# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infographic: Over 300 dead on Mount Everest in more than 9 decades - Times of India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As many as 11 people lost their lives climbing Mt. Everest this year. Since 1921, over 300 people have lost their lives on the mountain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks are disappearing! These fascinating fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years - long before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth - but scientists have reported a drastic drop in their population in just the last generation.
If you're thinking "how can these ferocious apex predators possibly go extinct?", you've come to the right place - because we're answering all your burning questions in this blog post. Before we get onto why, let's get a few things straight...

Are Sharks Endangered?

The short answer is "Yes." Sure, sharks can be scary, but they play an important role in the overall health of the oceans. While the majority of shark species have somewhat sustainable populations, a considerable number of them have been declining in numbers at alarming rates.

What Are the Most Vulnerable Shark Species?

Shark reproduction, even at its best, can't keep pace with shark deaths. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the list of endangered shark species is surprisingly long; among approximately 470 species of sharks, 2.4% are listed as 'Critically Endangered', 3.2% 'Endangered', 10.3% 'Vulnerable', and 14.4% 'Near Threatened'.
Believe it or not - despite their size and ferocity - the great white shark and the whale shark are among some of the most vulnerable species.

So Why Are They Endangered?

Predators, but also prey: sharks' troubles run deep. Sharks are endangered and a lot of factors contribute to the decrease in their populations - sadly, almost all are caused by human activities, but the good news is that these impacts can be stopped before it's too late.
One of the threats many shark species are facing is fishing pressure from those who slaughter them only for their fins, which are used as a medicinal product in China and as a delicacy in Japan, or exported to various other countries for human consumption. Reports indicate that up to 73 million sharks are killed each year solely for this purpose - a truly shocking stat!

Why Should We Care?

Let's be honest, sharks don't have the best reputation among human folk! These beautiful and elegant creatures of the sea are commonly assumed to be dangerous man-eaters, and not enough people really care about their conservation; in fact, most of us are scared of them when really we should be scared for them!
The reason we fear these creatures is also why they're so important: these apex predators sit at the top of the food chain. They keep the marine ecosystem in balance by feeding on animals that are lower in the food chain. If sharks go extinct, other predatory fish and marine animals will thrive, which will deplete the amount of fish available for food.
Not to mention that sharks are integral to the carbon cycle, and if they disappear, the carbon-loading of the atmosphere will increase, causing unimaginable damage in the form of global warming. In short, it's absolutely crucial that we protect these species for our own sake.

What Can We Do to Help?

One of the biggest problems facing shark conservation is the misconceptions many have about these predators. So make sure you converse to conserve: simply talking to your friends about them, spreading the word on social media, and sharing the facts around can help. If you want to go the extra mile, you can buy sustainably sourced seafood to reduce the impact of bycatch, fly only with airlines that don't transport shark fins, improve your understanding through our A-Z shark flashcards, or go to an aquarium near you to learn more about these majestic marine creatures!
We are open from 10am till 5pm every day so feel free to stop by anytime, our aquarists are always happy to share some fishy facts with you - book your tickets now and save 10%!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Are Sharks Endangered: Top 5 Questions Answered - Blue Planet Aquarium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks are disappearing! These fascinating fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years - long before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth - but scientists have reported a drastic drop in their population in just the last generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australian daredevil had a close call during a stunt when a tiger shark went after him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark attacks_ After recent bites, your questions answered

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ISAF 2022 shark attack report

The Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File investigated 108 alleged shark-human interactions worldwide in 2022. ISAF confirmed 57 unprovoked shark bites on humans and 32 provoked bites.
"Unprovoked bites""Provoked bites"Learn about other bite classification descriptions occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way. These include instances when divers are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks, bites on spearfishers, bites on people attempting to feed sharks, bites occurring while unhooking or removing a shark from a fishing net and so forth. are defined as incidents in which a bite on a live human occurs in the shark's natural habitat with no human provocation of the shark.
Of the remaining 19 cases, four involved bites to motorized or non-motorized marine vessels ("boat bites"), two sea disasters where victim's boats sank, and four involved shark-inflicted post-mortem bites ("scavenge"). Three cases were regarded as "doubtful," or incidents that likely did not involve a shark. These included one case attributed to a bluefish and one collision with a shark.

In three cases, the nature of the incident was unclear with the available data ("No assignment could be made"). An additional two cases could not be confirmed as a shark-human interaction ("Not confirmed"). ISAF will continue to investigate these cases in collaboration with local law enforcement and medical professionals until they can be resolved satisfactorily.

2022 at a glance

Global total of unprovoked shark bites significantly lower than average

The 2022 worldwide total of 57 confirmed unprovoked cases is lower than the most recent five-year (2017-2021) average of 70 incidents annually. There were nine shark-related fatalities this year, five of which are assigned as unprovoked. This number is in line with the 5 year annual global average of six unprovoked fatalities per year.

Annual fluctuations in shark-human interactions are common. Despite 2021's spike in fatalities, 2022 was a return to typical long-term trends which show a decreasing number of annual fatalities. Year-to-year variability in oceanographic, socioeconomic and meteorological conditions significantly influences the local abundance of sharks and humans in the water.

U.S. leads world in number of unprovoked bites

Consistent with long-term trends, the United States recorded the most unprovoked shark bites in 2022, with 41 confirmed cases. This is lower than the 47 incidents that occurred in the U.S. in 2021. The 41 cases represent 72% of the worldwide total. This is an increase from 2021 when 64% of the worldwide unprovoked bites occurred in the U.S.

Australia 's total of nine unprovoked incidents was lower than the most recent five-year annual average of 15 incidents for the region. Four bites occurred in New South Wales, four bites occurred in Western Australia, and a single incident occurred in Victoria.

Egypt and South Africa each reported two incidents, all of which were fatal. Brazil, New Zealand and Thailand all reported single incidents in 2022.

Florida had most unprovoked bites in U.S.

For decades, Florida has topped global charts in the number of shark bites, and this trend continued in 2022. Florida's 16 cases represent 39% of the U.S. total and 28% of unprovoked bites worldwide. This is lower than Florida's most recent five-year annual average of 22 incidents.

In total, unprovoked bites by state were New York (8), California(4), South Carolina (4), Hawaii (5), North Carolina (2) and single incidents in both Texas and Alabama. One of the incidents in Hawaii was fatal.

In Florida, Volusia County had the most shark bites (7), representing 44% of the state's total. This represents a decrease from the five-year annual average of nine incidents in the area; however, Volusia County experiences considerable variation in the number of bites from one year to the next. Of the nine remaining bites, four occurred in Monroe, and single incidents were reported in Martin, Nassau, Pinellas, Brevard and Palm Beach counties.

Most bites related to surfing and board sports

Breaking from recent trends, surfers and those participating in board sports accounted for less incidents (35% of the total cases). Swimmers and waders accounted for the majority of incidents at 43%. Snorkelers/free divers accounted for 9%, and the remainder of activities were too varied to combine. These included jumping in the water, floating on a raft, and scuba diving (13%).

