Ozone Depletion: Canada and other countries

Ozone Depletion

Discovered in 1973 by Rowland and Molina.

Ozone depletion is not just an issue concerning Canada. Ozone depletion is seen very clearly in the Artic where the ozone becomes extremely thin due to harmful chemicals in our atmosphere that cause it to deplete. The main chemical that causes this depletion is CFC’s or chlorofluorocarbons. These CFC’s come from air conditioners, refrigerators and some aerosols.  Heavily populated suburban cities contribute the most to ozone depletion due to their usage of refrigerators and ACs. While smaller and less wealthy cities have a lower contribution towards the ozone depletion.  Other than Canada, many wealthy or developed countries are the main source of CFC’s and contribute the most towards ozone depletion. (Such as the USA, England, France and Australia)

The public is not being made aware of this problem as much as scientist would like. Many know of the problem and are concerned but do not know how to stop of contribute to the reduction of the cause. There are many documentaries and ads about reducing a home’s AC usage to save on energy but there aren’t very many speaking out on the ozone depletion.  The best way people become aware of this problem is when the issue of global warming is brought up. The ozone’s depletion does cause UV rays to enter into the earth’s atmosphere much easily and thus cause the temperature to increase.

Thing I can do to prevent the ozone depletion is by cutting down the amount of AC I use, not using any type of aerosols and keeping not more than one refrigerator at my house. I could also educate people on what contains CFC’s and other chemicals that harm the ozone and how to cut down or replace such products with environmentally friendly products. Luckily for Canadians, many products that contain CFC’s are now not available to the public. The government created a ban on them on June 1975.

Ozone depletion is an international problem. Countries such as Canada, the US, Russia and more have come together and help prevent the increase in the hole.

Article Review on Alternatice Energy Sources for the Home

 News Article Review: “New Alternative Energy Sources for Homes”

         In the news article “New Alternative Energy Sources for Homes” by “Living Green”, the journalist discusses new ways homeowners can reduce their carbon footprint while saving money on their electricity bill. New alternative energy sources for homes are becoming more popular as energy costs continue to rise and environmental concerns grow. While many systems are too expensive for the average homeowners, new technology has been created to power particular areas of the home. These alternative energy sources help decrease the amount of nonrenewable energy consumed by a home. Most sources can work with the local power grid, thus making it simpler to install and use. Also by connecting to the local power grid it encourages the use of alternative energy when it is available, while still allowing electricity use from the grid when renewable source is not found.  Alternative energy sources such as hydroelectricity, tidal power, and nuclear energy are not discussed because they are impractical energy sources for powering a single residence. However, seeking out electricity created from alternative energy sources through your local power company is an excellent option in many parts of the country and should not be discounted. One way one could reduce their energy bill while helping their environmental is by using solar energy. Solar energy refers to using solar photovoltaic to create electricity. Many homes in Canada have turned to this alternative. Throughout the article there was no bias view found. The journalist simply wanted to give homeowners other options on how they can make their home a ‘greener’ place while saving money. The journalist does not insult oil/ non-renewable sources thus show their intensions to be just purely enlightening others on other possibilities. I strongly agree with this article, since it exposes the idea of using clean energy in an average home. If everyone in Canada installed these solar panels, over 9% of greenhouse gasses omitted in total will decrease. Now if industries installed these solar panels, over 20% of GHG will decrease.

