# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have long since raised the alarm that the regular use of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent illness in healthy farm animals fuels dangerous, antibiotic-resistant “super-bug” infections in people. Many movements have been made to counter these effects and many people have also addressed concerns about antibiotics of farm animals to major corporations such as McDonald's and Tyson Foods. However, for the first time since 2009, when the F.D.A. began collecting data, the sale and distribution of antibiotics approved for use in food-producing animals in the United States decreased by 10 percent in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration report. Many have been cheering the good news as most of the actions for the decline in antibiotics was seen from major food corporations. The World Health Organization urged farmers to completely stop using antibiotics to enhance growth and prevent disease in healthy animals, in likely response to a statistic that an estimated 70 percent of the kinds of antibiotics that are also used to fight human infections and in surgery are sold in the United States for use in meat production. This would mean that there was an extremely larger risk for consumers to develop some sort of immunity for antibiotics and create a risk for people to develop a super-bug from their food. Overall, this new statistic that many companies are not using antibiotics for their farm animals is step of progress in efforts to decreasing super-bug infections around the world. This impacts in our environment in a positive direction. Although as a society, these efforts should be employed earlier, the new step towards progress is greatly appreciated for all. As food production can lean towards more natural and organic ingredients for food, there will be a higher chance for people to live longer and healthier lives with efforts to decrease use of artificial enhancements.

# data[].attributes.body
There has been a lot of regard for road salt as it is able to melt slippery ice and snow, however, there are significant impacts of road salt that are negative as well. Road salt may be devastating to nearby aquatic ecosystems and fatal to many aquatic species. Road salt changes the way the water mixes and can lead to the formation of salty pockets or biological dead zones near the bottom of lakes. Rock salt is able to dissolve quickly on the road, however it leaves chloride to contaminate nearby waters through runoff and leaching as almost all chloride ions from road salt will eventually find their way into waterways downstream.The concentration of salt can be fatal for many species that live near the water, and can affect water quality as it can affect plankton and fish that inhabit inland lakes with its higher levels of chloride. The toxicity of the water can directly impact the food chain as zooplankton cannot survive under conditions that are too salty, and can thus unravel the food web. Scientists are trying to thus find alternatives of road salt that can be available to cities and also cater to the survival of nearby water ecosystems. The issue with the environment this may cause is the standard of the human mindset. Many are not in favor of the other found solutions to road salt as many have found the alternatives to be too smelly. Although the human standard should always be considered, the mindset of a simple consequence of different road salt being too smelly is rather inappropriate when considering the declining numbers of other species populations due to human intervention. As a society, one should embrace the solutions provided that can save declining populations without rejecting a smelly solution that causes many ecosystems to perish in biological dead zones.

# data[].attributes.body
A recent study shows that living near a fracking site can create extreme detrimental effects for infant health. Locations are essential to the health of infants who may be near sites where fracking has been occurring as pregnant mother have an increase of 25 percent of their babies being born underweight if they lived within one kilometer of a hydraulic fracturing or fracking site in contrast to babies of mothers who lived three kilometers away. The chance of being born underweight at birth for babies born to mother living within three kilometers away from a fracking site was 8 percent greater than mothers who lived in more distant areas. The study showed that the effects of premature babies and infant health had negative impacts in a area more local to a fracking site. Although the researchers did not measure actual pollution exposure nor did they figure out whether people faced exposure through water or air, scientists overall noted that these effects are connected to fracking, whether it be through pollution, extreme levels of maternal stress from noise and continuous traffic to and from the sites, the short-term changes in air quality, or the possible long-term changes in water quality and the associations with stress. Overall, babies born to moms who lived closest to fracking sites, within a kilometer, had the highest probability of low birth weight. This is an issue for the environment as fracking directly impacts the earth, by its injection of liquids underground at high pressure to extract oil and natural gas from hard to reach places, that can contaminate water and air due to the chemicals used in the process. This directly impacts humans as well, and although the banning of fracking would be highly unlikely due to the economic advantage fracking provides, the awareness of health is essential for many living near a fracking site. By impacting the health of many from nearby water and air, knowing more about what the health effects are can help people to protect themselves and create awareness to enforce stricter oversight of fracking.