Risk of being bitten by a shark remains extremely low

Short-term trends show both fatal and non-fatal bites to be decreasing. The total number of unprovoked shark bites worldwide is extremely low, given the number of people participating in aquatic recreation each year. Fatality rates have been declining for decades, reflecting advances in beach safety, medical treatment and public awareness.

ISAF offers resources for reducing your risk of a shark bite and instructions for what to do if you encounter a shark.

Members of the press are also encouraged to check out our "Media Resources" page.

Gavin Naylor, Ph.D.
Program Director, International Shark Attack File
Florida Program for Shark Research
Florida Museum of Natural History - University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
(352) 273-1954
Email: gnaylor@flmnh.ufl.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File investigated 108 alleged shark-human interactions worldwide in 2022. ISAF confirmed 57 unprovoked shark bites on humans and 32 provoked bites. "Unprovoked bites" "Provoked bites" Learn about other bite classification descriptions occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens to your body at the top of Mount Everest - Andrew Lovering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The thrill of extreme sports draws in many who are looking for a little excitement. Snowboarding, surfing, skateboarding, free running and other extreme sports offer the freedom of physically and psychologically challenging yourself to perform feats that may make other athletes queasy. But many extreme sports have an element of danger beyond the risks associated with traditional sports. It is important to consider both the advantages and disadvantages of the extreme sport of your interest.

Many who participate in extreme sports claim they do it for the rush -- adrenaline rush, that is. Being in a dangerous situation triggers a release of adrenaline as a part of the fight or flight response, naturally intended to keep you out of harm's way. The adrenaline rush is marked by an elevated heart rate, dilated pupils and a change in breathing patterns. This surge of adrenaline is also accompanied by a release of endorphins and dopamine, which are associated with feelings of euphoria and pleasure. Those who participate in extreme sports chase this feeling, which they believe makes the sport more fun, and see this pleasure response as an advantage of participating in the activity.

Fun Plus Fitness

Extreme sports also provide an intense workout. Many extreme sports require you to use your full body, and as a result, can exercise multiple muscle groups at once. Extreme sports also push your body's limits, so they can help you burn calories and lose weight. For example, skateboarding for an hour can burn up to 500 calories while also improving your balance, flexibility, endurance and muscle strength. Because extreme sports are exciting, they are an easy way to get in a workout without feeling the dread of going to the gym.

A Trip to the Hospital

Although thrill-seekers crave the danger associated with extreme sports, the risk of injury is profound. It can be argued that injury is a possibility when participating in any sport. But the heights, distances and speeds that come with extreme sports drastically increase the severity of injuries that can be incurred. Those who participate in these types of activities risk broken bones, head trauma and even death. According to the United States Parachuting Association, about 21 people die every year from skydiving. Although this equates to a relatively low chance of death, it is still higher than other traditional sports.

Tickets and Trouble

Many extreme sports have been widely accepted and have designated venues for athletes to hone their skills and compete. This is the case with the X Games as well as the Olympic sports of skiing, bobsledding, snowboarding and others. But those who use public areas or private property as their field of play can get into trouble with the law. Skateboarders often risk getting tickets when performing stunts in parking lots or are asked to leave when skateboarding at parks and schools. Free runners can also get into trouble with business owners and police officers for jumping off of buildings, ledges and hand rails. For some, the thrill is not worth the trouble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages & Disadvantages of Extreme Sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The thrill of extreme sports draws in many who are looking for a little excitement. Snowboarding, surfing, skateboarding, free running and other extreme sports offer the freedom of physically and psychologically challenging yourself to perform feats that may make other athletes queasy. But many extreme sports have an ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Would You Choose to Do an Extreme Sport?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do so many athletes keep practicing extreme sports, even though they know the danger of risking their lives? Why is our body addicted to these strong emotions? I will try to address these questions in this short editorial. The thrills given by extreme sports attract many individuals seeking excitement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How playing sports benefits your body ... and your brain - Leah Lagos and Jaspal Ricky Singh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Allowing Kids to Play Extreme Sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The man arrested on suspicion of releasing a clouded leopard from its exhibit, abducting two monkeys to hide them in a closet, and killing an endangered vulture reportedly told police that he would do it again. Why? He loves animals.

Since Davion Irvin's alleged escapades at the Dallas Zoo, similar incidents have occurred at several zoos around the country, perhaps inspired by his actions. The Houston Zoo found that someone had cut into the enclosure of brown pelicans, and the Central Park Zoo continues attempts to recapture a Eurasian eagle owl after the same form of vandalism.

Understandably, many people seem surprised that these events are even possible. After all, aren't zoo exhibits designed to keep animals contained? Is it really that easy for people to get animals out? If, as critics claim, zoos are "animal prisons," how is it that the inmates can be sprung so easily? The reality is that out of concern for animals' well-being, professional zoos have moved away from the cement and steel bars that have historically defined the institution. But these large open-air exhibits are also more vulnerable to determined actors' vandalism and abduction.

Zoo exhibits have always been imperfectly secure, even when they were simply barred cages. In 1958, a young girl got too close to the lions at the National Zoo and was (at least according to one newspaper headline) "decapitated," leading to national media attention and major changes to that facility. Among other things, some zoos attempted to create more distance between animal and visitor through moats and raised walls. Unfortunately, moated exhibits have had several notable failures. For one, they rely on uncertain estimates of animals' leaping distance. As San Francisco Zoo's tiger escape and attack in 2006 shows, sometimes those estimates are wrong. The fall from a raised wall also makes it even more hazardous if a person ends up inside the exhibit. In 1996, a boy fell into the moated gorilla exhibit at the Brookfield Zoo and was safely carried over to paramedics by Binti-Jua, a female gorilla residing inside. Unfortunately, the outcome was much more tragic when another young boy fell into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo in 2016 and the zoo made the difficult decision to shoot the silverback Harambe to ensure the child's safety.

Today's zoo exhibits typically employ the architectural technique of " landscape immersion," pioneered by the gorilla exhibit at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo in 1979. In this iteration of exhibits, animals are in placed in more natural context, in a space full of grass and trees instead of cement and steel. The more nature-centered focus also invites more quiet and calm reflection of the animals exhibited, rather than the jeering exclamations often lobbed at animals in cages. For the first time in zoos, the gorillas even began climbing trees. That was mostly a good thing, but it meant the silverback Kiki soon discovered he could use a large branch to climb out of the exhibit. Thankfully, Kiki decided to hide in the bushes immediately outside the exhibit until the Woodland Park Zoo's veterinarian arrived and tranquilized him. Though the silverback did not try to escape again, the offending branch turned ladder was removed and hot wire was added to the top of the wall as an additional precaution.

Modern zoo exhibits are safer and more secure than exhibits of decades past, in particular due to new construction materials, including multipaned glass, anchored steel poles, and stronger mesh and cables. There are still surprises, however, as evidenced by the escape of a jaguar from its exhibit at the Audubon Zoo in 2018. The young male jaguar, Valerio, had climbed to the top of the exhibit and chewed through the thick metal mesh on the top. Jaguars have the strongest bite of any big cat, but no one could have expected Valerio to use his talent quite that way. The zoo increased the thickness of the exhibit's steel mesh and the industry standards for all future jaguar exhibits were accordingly adjusted.