World Health Organization Article Review: Indoor air Pollution

News Article Review: Indoor air Pollution

        In the article “Public health and environment health topics” by “WHO”, the journalist discusses the environmental impacts on human health. This environmental influence effects a humans health in many ways, through exposures to physical, chemical and biological risk factors, and through related changes in our behaviour in response to those factors. WHO also states that “Thirteen million deaths annually are due to preventable environmental causes. Preventing environmental risk could save as many as four million lives a year, in children alone, mostly in developing countries.” In the article I chose to focus my review on the main focus was on indoor pollutants. WHO states that “more than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs. Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution.” As we know, burring these products cause indoor smoke which contains small particles and carbon monoxide. There is consistent evidence that exposure to indoor air pollution can lead to acute lower respiratory infections in children under five, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer (where coal is used) in adults. According to “Global Health Risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks” indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease. The sad truth is, most of the places that use these solid fuels cannot afford ‘cleaner’ methods. Thus the possibility of decreasing the amount of deaths due to indoor pollutants is low. However reading this article I felt that there was a little bit of a bias opinion in this subject. Everything stated is true, but while reading the article, “WHO” would mention small things, they have done to improve living standards in these homes. They continue to boast about their accomplishments which quite frankly are not that high. Thought I highly agree with this article. All over the world people cannot afford expensive clean methods of fuel, so they rely on what they can find. Sadly, these findings cause long term illness.  

Health of Live stock and it effect on the Envionment

Livestock Health

            Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is a transmissible, neurodegenerative, fatal brain disease found in cattle. BSE first came to the attention of the scientific community in November 1986 in the United kingdom, when it first appeared in a cattle and thus became a newly-recognized form of neurological disease. Studies conducted in the UK suggest that the source of BSE was cattle feed prepared from bovine tissues, which is basically brain and spinal cord tissue. BSE affects the brain and spinal cord of cattle. The nature of the BSE agent is still a matter of debate. According to the prion theory, the agent is composed largely, if not entirely, of a self-replicating protein, referred to as a prion. Between November 1986 and November 2002, 181 376 cases of BSE were confirmed in the UK. Through the years UK has done a variety of things to prevent the BSE prion from showing up again. Their efforts include banning the use of ruminant proteins in the preparation of animal feed, introducing a total feed ban which includes sales, and banning products such as tallow and gelatin derived from bovine tissues. However, in 1999 the European Union lifted the ban for meat fulfilling specific requirements; for example, de-boned beef from animals from farms where there have been no cases of BSE. Cattle are continuously monitored for BSE and BSE is decreasing in the UK. The number of reports of BSE in the UK began to decline in 1992 and has continuously declined year by year since then. New monitoring programs using newly developed tests for the diagnosis of BSE in dead and slaughtered cattle have been introduced throughout the world.
               Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) is a rare and fatal human neurodegenerative condition. As with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, vCJD is classified as a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy because of characteristic spongy degeneration of the brain and its ability to be transmitted. vCJD is a fairly new disease that was first described in March 1996. Before the identification of vCJD, CJD was recognized to exist in only three forms, sporadic cases, familial and iatrogenic. vCJD is strongly linked to exposure, through food, to a TSE of cattle called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. From October 1996 to November 2002, 129 cases of vCJD have been reported in the United Kingdom six in France and a few more in other countries. The first person to develop symptoms of what turned out to be vCJD became ill in January 1994. Most people who have developed vCJD have lived in the UK.  Early in the illness, patients usually experience psychiatric symptoms, which most commonly take the form of depression or, less often, a schizophrenia-like psychosis. Unusual sensory symptoms, such as "stickiness" of the skin, have been experienced by half of the cases early in the illness. Neurological signs, including unsteadiness, difficulty walking and involuntary movements, develop as the illness progresses and, by the time of death, patients become completely immobile and mute. vCJD is strongly linked with exposure to the BSE agent. BSE is a TSE affecting cattle and was first reported in the UK in 1986. Since that year, about 181 376 cases have been reported in the UK. The  route of exposure was through bovine-based food, although infectivity is mainly found in the brain and spinal cord of clinically ill animals. Due to the linkage between vCJD and BSE, the British government made BSE a notifiable disease in June 1988. Shortly afterwards, a statutory ban on the feeding of protein derived from ruminants (e.g. cattle, sheep and goats) to any ruminant was introduced. The use in the food chain of bovine offals considered to pose a potential risk to humans was also banned in the UK in 1989. 
                   As one researches the out break of the BCE prion, more commonly known as mad cow disease, they might wonder how industries thought that giving an herbivore animal meat products to consume would result in a good outcome. The thought may even evoke disgust. The reason why animal meat was given to cattle was to increase their weight and growth rate. Fortunately this practice is no longer popular but was replaced by hormones and antibiotics such as Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrolused are used to incease the growth rate of cattle cause many problems in humans and the environment. The Committee of scientist questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer Children, pregnant women and the unborn are thought to be most susceptible to these negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which could put them at greater risk of developing breast and other forms of cancer. ^{Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues in cow manure. Growth promoting hormones not only remain in the meat we consume, but they also pass through the cattle and are excreted in their manure. When manure from factory farms enters the surrounding environment, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish, throwing off the natural cycle. All in all, the use of feeding cattle animal meat is no longer practiced but replaced by the highly popular hormones and antibiotic use. If one looks back they may see a trend. Altering the growth rate and diet of animals always leads to problems in the lives of humans and the environment.}

