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