What is truly disturbing about the recent incidents at the Dallas Zoo, and now other facilities, is that these actions are intentional. Modern exhibits may be built to withstand hurricanes, but they aren't impervious to lock cutters. The goal of the modern professional zoo is for people to come see the animals and to actively support protection of these creatures in the wild. You cannot revoke visitation privileges the same way you lock down a military base-the zoo's very mission relies on visitors. Therefore, to truly secure the zoo would mean a return to small cement, steel, and glass boxes. That's hardly a workable solution for anyone-animals, staff, or visitors. Recognizing this, the Dallas Zoo has done what it can in response to the recent events, including increasing the number of patrols, overnight staff, and cameras, but perfectly securing 106 acres is difficult and expensive.

Zoos have been innovating more naturalistic exhibits for nearly half a century. So why is there suddenly a string of vandalism and theft? One explanation is the growing demand for the species that are kept in zoos, either as exotic pets or wildlife products to be sold. Irvin claims to be motivated by love of animals, and his decision to hide the tamarins in the closet of the house he was residing in suggests he wanted to keep them as pets. Yet his actions left two small monkeys in medical observation and may have led to the death of an endangered vulture.

Others break into zoos for even more worrying reasons. In the early 1900s, zoos collected many animals from the wild. However, after World War II, new international conservation regulations, increasing independence of once-colonized nations, and decreasing wild populations made wild capture an unsustainable form of collection management. To adapt, zoos began to collectively manage and breed animals to maintain captive populations long-term. Many of these species have become so rare in the wild that some poachers have found zoo animals an appealing target. In 2017, for instance, poachers killed a 4-year-old rhinoceros at a French zoo in order to steal the animal's horn. The fact that poachers are finding it more economical to target zoos rather than comparably unmonitored and unprotected wild populations shows that global conservation is truly in a dire state.

1. There's Still Not Strong Evidence That Masks Protect Against COVID

2. The Colorado River Is in Crisis. It's Not Just About Water.

3. There's a Name for the Constant Helplessness You Feel When You Work in Mental Health Care

4. How the U.S. Government Made Pilots Too Embarrassed to Admit They'd Seen UFOs

It also means the battle lines of conservation are being drawn closer and closer to home, particularly when it comes to the glorification of exotic pet ownership. Online content featuring exotic animals is highly engaging, but people often lack the behavioral familiarity or animal care context to be appropriately concerned. A 2021 study found that the comments on YouTube videos of exotic animals were typically positive, even when the interactions demonstrated fear or aggression. Oftentimes, this is from a lack of understanding basic animal behavior, such as the fact that in chimpanzees and other nonhuman apes, smiling is a sign of stress, not happiness. Viral animal trends have consequences like the surge of otters as pets in Southeast Asia. The low-context digital environment of today's endless newsfeed of exotic animal selfies and 10-second video clips makes it easy to leave the care and acquisition of these animals unquestioned.

Pin, the Dallas Zoo's Lappet-faced vulture, was found dead under suspicious circumstances in the midst of Irvin's alleged activities, though the bird's death has not yet been officially linked to him. These majestic vultures are about the same size and weight as a California condor and are experiencing a similarly precipitous decline in the wild due to poisonings, both incidental and purposeful. To prevent vultures from drawing authorities' attention to the body, poachers may lace elephant or rhino kills with poison, killing hundreds of birds at a time. If Pin's death was indeed connected to the activities of trespassers, the poaching that has been wiping out Pin's species in the wild, albeit in a different form, may have ended his life in captivity.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Zoos Can't Completely Lock Down to Prevent What Happened in Dallas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The man arrested on suspicion of releasing a clouded leopard from its exhibit, abducting two monkeys to hide them in a closet, and killing an endangered vulture reportedly told police that he would do it again. Why? He loves animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Enhanced security measures top of mind at Cameron Park Zoo amid recent Dallas Zoo leopard escape, monkey theft incidents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enhanced security measures at Cameron Park Zoo following recent incidents at Dallas Zoo include zoo rangers, video surveillance systems and exhibit perimeter checks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bag Ban Hurts California’s Economy - Reason Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research demonstrates enormous direct and indirect costs to consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A national movement to ban plastic bags is gaining steam, but these restrictions may actually hurt the environment more than help it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would Banning Plastic Bottles Help or Hurt the Planet? | Above the Noise | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic bottles are everywhere! About 70% of the plastic water bottles bought in the U.S. are not recycled, and end up in the oceans. It seems obvious that using fewer plastic water bottles would be a good thing for our environment, but sometimes the alternatives can have negative consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landfills | Vegas PBS STEAM Camp | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the question, "What is a landfill?" with the help of staff from Republic Services. Then, use these video clips and accompanying lesson plan with students to learn about waste management and anaerobic environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Reality of Plastic | Engineering for Good | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic. It's super useful but it's also a big problem for the environment. Enough plastic is thrown away every year to circle the earth four times! The main issue is that plastic doesn't break down, meaning it sticks around for a very long time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Chemical Recycling Solve The World's Plastic Problem?

# data[].attributes.headline
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water: Is is Good for Your Child?

# data[].attributes.subject
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water: Is is Good for Your Child?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days you can't go very far without seeing bottled water, whether you're scanning the aisles at your favorite supermarket, cheering on your kids at their latest sporting event, or perhaps packing for a trip to your favorite vacation destination. Our dental office in Erdenheim wants you and your family to stay healthy and hydrated, which may mean drinking more bottled water. There are some extremely excellent benefits to bottled H 2 0 but did you know there are also some cons too, especially for kids?

Pros of Bottled H20: The Good News!

Bottled water is an excellent solution for having delicious drinking water anytime, anywhere. It's portable and travels easily in briefcases, purses, gym bags, backpacks, and more. It's helpful when you're venturing to different places where potable drinking water may not be readily available. Sometimes, given your surroundings (i.e. camping or in a foreign country) it's easier to have a bottle of water with you. It's also able to be purchased conveniently.

In the event of a disaster or other emergency, having bottled water on hand is definitely helpful and it can be a lifesaver depending on the circumstances. Because bottled water does not expire, it's always a good idea to keep some stored away, just in case. Depending on the condition of your tap water, bottled H 2 0 also tends to taste better too. This usually due, in part, to the purification process certain types of bottle water must undergo during the preparation process.

Cons: What's Bad About Bottled Water?

Because there are so many additional necessary steps to ensure bottled water is safe to drink (purification, packaging, transporting, marketing, etc.), it can tend to be a bit more pricey than the water flowing from your tap.

Your children's dentist in Erdenheim wants you to know about the possible health risks associated with bottled water. Did you know commercially produced bottled water does not contain fluoride, while tap water does? Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that helps keep teeth strong and healthy. It's especially important that kids get enough fluoride for their growing teeth. Some plastic bottles also contain the chemical bisphenol A(BPA) which can seep into the water before you drink it. This risk increases significantly if your water is stored somewhere hot in direct sunlight.