Work citied:

1.       WHO Media centre , . World Health Organization. Bowine Sponiform Encephalopathy . , 2002. Web. 23 Nov 2010. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs113/e

 2.            Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About vCJD. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010. Web. 23 Nov 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/>.

 3.         Mgbeoji, Ikechi. Global biopiracy: patents, plants, and indigenous knowledge. New York: Cornell Univ Pr, 2006. 311. Print.

 4.          McHughen, Alan. Pandora's picnic basket: the potential and hazards of genetically modified foods. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2000. 277. Print

Hydrogen fuel car

Hydrogen Car:

            

           It has often been said that the car of the future is here today. Of course those living outside of California cant. This car doesn't use gasoline and it doesn't pollute the air. In fact, it produces steam instead of exhaust. So what does it run on? Hydrogen -- the simplest and most abundant element in the universe. Although hydrogen-powered cars have seem to be fictional the idea isn't really new. What's new is the ability to use hydrogen in cars to substitute for fossil fuels. Several hydrogen cars are now in existence, but most of them are concept cars. These eco-friendly driving machines include the Chevrolet Equinox, the BMW 745h and the one that's currently available for lease in California, the Honda FCX.

      

           What makes a hydrogen car possible is a device called a fuel cell, which converts hydrogen to electricity, giving off only heat and water as byproducts. Hydrogen cars have the potential to be fuel-efficient and offer the hope of eco-friendly, green driving. But there are still a lot of problems that need to be overcome and questions that need to be answered before hydrogen becomes the fuel of choice for enough people to make much difference in our current use of fossil fuels. For instance, where will we get the hydrogen? How expensive will these fuel 

efficient cars be to purchase? Will you be able to find a hydrogen fuelling station to refill your tank? And, perhaps most importantly, as a fuel, is hydrogen really as non-polluting as it seems?

              Hydrogen Fuel Cells

            In 1839, the Welsh scientist Sir William Robert Grove took the familiar electrochemical process of electrolysis, which uses electricity to produce hydrogen from water, and reversed it, generating electricity and water from hydrogen. He called his invention a gas voltaic battery, but today we know it as a hydrogen fuel cell. Much later, in the middle of the 20th century, the technology was further developed by the inventor Francis Bacon. The technology that these two inventors devised is essential to the operation of a hydrogen car.

            The type of fuel cell used in cars is the polymer exchange membrane (or PEM) fuel cell. PEM fuel cells have the advantage of being light and small. They consist of two electrodes (a negatively charged anode and a positively charged cathode), a catalyst and a membrane. Hydrogen is forced into the fuel cell at the anode in the form of H2 molecules, each of which contains two hydrogen atoms. A catalyst at the anode breaks the molecules into hydrogen ions (the protons) and a flow of electricity (the electrons). The ions pass through the membrane, but the electricity has to go around. While it's doing so, it can be harnessed to do work. Just as hydrogen is forced into the fuel cell at the anode, oxygen is forced in at the cathode. The protons and electrons reunite at the cathode and join with the oxygen to form water, most of which become the fuel cell's exhaust. Fuel cells are designed to be flat and thin, mainly so they can be stacked. The more fuel cells in the stack, the greater the voltage of the electricity that the stack produces.