# data[].attributes.body
Bees are in dramatic decline. Bees are pollinators, which play an essential role in the world, as without bees, the spread of news plants will dramatically decrease. Worldwide, the effects of life without bees has been felt by nearly every country. In China, farmers have adapted to shaking flowers with long poles to ensure a spread of pollen. However, the world cannot adapt so easily to the decrease in bee populations. In Germany, 75 percent of the bee population has declined within the last 27 years, and people are not as prepared to take on the role of pollinators. However, the role to save the bees has now affected economists. Economists have been charged to calculate and charge the roles bees have served. By quantifying the cost of the services of pollinators, many hope to calculate the effects of the decline of pollinators as well. As bees and other pollinators are rather proficient at their roles, and affect many flowering plants and such, many find that estimating a certain cost is rather difficult to place a price on a bee. Another important perspective many economists found interesting is the mindset of many people on pollinators. Economists will frequently do their work inside and outside to calculate not only statistics, but the current thoughts of consumers. Throughout their research many economists found that there was a lack of understanding and objectivity when they questioned many people about their views of declining bees. Bees may be small and lacking, but they play an extremely important role on earth, and many people found it shocking that people thought that a polar bear cub would far out-value flies or other important pollinators, whose value is extremely higher due to their importance in the ecosystem. The human mindset needs the knowledge and education to protect the earth, species may look small, but they are essential to reproduction for plants on earth. Although economists say that a change in mindset will most likely never happen, if the respondents were sent out to spend a few hours pollinating several hundred flowers themselves, perhaps the world would not be in this predicament at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Tree regeneration and tree resilience has been suffering. Both have now been shown to be on extreme decreases following wildfires since the early 21st century. Research has shown that forests are less resilient after wildfires, especially in a warmer climate. This means that some forests are not coming back after wildfires, an extremely dangerous concept, after one thinks about the recent wildfires in California. One third of areas scientists have studied have shown no signs of regeneration nor coming back. These areas were seen in warm and dry climates, which was devastating for trees as many were so severely burned, only few seedlings were produced. Another issue that researchers studied was the data for the average annual water deficit at study sites. Although many forest managers want to have more and more water for so the climate can be cooler and wetter, such results are happening more and more infrequently, or not even happening at all. Many researchers have mentioned that there may also be solutions to these problems. Claims have been made to suggest foster fire burnings should be under less extreme conditions, so that more trees would survive to provide seed for future forests or that new trees should be replanted that are more fit for a new climate, as climates have been changing. These suggestions were made to try to combat and regenerate trees, as the sobering results were found to occur within one's lifetime. Although there may be new solutions to combat global warming, this is just another issue for environmentalists who are fighting an issue that may be bigger than the entire population. Global warming is an extremely difficult problem as it affects the entire earth, however, perhaps with these types of new measures to try to regrow forests, the earth may be able to sustain humanity for longer.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have reported that climate change has directly impacted the torrential rainfall over Houston last summer, and has created a much worse situation in for the Hurricane Harvey that had swept over the state. There was a calculated 38 percent more rainfall, than an hypothetical world without a warming world. Scientists had known before that climate change had directly impacted rainfall because of its warmer air  that can hold more moisture, however, the size of the difference was very surprising to many. Although another study conducted by an international coalition of scientists known as World Weather Attribution showed a fifteen percent difference in contrast to a world without climate change, the fact that climate change also made such an extreme rainstorm much more likely was clear. The probability of such a storm happening again was also considered as many scientists agreed with the new likelihood that there might be a 0.1 chance of another storm like Hurricane Harvey ravaging the Gulf Coast again. As many scientists have explained that although a storm such as Hurricane Harvey is rare in its strength, they have also warned that it is not as rare as it once was. Scientists have also warned that the flood hazard zone is not as stationary as it once was either as precipitation and boundaries are now changing due to the irregularity of the situation. However, the determination of how to solve the influence of global warming on the rainfall of a storms seems to be a solvable problem. Research has shown that by making use of actual data from storms, and comparing two sets of climate models, conditions in which rising carbon dioxide has warmed the planet, and CO₂ emissions had never happened, scientists are able to determine the direct impact global warming has had on storms. This serves as an issue for the environment as one can see the direct impact that global warming, which is a direct effect of human intervention, has had on earth. Storms that absolutely devastate and ravage the land are seemingly more and more common and are killing many. Without change to awareness and movements to counter global warming, it could lead to the beginning to the end of earth.