Did you know that in some cases bottled water is just filtered tap water? It's really no different than what's coming out of your faucet! Some of the most popular brands of bottled water come from the same factories that produces soft drinks who simply bottle up that water. It's not from a special source or a spring, it's origins start in a factory. Sometimes it just makes more sense to fill your own water bottle from a source that you know is clean. It also helps cut down on waste created by the huge percentage of plastic bottles that end up in our nation's landfills.

We hope you learned a little bit about some of the benefits and some of the potential downfalls to drinking bottled H 2 0! Our Erdenheim dental office knows how important it is that you and your family stay healthy and hydrated. That's why we're here to help. If you have any questions about what we discussed here today, please don't hesitate to give us a call! We look forward to seeing you and your family at your next dental visit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water.. - Chesheim Dental Associates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days you can't go very far without seeing bottled water, whether you're scanning the aisles at your favorite supermarket, cheering on your kids at

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028.

Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles.

In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park.

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Pro 1

Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.

Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.

Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.

A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
Read More

Pro 2

Banning bottled water is good for your health.

Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and requires weekly testing; tap water is more stringently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through multiple daily tests.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology found that the chemical antimony (Sb) can leach from plastic PET bottles into the water within. After six months storage at room temperature antimony (Sb) concentrations increased on average 90% in 48 brands of water from 11 countries. Exposure to antimony (Sb) can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, higher blood cholesterol, and low blood sugar.

Banning bottled water would reduce the number of plastic bottles manufactured via a process that emits harmful chemicals. Studies indicate that communities living close to PET factories suffer from increased levels of chronic illness and birth defects. In Corpus Christi, TX, where the US' largest PET factory is located, birth defects are 84% higher than the state average.
Read More

Pro 3

Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful.

Mathematicians at Penn State University estimate that spending $20 on a reusable water bottle can save the average American up to $1,236 a year. For a family of four that amounts to nearly $5,000.

In San Francisco, where single-use plastic water bottles are banned, 31 water fountains have been added to public areas with 20 more planned. New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio banned single-use water bottles via executive order in Feb. 2020, has 51 water fountains, with another 500 planned by 2025. With public fountains easily available, people can refill reusable water bottles.
Read More

Pro 4

Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.

Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.

In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state's reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.

In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.

According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, "during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area."
Read More

Con 1

Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.

Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says "Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That's the kind of difference we're talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water."

In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, "The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice... while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks."

The International Bottled Water Association noted, "research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water."

In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
Read More

Con 2

Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.

Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks' carbonation - 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9oz bottle.

A study by Quantis found that between 2007 and 2015, bottled water providers reduced the amount of material used in 8oz-2.5 gallon plastic water bottles by 42.8% - PET plastic is the most common material used in these bottles.

Another study by Quantis, commissioned by Nestlé Waters, found that the packaging and distribution of "sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water."

Plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%).

A study on the University of Vermont's ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles found that total shipments of plastic bottles actually increased 20% as consumers increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages rather than switching to using reusable bottles and drinking from water fountains.
Read More

Con 3

Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply.

If tap water is not drinkable, then bottled water is a necessary replacement, making its availability essential to public health.

Ready.gov, the Department of Homeland Security's preparedness website on how to prepare for natural and man-made disasters, recommends everyone "buy commercially bottled water and store it in the sealed original container in cool, dark place."

In Apr. 2014, officials in Flint, MI, changed the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint River water is highly corrosive - it eroded water pipes delivering tap water to residents' homes resulting in iron and lead leaching into the water, poisoning those who drank and bathed in it. Between Jan. 2016 and Apr. 2018, the state distributed free 16oz bottles of water to residents for use instead of tap water - it was estimated that a family of three used 151 of these water bottles a day.
Read More

Con 4

Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses.

A survey by Harris Poll for the International Bottled Water Association found that 93% of Americans think "bottled water should be available wherever drinks are sold," with 31% saying that they only, or mostly only, drink bottled water.

Research by Kantor Panel Worldwide found that "40% of all water servings come in the form of bottled water."

As one blogger said, "everyone tells me that I'm wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren't for bottled water I honestly wouldn't drink any water at all... My personal choice is just not tap. I don't like it."

Daniel Kenn, owner of Sudbury Coffee Works in Sudbury, MA, where a plastic water bottle ban was enacted, said, "people want water, it's probably the biggest money maker in that cooler... almost every other town still allows plastic water bottle sales, which will put Sudbury Coffee Works at a competitive disadvantage when the ban takes effect."
Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should single-use plastics, such as water bottles, be banned? Why or why not?

2. Should other single-use beverage bottles (soda, sports drinks, etc) be banned? Why or why not?

3. What other ways might we prevent plastic from ending up in the ocean? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action
1. Consider the argument that single-use plastic is a " serious climate change hazard."

2. Explore which cities and states have single-use plastic bag bans.

3. Evaluate the argument that bottled water bans harm the environment and public health.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources More Environmental Debates
Should the United States Continue Fracking? - Proponents say natural gas is a bridge fuel to 100% clean energy. Opponents say we need to immediately move away from all fossil fuels.

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown? - Proponents say GMO foods have been proven safe. Opponents say studies have not confirmed the safety of GMOs.

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? - The pros and cons of the alternative and renewable energies debate include arguments for and against solar, wind, and nuclear powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say bottled water bans protect the environment. Opponents say bans lead to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Why Zoos Matter

We at the Saint Louis Zoo are passionate about the work we do. We not only care about the work we're doing, we are fostering animals that are threatened or endangered and supporting their perpetuation into the future.

Making a Difference

The world around us is changing fast. Species of wildlife are facing global extinction on a massive scale. About 41 percent of all amphibian species and 26 percent of all mammals are now threatened with extinction, and fully half of the world's primates - our closest relatives - teeter on the edge of existence. We face the loss of one in eight of all bird species. Overall, the extinction rate has increased a hundred-fold over the last century, and today we estimate that over 18,000 species face oblivion. Zoos are in a unique position to make a difference. Zoos are focused on offering the very best possible nutrition, enrichment and environment for animals in their care.

The many committed people at zoos care deeply about animals, working with an incredible variety of species, from one-celled creatures to elephants. Our research on behavior, reproductive biology, nutrition, animal health and genetics is valuable to wildlife managers, field researchers and other scientists.

For example, the Saint Louis Zoo has been doing a mother/infant bonding study with antelope and other hoofed animals at Red Rocks for 14 years. The data we've gathered - how often and when a species typically nurses, who initiates nursing, proximity, grooming, nuzzling - has provided information to field researchers that would be hard to come by otherwise.

We are animal experts

Zoo professionals are experts on breeding small populations of endangered species. That knowledge, too, has become valuable to scientists working with wildlife populations. Nowadays animals in wild habitats are often found in small, fragmented groups because of agriculture, logging or other human activity.

We collaborate with organizations worldwide on conservation breeding, habitat preservation, community development, public education and research.

Explore our conservation efforts

From Fence to Field

In 2004, the Saint Louis Zoo established the WildCare Institute to work in conservation hotspots locally and around the globe.