        All in all, the hydrogen powered car will reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses going into out atmosphere by over 50 %. This great saving will stop ozone depletion and slow down climate change. This innovation is an amazing start to an ecofriendly world.

Global warming

What is Global warming?
Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises) due to greenhouse gases (ex: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) trapping heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere. This is also known as the greenhouse effect because like a greenhouse heat is trapped inside to keep the organisms warm.

Global Warming Questions:
1. Was there a difference in the warming rate of the control bottle and the greenhouse bottle? If so, describe the process that took place. Yes there was a difference in the warming rate with the ‘controlled’ bottle and the ‘greenhouse’ bottle. After the 16 minuet mark the ‘greenhouse’ bottle began increasing in temperature significantly while the ‘controlled’ bottle stayed at a steady pace.

2. List three “greenhouse gasses”, their sources, and at least one way that they could be reduced.The three main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane gas. Carbon dioxide mostly comes from car emissions and industries, one way it can be reduced is by car polling, walking, biking and using public bussing. Nitrous oxide is found almost everywhere from the surgery table to fertilizer. One way we can reduce nitrous oxide is by not using it for fertilizer.  Methane gas can be found seeping through the earth’s crust in geysers other underwater openings. One way we can reduce the amount of methane entering into our ozone is plug or capture the gas not allowing it to reach the atmosphere. 

3. What would be some likely consequences if the scientists who say that humans are significantly increasing global warming are correct and we do not take steps to halt it?Some likely consequences would include increased temperature causing melting of the ice caps. Once the ice caps are gone, one can assume that the increased water will cause many cities and Islands to become flooded. Moreover, our world will lose many different species of animal such as the polar bear, artic fox and numerous others.   

4. What would be some likely consequences if the scientists who say that humans are not significantly increasing global warming are correct and we do take steps to halt it?There are many scientist who believe that the reason why the Earth’s temperature in increasing is because we are coming out of the last ice age. If this is true and we still continue to try and stop global warming, I believe that we will be disappointed with our results. No matter what we do the earth will continue to rise in temperature.  I also believe there is no harm in coming up with nontoxic ways to live our life. If global warming does not exist at least society had improved in technology. 

5. Which do you think we should do : Take immediate action to stop any possible human-caused greenhouse effect or wait another five to ten years while more studies are done. Why?I think we should be taking immediate action to stop any possible human-caused greenhouse effects because it better to be safe than sorry. Even if we are not causing global warming what’s the harm in creating new technology that in the grand scheme of things relays on renewable energy

6. Why do scientist sometimes use “models”?Scientist sometimes use models to create a visual of what is to be expected in the years to come. An average person might not understand the outcome of global warming by creating a visual scientist can show society how the future may change rather than bore them with statistics.

Plastic Bags effect in the Environment

        Approximately 40 percent of autopsies done on turtles confirm the death being due to plastic bags stuck in their intestinal tract. When plastic bags float on the water, they look very similar to jellyfish which are a favorite food source for some turtles.

        A devastating number of turtles, birds, whales and other animals are killed yearly due to plastic bags being mistaken for food like jellyfish. Once a plastic bag is ingested by an animal, it cannot be digested so it sits in the animal's gut, preventing other food digestion and resulting in an extremely painful and slow death.

It is estimated that over 100,000 marine creatures are killed each year because of plastic pollution. These animals are not dying instantly, they are suffering. Imagine not being able to digest any food and then not being able to eat because of it and literally just starving yourself to death all because of plastic bags and other plastic products. Every time consumers go to the store they make a conscious decision to either use a reusable shopping bag or not. It is not understandable why anyone would still choose to use traditional bags, knowing the harm that they are creating.

         It is not uncommon to find flamingos, platypus and other animals, strangled from getting tangled in plastic bags and not being able to twist their way out. In Australia in 2008, a crocodile was found dead with 25 plastic bags in its stomach. Additionally, pelicans, seagulls and other birds are found daily with the same cause of death.
         

