>


Post #3:

McCarty, Lucian. "The perfect mixture: the science of salting, sanding roads". TroyRecord.com. The Troy Record. 23 Jan 2011. Web. 20 Apr 2015. <http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20110123/the-perfect-mixture-the-science-of-salting-sanding-roads>


Post #4:

Mercola, Jospeh. "Expert Testimony: How Your Drinking Water May Be Damaging Your Brain"`. Joseph Mercola, 2014. Web. 2 Apr 2015. <http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/01/water-supply-fluoridation.aspx>

Ontario. Ontario Dental Association. Community Water Fluoridation: Myths and Facts. 2011. Web. 2 Apr 2015. <http://youroralhealth.ca/images/personaloral/oda%20myths%20and%20facts%204.pdf>


Post #5:

Burn-Callendar, Rebecca. "Meet the first lady of graphene, turning harmful gases into the wonder stuff". Telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. 6 Dec 2014. Web. 19 May 2015. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11273843/Meet-the-first-lady-of-graphene-turning-harmful-gases-into-the-wonder-stuff.html>


Post #6:

Analytical chemist. AGCAS, 2014. Web. 21 May 2015. <http://www.prospects.ac.uk/analytical_chemist_job_description.htm>

How to Become a Chemical Engineer. Academic Invest, 2015. Web. 21 May 2015.
<http://www.academicinvest.com/science-careers/chemistry-careers/how-to-become-a-chemical-engineer>

CSChE Awards. Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, 2014. Web. 21 May 2015.
<http://www.cheminst.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/AwardsHandbooks/CSChE%20Awards%20Handbook.pdf>