From Forest Park and Missouri streams to the Horn of Africa or the coastline of Peru, the Zoo is taking a holistic approach to wildlife conservation. While the Zoo has been involved in helping save endangered species for decades, our goal today is create a sustainable future for wildlife and for people around the world. Ultimately, we need to help save the ecosystems on which animals and humans depend. WildCare Institute addresses three key ingredients in conservation success: wildlife management and recovery, conservation science, and support of the human populations that coexist with wildlife.

Connecting people to animals

People learn at zoos. They learn in our formal classes, lectures, camps, teacher workshops, distance learning, zoo tours, overnights and outreach programs. Informally they learn from keeper chats, docent volunteers, interpreters, signage and special exhibits. Most important, they learn from observing zoo animals.

On a scale of 1 to 10, our visitors rate their educational experience at the Saint Louis Zoo as a 9.1.

Unique Experiences.

Zoos are a place where families can have unique experiences together every time they visit. Today's families are more conscious than ever of the need to teach their children about the natural world and respect for living creatures.

Why do people come to the zoo?

Why do zoos matter?

Because we care.

We want to keep this planet's amazing wildlife around for future generations.

Donate to our Conservation Fund

If you'd like to contribute financially to our conservation efforts, you can make a donation through the Saint Louis Zoo.

Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Saint Louis Zoo is dedicated to saving species and bringing people and wildlife together. Home to over 16,000 animals, many of which are endangered, entry is free every day for everyone, an important part of our commitment to people and animals - always.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain. In my three years of volunteering, I have never seen, nor had any reason to suspect, any foul play at my zoo. The allegations in "The Modern Zoo" that all zoos are inhumane and cruel is false, I believe.

According to the article in Teen Ink, "Zoos claim to educate visitors. Yet we've all seen the one-sentence signs that describe monkeys. What can be learned from this? Certainly not enough to justify inhumane captivity." One-sentence signs are not the end of zoos' efforts to educate. At my zoo an entire department is devoted to educating the public about conservation of animals and our planet. If zoos didn't care about education, why would they have this? While exhibits may display signs with brief information, staff work daily at the zoo to educate visitors about conservation and other critical topics.

Some zoo employees visit schools and businesses to educate the public about how to be more responsible with our environment. This department even organizes conservation projects around Ohio, such as the community effort to remove waste from Big Creek. Volunteers spent a day restoring the creek to a more healthy ecosystem. The zoo is also part of a national conservation campaign called Year of the Frog, dedicated to saving amphibian species from extinction. Zoos put forth tremendous effort to educate people, and to say that they do not is just not true in my experience.

"Zoo animals endure inadequate living conditions with no space," claims the article. It's not fair to make this generalization. My own zoo, for example, is planning a one-of-a-kind, spacious exhibit for its elephants. The exhibit encompasses many acres, and will be large enough to support a breeding population. If zoos didn't care about adequate space for their animals, why would they waste time raising millions of dollars to build this type of exhibit? Also, my zoo cares a lot for its animals; it houses the second oldest hippo in North America and its polar bears are twice the age of those in the wild.

I witnessed a life-saving surgery on a 13-year-old wolf. Veterinarians worked for two hours to save his life. Thirteen is very old for a wolf. Zoos do care for their animals, and do what they can to keep them strong and healthy.

"These animals are simply meant to entertain," claims "The Modern Zoo." That too is false. At the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, animals are never forced to do anything for the sake of visitors' entertainment. We believe in positive animal/ human interaction. Zoo staff never force or coerce an animal due to this policy.

The author of "The Modern Zoo" is obviously very passionate in his opinion about zoos. I am also very passionate. I have not written this to personally attack him. Rather, I am simply stating facts. "The Modern Zoo" paints zoos as cruel, inhumane facilities, but it is both unfair and untrue to claim this about all of them. Many have state-of-the-art veterinary facilities and work hard to save endangered species.

I hope that readers will see that zoos seek to protect and save endangered species, as well as educate and encourage the public to do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS

Just off the coast of Pascagoula, Miss., the waters are still teeming with 10 species of sharks 15 days after an offshore rig blew up, killing 11 workers gushing oil out of an undersea well.

"We haven't had any indication that there's oil in this area," said Eric Hoffmayer, a marine biologist at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

Marine biologists are rushing to establish a baseline sample of the shark population by documenting their size and overall health before the oil hits, CBS News Special Contributor Jeff Corwin reports. The oil is a threat to more than 600 animal species.
CBSNews.com Special Section: Disaster in the Gulf
Gulf Oil Spill, by the Numbers
The biologists are especially worried because waters near Pascagoula are a fragile nursery for young sharks. This is a critical time for these sharks.

"We don't know what the implications are going to be with exposure to this oil, but in theory it could have a tremendous impact on the pups that are born this year and the populations that we have here in the north are critical to the Gulf of Mexico," Hoffmayer said.

Even if the oil doesn't get to the sharks, the sharks may get to the oil.

"These things could probably swim between 10, maybe 15, 20 miles a day," Hoffmayer said.

If a shark is capable of swimming 20 miles a day, it's capable of swimming where the slick is, so it could be in healthy waters one day and poison waters the next.

If sharks come in contact with oil, two things can happen. They can suffocate to death because they breathe water through their gills. Also, if the fish they hunt is contaminated by oil, they can be poisoned by eating the toxic chemicals in the crude.

Dolphins, on the other hand, are mammals and like human beings breathe air into their lungs to survive. If they come up to the surface of that water and there's oil floating on top, they can breathe in that oil into their lungs through their blow hole and can suffocate as well.
More Oil Spill Coverage
Also like the sharks, they're targeting fish that could be contaminated.

All species in the Gulf, either creatures living along the coastline like the birds or the animals in the water, are vulnerable to this very toxic oil spill.

Crews Taking Oil Containment Dome to Gulf
Oil Spill Burning Again as Weather Cooperates
Oil Spill Close to Shore, Satellite Images Show
Can Congress Raise BP's Oil Spill Liability?
Hidden Costs of Oil Revealed; Will it Matter?
1 of 3 Oil Well Leaks Capped; Dome Heads to Gulf
BP Still Can't Stop Leaks
Exxon-Valdez Revisited
Virtual Reality Deployed to Deal with Oil Spill
Oil Spill Sparks New Debate: To Drill or Not to Drill?
How Much Does BP Owe for Gulf Oil Spill?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oil Spill Pushes Biologists to Count Sharks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists Checking How Many Sharks Swimming in Gulf Now to Later Determine Spill's Effect on Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses. Explore lesson supports.

How did zoos become a thing?
Humans have been capturing and displaying exotic animals for thousands of years. The earliest known collections date back to 3500 BCE in Egypt, where rulers kept hippos, elephants, baboons, and different species of large cats. Now back then, that didn't mean that your average Egyptian could go check any of that awesomeness out. These early zoos were really just a way for kings to flex on other kings. Modern zoos, where the public can come and watch animals exhibiting their natural behavior, didn't really become a thing until the early 1800s. The longest continuously operating zoo in the world is the Vienna Zoo, which has been going strong for more than 260 years.