          Due to these figures and other environmental concerns, many countries such as Bangladesh, Taiwan, China and Italy have either banned plastic bags completely or have issued laws to charge for them, making reusable bags the primary choice.

Plastic bags litter the landscape. Once they are used, most plastic bags go into landfill, or rubbish tips. Each year more and more plastic bags are ending up littering the environment. Once they become litter, plastic bags find their way into our waterways, parks, beaches, and streets. And, if they are burned, they infuse the air with toxic fumes.

Plastic bags kill animals. About 100,000 animals such as dolphins, turtles whales, penguins are killed every year due to plastic bags. Many animals ingest plastic bags, mistaking them for food, and therefore die. And worse, the ingested plastic bag remains intact even after the death and decomposition of the animal. Thus, it lies around in the landscape where another victim may ingest it.

Plastic bags are non-biodegradable. And one of the worst environmental effects of plastic bags is that they are non-biodegradable. The decomposition of plastic bags takes about 1000 years.

Petroleum is required to produce plastic bags. As it is, petroleum products are diminishing and getting more expensive by the day, since we have been using this non-renewable resource increasingly. Petroleum is vital for our modern way of life. It is necessary for our energy requirements – for our factories, transport, heating, lighting, and so on. Without viable alternative sources of energy yet on the horizon, if the supply of petroleum were to be turned off, it would lead to practically the whole world grinding to a halt. Surely, this precious resource should not be wasted on producing plastic bags, should it?

So, What Can be Done about the Use of Plastic Bags?

Single-use plastic bags have become such a ubiquitous way of life that it seems as if we simply cannot do without them. However, if we have the will, we can start reducing their use in small ways.

·         A tote bag can make a good substitute for holding the shopping. You can keep the bag with the cahier, and then put your purchases into it instead of the usual plastic bag.

·         Recycling the plastic bags you already have is another good idea. These can come into use for various purposes, like holding your garbage, instead of purchasing new ones.

While governments may be working out ways to lessen the impact of plastic bags on the environment, however, each of us should shoulder some of the responsibility for this problem, which ultimately harms us.

The number of humans on this planet, and the ways we manipulate our environment to suit ourselves, are having an unprecedented impact on the natural world. One of the environmental sins that has been prominent for quite some time is plastic bags. People have been arguing over their benefits to business and impact on the environment for decades now. In fact, it has been so long that many people are simply 'bored' of the debate! In reality, ditching the plastic shopping bag is one of the simplest things we can do on a daily basis to help the environment. Today we look at the statistics that explain why environmental bags are one of the major pillars of our natural-world protection strategy.

Extent of plastic bag use in Australia

The Clean Up Australia commission states that Australians use more than 6 billion plastic bags per year. Not million... billion. That represents 272 bags per year, for every single man, woman, baby, grandparent and toddler in the country. Of all of those bags that are consumed daily, only a tiny proportion are recycled (more on that later). Every year on Clean Up Australia Day, more than half a million plastic bags are collected from parks and waterways - they are a major source of litter.

Petroleum and resources used in manufacturing

Plastic bags are produced with ethylene, a by-product of oil and gas production. It is wonderful that the resource doesn't go to waste, but there are actually new plants being built across the world to keep up with polyethylene demand - it is not simply saving a resource from landfill. Over 50% of the ethylene in the world is used to make polyethylene, primarily made into shopping bags, trash liners and product packaging. Polyethylene could be much more effectively used to make long term-use environmental bags for shopping.

Impact on wildlife

Wildlife worldwide is already under intense pressure from the proliferation of humans on the planet, which reduces their available habitat. Add the problem of plastic bags, and many threatened species are dealt another unnecessary blow. Turtles in particular are vulnerable to plastic bags in the environment. Turtles feed on jellyfish, and plastic bags resemble these when floating in the ocean. The plastic bag doesn't break down in the turtle's stomach, however, but takes up all available room and starves it to death. When the turtle dies, the body decomposes faster than the plastic bag, and it is released into the water to do the same thing to another animal. You will not see this happening with environmental bags!

