Search

I'm interested in better understanding the ongoing geological processes that shape St. Louis and the Mississippi Valley region. So far, I've been looking into the history of seismicity in the region, focusing on the fascinating but little known history of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 -- the most devastating earthquakes to have hit the US east of the Rockies. I've also been exploring how St. Louis and surrounding areas are dealing with the possibility of another earthquake occurring in the future. According to one article I read, one of the biggest uncertainties is what would happen to the heavily engineered Mississippi River in the case of another major tremblor. The shaking could break the levees, flooding wide areas along the river and creating cascading effects. The flow of the river might also reverse completely, as occurred during the New Madrid earthquakes.

On these possibilities and the lack of scientific consensus surrounding intraplate seismicity in this zone, see this article in The Atlantic.

On current efforts to create earthquake hazard maps in St. Louis, see this overview on the US Geological Survey site.

For a deeper dive into the history of the New Madrid earthquakes, see this book by historian of science Conevery Bolton Valencius. 

Yes and no. Communities should be able to do something about their air quality in their area but within the state's command. For example, states should have a state regulation on air quality and be able to enforce that regulation. However, individual communities should be able to do what they want to meet that state regulation on air quality. With this, communities still have the freedom to do something about their air quality while the state maintains its power

EPA is collecting data about the air quality in the ironbound communities. This data is used to find what causes the air pollution and EPA is working to fix the problem and improve the overall health of the communities

Officials are looking to change something like the trucks within the port industry in Newark to counteract air pollution while keeping in mind the jobs of many who can be affected by the changes. The port of New York and New Jersey supplies 270,000 jobs and $36 billion in economic activity for shipping. If the possible changes were implemented, they must make sure that this industry is not impacted negatively because that can hurt the communities connected to the industry.

In the future, I do believe that industrial development and sustainable development are compatible because there is a possibililty of a new source of green energy that is not fossil fuel that can aid both developments. However, currently I do not believe that it is possible to have industrial and sustainable development together with the current resources that we have. Fossil fuels are too harmful for the environment while implementation of green energy in industry is too costly and will not yield the same amount of productivity. Once there is a source that is as powerful and easy to implement, such as fossil fuel, becomes apparent, or companies/officials find an efficient way to implement green energy into industry, then industrial and sustainable development will become compatible.

Air pollution in Newark that is caused by port traffic, waste facilities, industrial plants, and trucks. Some of the air pollution in New Jersey is also caused by air pollution drifting in from Pennsylvania.

One of the possible solutions to air pollution is the truck replacement program where old trucks are being replaced with newer trucks to "curb diesel emissions, and that low-sulfur fuels were making ships’ engines run cleaner." However, this is difficult to implement because it can affect the jobs of many truckers and trucking companies by limiting how many pickups they can make.