What are the arguments in favor of having zoos?
Zoos may be great entertainment, but their big goal is to educate the public about wildlife and what we can do to protect them. Zoo animals are sort of like ambassadors for their counterparts in the wild. Zoos also contribute to scientific research. "Zoo" is short for zoological park, and zoology is the scientific study of animal biology and behavior. In addition, zoos work really hard to save animals that are threatened in the wild. Zoos can take at-risk animals, breed them in captivity, and then reintroduce them back into the wild.

What are the arguments for NOT having zoos?
Zoos have their problems. Not all zoos are created equal. Some are clean and well staffed, others aren't. There are some in the richest cities in the world, and there are some in conflict zones. What this means is that not all zoos have the resources to properly care for the animals they house. And for many critics, no amount of education or research justifies keeping animals captive. That captivity can be REALLY bad for both physical AND psychological health. And while zoos have been really helpful is saving endangered animals, it doesn't work out for certain species. For example, most large carnivores like lions and tigers that are bred in captivity die when released into the wild. It turns out that they haven't developed the natural behaviors they need when they're out on their own and have to fend for themselves.

SOURCES:
Do we need zoos? (The Atlantic)
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why it is Unacceptable to Confine Marine Mammals for Public Display

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you feel about keeping animals in zoos? Read both sides of the argument to help you decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA's Plans to Return to The Moon and Potentially Go to Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Whale Sanctuary Project | Back to Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study, "Tooth Damage in Captive Orcas", is the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed, quantitative assessment of how extensive tooth damage is among orcas at entertainment facilities. It documents the effects of living in concrete tanks on their teeth, and consequently on their overall health and wellbeing.

It's already well-known that orcas in entertainment facilities wear down their teeth and break them by chewing on the concrete walls and on the gates that separate their pools. Eventually, these teeth have to be drilled out and then flushed daily to prevent infection.

For the new study, former SeaWorld trainers John Jett and Jeff Ventre and fellow researchers examined photos of the mouths of 29 orcas and scored the teeth for coronal wear, wear at or below the gum line, fractures, bore holes and missing teeth. Among their conclusions:

Dental damage was commonly observed across all captive whale cohorts, with damage beginning early in a whale's captive life.

Forty five percent of whales exhibited "moderate" mean mandibular coronal wear, and an additional 24 percent exhibited "major" to "extreme" wear.

Sixty-one percent of the orcas who were studied had endured a "modified pulpotomy," in which a hole is drilled into the tooth and the soft pulpy tissue inside is removed in an effort to prevent a deadly abscess forming in the jaw.

Taima (left) and Corky, showing damage to teeth and jaw. Photos from Orca Project.

When humans have a similar procedure (a root canal), the drilled-out hole is filled and capped. But for the orcas, it's kept open for the rest of their lives and requires daily flushing with chemicals to prevent infection.

"These fractured and worn-down teeth are indicators of serious, chronic psychological stress."
- Lori Marino

The whole procedure makes the teeth weaker and subject to further fracture in the stressful conditions of life in a concrete tank.

The various pathologies begin at a young age and are likely the direct result of fighting and biting on the hard surfaces of their captive environment as a result of stress from their confinement.

Ventre and Jett say they suspect that two well-known whales, Tilikum and Kasatka, who were featured in the movie Blackfish, died prematurely due, in part, to antibiotic resistant infections brought on by the need for constant medication.

Neuroscientist and President of the Whale Sanctuary Project Dr. Lori Marino says that just as dental pathology is associated with increased infection rate in humans and all other animals, it likely contributes to the infectious pathologies and shortened lifespan that's commonly seen in captive orcas. She adds:
These fractured and worn-down teeth are indicators of serious chronic psychological stress and pathology. So, above and beyond the physical problems associated with poor dentition, the condition of these orcas' teeth makes it clear that there is considerable psychological stress in orcas held in entertainment parks.
The complete study is available with subscription or for individual purchase at Science Direct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dental Damage and Decay Among Orcas at Marine Parks - The Whale Sanctuary Project | Back to Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study, "Tooth Damage in Captive Orcas", is the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed, quantitative assessment of how extensive tooth damage is among orcas at entertainment facilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times: One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics 

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times: One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also this week, how it feels to stand on a melting glacier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star. For example, Earth is a satellite because it orbits the sun. Likewise, the moon is a satellite because it orbits Earth. Usually, the word "satellite" refers to a machine that is launched into space and moves around Earth or another body in space.

Earth and the moon are examples of natural satellites. Thousands of artificial, or man-made, satellites orbit Earth. Some take pictures of the planet that help meteorologists predict weather and track hurricanes. Some take pictures of other planets, the sun, black holes, dark matter or faraway galaxies. These pictures help scientists better understand the solar system and universe.

Still other satellites are used mainly for communications, such as beaming TV signals and phone calls around the world. A group of more than 20 satellites make up the Global Positioning System, or GPS. If you have a GPS receiver, these satellites can help figure out your exact location.

Why Are Satellites Important?

The bird's-eye view that satellites have allows them to see large areas of Earth at one time. This ability means satellites can collect more data, more quickly, than instruments on the ground.

Satellites also can see into space better than telescopes at Earth's surface. That's because satellites fly above the clouds, dust and molecules in the atmosphere that can block the view from ground level.

Before satellites, TV signals didn't go very far. TV signals only travel in straight lines. So they would quickly trail off into space instead of following Earth's curve. Sometimes mountains or tall buildings would block them. Phone calls to faraway places were also a problem. Setting up telephone wires over long distances or underwater is difficult and costs a lot.

With satellites, TV signals and phone calls are sent upward to a satellite. Then, almost instantly, the satellite can send them back down to different locations on Earth.

What Are the Parts of a Satellite?

Satellites come in many shapes and sizes. But most have at least two parts in common - an antenna and a power source. The antenna sends and receives information, often to and from Earth. The power source can be a solar panel or battery. Solar panels make power by turning sunlight into electricity.

Many NASA satellites carry cameras and scientific sensors. Sometimes these instruments point toward Earth to gather information about its land, air and water. Other times they face toward space to collect data from the solar system and universe.

How Do Satellites Orbit Earth?

Most satellites are launched into space on rockets. A satellite orbits Earth when its speed is balanced by the pull of Earth's gravity. Without this balance, the satellite would fly in a straight line off into space or fall back to Earth. Satellites orbit Earth at different heights, different speeds and along different paths. The two most common types of orbit are "geostationary" (jee-oh-STAY-shun-air-ee) and "polar."

A geostationary satellite travels from west to east over the equator. It moves in the same direction and at the same rate Earth is spinning. From Earth, a geostationary satellite looks like it is standing still since it is always above the same location.

Polar-orbiting satellites travel in a north-south direction from pole to pole. As Earth spins underneath, these satellites can scan the entire globe, one strip at a time.

Why Don't Satellites Crash Into Each Other?

Actually, they can. NASA and other U.S. and international organizations keep track of satellites in space. Collisions are rare because when a satellite is launched, it is placed into an orbit designed to avoid other satellites. But orbits can change over time. And the chances of a crash increase as more and more satellites are launched into space.