Landfill impact

Global estimates of plastic bag usage are in the range of 500 billion to a trillion every single year. Of these, only 14% are recycled, and around 1-3% end up in the litter stream outside landfill - ie, clogging drains, sea turtle bellies and empty corners. This leaves between 415 and 830 billion plastic bags to go into landfill each year. It takes somewhere between 3 months (for compostable bags) to thousands of years for these to break down, unlike much other landfill material.

Non-recyclable shopping bags - Low Density Polyethylene

The higher quality shopping bags - the shiny, less readily crinkled and slightly heavier bags that more exclusive retailers give out contribute their entire population to landfill - they are made of Low Density Polyethylene, and cannot be recycled.

Although we don't often have the option in Australia, paper shopping bags are little better than plastic. They use a gallon of water to create, per bag, and recycling figures seem to be similar across both mediums. The solution, of course, is to go back to the old days and make things to last... like environmental bags.

Albury Enviro Bags provide a range of green bags and custom printed wholesale bags. Invest in a reusable green bag that is made from environmentally friendly fabrics. For more information or to place an order, visit Shopping Bags.

Acid Rain

Acid rain

       Acid rain is to precipitation containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids. Acid rain results from both natural sources, such as volcanoes and decaying vegetation, and man-made sources, primarily emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x). Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. When sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are released from power plants and other sources, prevailing winds blow these compounds across state and national borders, sometimes over hundreds of miles. For an example majority of acid rain in Canada is due to pollution sent in by the USA.

       Acid rain causes a cascade of effects that harm or kill individual fish, reduce fish population numbers, completely eliminate fish species and decrease biodiversity. As acid rain flows through soils in a watershed, aluminum is released from soils into the lakes and streams located in that watershed. So, as pH in a lake or stream decreases, aluminum levels increase. Both low pH and increased aluminum levels are directly toxic to fish. In addition, low pH and increased aluminum levels cause chronic stress that may not kill individual fish, but leads to lower body weight and smaller size and makes fish less able to compete for food and habitat. As a result the fishing industry will be hit really hard with the loss of its merchandise. Fishermen and fish farmers around the world will most likely have to find other jobs and consuming fish may be considered deadly or impossible in the near future.     

    Together, biological organisms and the environment in which they live are called an ecosystem. The plants and animals living within an ecosystem are highly interdependent. For example, frogs may tolerate relatively high levels of acidity, but if they eat insects like the mayfly, they may be affected because part of their food supply may disappear. Because of the connections between the many fish, plants, and other organisms living in an aquatic ecosystem, changes in pH or aluminum levels affect biodiversity as well. Thus, as lakes and streams become more acidic, the numbers and types of fish and other aquatic plants and animals that live in these waters decrease.

     Aside from aquatic effects, acid rain also affects agriculture and lumber industries. Since acid rain erodes everything it touches, plants are in constant danger. The high pH level can cause many crops to die out thus leaving farmers with no product to sell. This in return causes food shortages and a loss of income to many families around the world. With the lumber industry, many trees simply die or become weak due to acid rain. This causes a loss of habitat to many animals and a loss of wood, and pulp for industries.

          The pollutants that cause acid rain—sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)—do damage human health. These gases interact in the atmosphere to form fine sulfate and nitrate particles that can be transported long distances by winds and inhaled deep into people's lungs. This relationship between the two pollutants increases illness and premature death from heart and lung disorders, such as asthma and bronchitis. Humans can become seriously ill, and can even die from the effects of acid rain. One of the major problems that acid rain can cause in a human being is respiratory problems. Many can find it difficult to breathe, especially people who have asthma. Asthma, along with dry coughs, headaches, and throat irritations can be caused by the sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides from acid rain. Acid rain can be absorbed by both plants and animals. When humans eat these plants or animals, the toxins inside of their meals can affect them. Brain damage, kidney problems, and Alzheimer's disease have been linked to people eating "toxic" animals/plants.