In February 2009, two communications satellites - one American and one Russian - collided in space. This, however, is believed to be the first time two man-made satellites have collided accidentally.

What Was the First Satellite in Space?

Sputnik 1 was the first satellite in space. The Soviet Union launched it in 1957.

What Is the History of NASA Satellites?

NASA has launched dozens of satellites into space, starting with the Explorer 1 satellite in 1958. Explorer 1 was America's first man-made satellite. The main instrument aboard was a sensor that measured high-energy particles in space called cosmic rays.

The first satellite picture of Earth came from NASA's Explorer 6 in 1959. TIROS-1 followed in 1960 with the first TV picture of Earth from space. These pictures did not show much detail. But they did show the potential satellites had to change how people view Earth and space.

How Does NASA Use Satellites Today?

NASA satellites help scientists study Earth and space.

Satellites looking toward Earth provide information about clouds, oceans, land and ice. They also measure gases in the atmosphere, such as ozone and carbon dioxide, and the amount of energy that Earth absorbs and emits. And satellites monitor wildfires, volcanoes and their smoke.

All this information helps scientists predict weather and climate. The information also helps public health officials track disease and famine; it helps farmers know what crops to plant; and it helps emergency workers respond to natural disasters.

Satellites that face toward space have a variety of jobs. Some watch for dangerous rays coming from the sun. Others explore asteroids and comets, the history of stars, and the origin of planets. Some satellites fly near or orbit other planets. These spacecraft may look for evidence of water on Mars or capture close-up pictures of Saturn's rings.

More About Satellites

Play "Missions to Planet Earth"!
Orbits 'R' Us!
Be Spuzzled! Game
Eyes on Earth 3-D
Space Place Live!: How can a satellite stay put over the same spot on Earth?
Read the transcript

Read What Is a Satellite? (Grades K-4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is a Satellite? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star. For example, Earth is a satellite because it orbits the sun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back to Animals

A zoo can be an awesome place to see animals first hand and learn about what they eat, their habits, environment, and all sorts of other interesting facts about animals. Another name for a zoo is zoological garden.

Today zoos are becoming better and better places for animals. In the past some zoos were somewhat cruel to animals. Placing animals in environments they were not suited for and often not keeping the animal's best interest in mind. However, today many zoos do wonderful work in animal research and take great care of their animals.

Photo by Ducksters

Some good things that many Zoos do today include:

Acting as sanctuaries for endangered animals. They provide a safe environment for animals that are being threatened by changes in the environment. Often zoos will work to breed and maintain endangered animal populations. Sometime animals are nearly extinct in the wild and the only place they survive is in zoos.

Education on wildlife. Zoos provide a great opportunity for us to learn more about creatures from distant lands.

Research on wildlife and how we can help animals survive radical changes. Zoos do veterinary medicine research as well.

Today's modern zoos house animals in enclosures that are similar to the animal's natural habitat. This can include buildings made for nocturnal animals where they are bright at night, so the animals can sleep, and dark during the day, so zoo visitors can see the animals moving about. Also, climates are controlled in some zoo enclosures for animals like penguins and polar bears. Many zoos have great open spaces as well where animals may graze together. Some zoos have an area where you can take a mini-safari or ride around in a truck or bus to hopefully see the animals up close.

Perhaps the most famous zoo is the San Diego Zoo in Southern California. Many modern zoo practices were pioneered at the San Diego Zoo. The largest zoo in number of animals is the Bronx Zoo with over 6000 animals. The largest zoo in land size is the North Carolina Zoo with 535 acres.

Photo by Ducksters

Seeing an elephant, giraffe, lion, polar bear, penguins, seals, or other incredible creatures at the zoo can be an amazing experience. Be sure to check out your local zoo and get the opportunity to see some awesome animals and learn more about nature.

Another great place to see animals, similar to a zoo, is at an aquarium. Most states have an aquarium where they display all sorts of fish and some sea mammals.More on endangered species:
Amphibians in Danger
Endangered Animals
How Animals Become Extinct
Wildlife Conservation
Zoos

Back to Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the zoo. History and types of zoological gardens. List of Zoos with interesting animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Orca Encounter (Full Show) - SeaWorld Orlando - April 8, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voting for this episode is now closed. Would you like to vote on the most recent poll?

I pulled three questions from my jar. Which question do you want to explore next week?

How do polar bears walk on ice and snow?

-Nathan, 3rd Grade

What do AM and PM stand for?

-Katya, 2nd Grade

What is the difference between a crocodile and an alligator?

-Uri, Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch the video to discover the answer to "Do sharks really want to eat people?" and don't forget to vote for next week's question!

# data[].attributes.headline
Whole Foods is making eco-friendly changes to their packaging

# data[].attributes.subject
Whole Foods is making eco-friendly changes to their packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whole Foods announced Monday it would take more steps to reduce the amount of plastic packaging found in stores nationwide.

The grocery chain said by July it would make three changes: switching to smaller plastic bags in the produce department, replacing plastic rotisserie chicken containers with bags that use less plastic, and getting rid of all plastic straws. Cafes and juice bars inside Whole Foods stores will now give customers a paper compostable straw with their drinks (unless a plastic one is requested to accommodate a disability).

Whole Foods estimates the changes will reduce the company's plastic packaging by 800,000 pounds per year, but not all environmentalists are satisfied.

"It's good to see Whole Foods acknowledging its role in the plastic pollution crisis and making some changes, but retailers must go much further than phasing out plastic straws and cutting down on the amount of plastic used in select packaging," said Greenpeace spokesperson David Pinsky in a statement.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Trader Joe's made similar changes recently, announcing it had replaced plastic produce bags with biodegradable and compostable options and replaced styrofoam trays (that were used in produce packaging) with compostable trays.

Since China has drastically cut the amount of recycling waste it purchases for processing in recent years, environmentalists have been placing more emphasis on the "reduce" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle." Much of the world's plastic waste never ends up getting recycled, instead finding its way to landfills or the ocean. San Francisco's "Zero Waste" initiative leads the country in this regard - the city diverts more than 80 percent of its waste away from landfills.

In a press release, Whole Foods president A.C. Gallo seemed to indicate this wouldn't be the end of its efforts to reduce waste: "We recognize that single-use plastics are a concern for many of our customers, team members and suppliers, and we're proud of these packaging changes ... We will continue to look for additional opportunities to further reduce plastic across our stores."

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whole Foods making eco-friendly changes to packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whole Foods announced Monday it would take more steps to reduce the amount of plastic...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Real sanctuaries are safe, comfortable places for animals to live after they've been rescued from not-so-nice places like circuses or laboratories. People can sometimes visit these sanctuaries, which is an awesome way to learn about and see animals without supporting businesses that hurt them, like roadside zoos or wildlife parks. Roadside zoos and wildlife parks use animals to make money. It's confusing because they sometimes call themselves "sanctuaries" or "rescues" to bring in more customers, because they know that people don't want to visit roadside zoos, but they're being dishonest when they do that.

It's important not to get these horrible places confused with actual sanctuaries. But how can you tell the difference? It's easy! There are a few simple questions you can ask about a place to figure out whether it's helping or hurting animals the animals who live there.

You can find answers to these questions by browsing a facility's website and social media pages (your parents can help):

1. How are animals housed?

Real sanctuaries make sure that an animal's living space is as close to their natural habitat as possible. Animals should live with others of their own kind so they can have friends. It's mean to keep them all alone in small, dirty pens with concrete floors and nothing to do-and you should stay away from places like that.

2. What kinds of activities do the animals get to do?

The animals' living area should have lots of ways for them to play and enjoy themselves! For example, there should be a large structure for chimpanzees to climb on, water for bears to soak and splash in, and large fields for roaming and exploring. Animals need these things if they're going to be healthy, happy, and comfortable.

Animals should also live with others of the same species so they can communicate with each another easily and form relationships and groups. In many sanctuaries, the animals who already live there help teach the newcomers how to get back in touch with their natural instincts and enjoy life again.

3. How big is the facility?

Animals should be given enough space to explore, roam, climb, and forage. And a real sanctuary NEVER takes the animals out of the facility to show them off.

4. Are visitors allowed to touch or hold the animals?

True wild-animal sanctuaries (with big cats, bears, primates, or wolves) NEVER allow visitors to touch or hold the animals, even babies, and that includes taking photos with them. This would be scary for the animals and dangerous to the visitors, too!

5. Where did the animals come from?

The animals who live there probably came from a place where they were mistreated, so they have a sad and painful past. The staff will want to share each animal's story so that visitors can learn about the various places that hurt animals (like laboratories, circuses, and roadside zoos). Real sanctuaries provide animals with a permanent home for the rest of their life. They NEVER trade, borrow, or loan animals.

6. Does the facility breed animals?

Sanctuaries NEVER breed animals, meaning that they don't make any of the animals have babies. Places that do breed animals are using them to make money-that's not right, and that's not a sanctuary.

7. What is it like to visit a sanctuary?

Most sanctuaries only allow very limited visits. Usually a guide takes people on a small tour of the place and doesn't let them walk around by themselves.

8. Is it accredited?

True sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), a group that makes sure sanctuaries follow strict rules to protect the animals who live there, like the ones listed above.
*****
All living, feeling beings deserve a comfortable place to live where people aren't always staring at them. A true sanctuary puts the needs and wants of the animals first. So if you care about animals, NEVER visit a roadside zoo or a wildlife park, and explain to your friends and family why places like that are bad for animals!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Tell a REAL Sanctuary From a Roadside Zoo | PETA Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roadside zoo or animal sanctuary? This list will explain the difference-so you can figure out if a place is hurting or helping animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How SeaWorld is changing since killer whale controversies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A number of travel companies announced they will no longer sell SeaWorld tickets after the theme park chain came under fire for its use of orcas, also known as killer whales, in entertainment shows. The brand pledged to stop breeding orcas and now says that it's changing those shows to be less about tricks and dancing and more about education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apollo was the NASA program that resulted in American astronauts’ making a total of 11 spaceflights and walking on the moon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These photos of unexpected animal friendships will melt your heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amitai Etzioni says there are bigger priorities than a new push for manned exploration in space

# data[].attributes.headline
Giant Panda Cubs Give Hope to Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.subject
Giant Panda Cubs Give Hope to Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.body
Mount Everest from Britannica School Middle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What's Inside

SuperSTEM makes it easy to infuse STEM learning into any instructional block and curriculum-all year long. Aligned to the NGSS and other standards, our interdisciplinary lessons build content-area knowledge, academic and domain vocabulary, and cross-curricular skills.

Deepen knowledge with fascinating videos, build skills with interactive activities, and support every reader with rich multigenre texts and robust differentiation tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic SuperSTEM | Where Stories Power Problem Solving in Grades 3-6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scholastic's SuperSTEM magazine captures the excitement of science, technology, engineering, and math in your classroom with powerful blended-learning resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous .

Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives. Communication satellites allow us instant access to information all over the world using radio, television, and phones. Some people credit in part the fall of the Soviet Union to ease of information access; the people in those countries saw what the rest of the world was doing, accelerating the process of reform. GPS satellites allow us to track ships, airplanes, and even people who may be lost or in need of help.

Reaching outward into space has helped us in other ways as well. A fleet of satellites (YOHKOH, SOHO and others) study the Sun so that we can better understand it. Huge solar eruptions can damage satellites and cause power blackouts (like in Quebec in 1989), and the Sun directly influences our environment. Understanding the Sun is a critical use of space technology.

Exploring the other planets helps us put the Earth in context. Why is Mars dry, cold, nearly airless, and dead? Why is Venus covered in thick clouds and suffering a runaway greenhouse effect? Why do hurricanes on Jupiter last for centuries? All these questions (and thousands more) help us understand our own planet, and allow us to see how humans are affecting it. Certainly understanding asteroids is important-- we need to learn how to move them in case one is heading our way; an asteroid impact could wipe out all humans on Earth, so our very future is tied to space travel.

There are simple technological reasons for space exploration as well. Some estimates say that for every dollar invested in the Apollo program, more than 20 have been returned. That's a huge payoff! Computer tech, communications, rocketry, and many other fields have benefited hugely from space exploration.

And there is one more reason. Humans strive to learn, to explore, to push boundaries, to see what's around the corner. This is in many ways a fundamental need, and space exploration is a fantastic manifestation of that. The Universe is huge, beautiful, mysterious, and, ultimately, knowable . Even if the other reasons were not there, this alone should be enough for us pursue our exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
Article from Britannica Middle about Mountain Climbing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

Early space activities were dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. However, as time went by, Europe and Japan also learned how to build their own satellites and rockets. Today, countries such as China, India, South Korea, Israel and Brazil are developing their own space industries.

During the last 60 years, unmanned probes have been sent towards all of the planets in the Solar System, as well as many satellites, asteroids and comets. Spacecraft have soft-landed on half a dozen worlds, while rovers have driven over the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. The Sun has also been explored in great detail by a fleet of spacecraft.

Many space observatories, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, have been launched to look at the distant Universe. They have sent back some amazing pictures taken in visible light. But they can also observe stars and galaxies at wavelengths that are invisible to human eyes - radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. The flood of discoveries has changed the way we look at the Universe.

More than 500 people have also flown in space since Yuri Gagarin paved the way in 1961. 20 people have travelled to the Moon and 12 of them have walked on the Moon. Space stations have been built, and astronauts have learned to live and work in space for many months, or even years.

Last modified 26 January 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am convinced that if NASA were to disappear tomorrow, if we never put up another Hubble Space Telescope, never put another human being in space, people in this country would be profoundly distraught. Americans would feel that we had lost something that matters, that our best days were behind us, and they would feel themselves somehow diminished. Yet I think most would be unable to say why.

There are many good reasons to continue to explore space, which most Americans have undoubtedly heard. Some have been debated in public policy circles and evaluated on the basis of financial investment. In announcing his commitment to send the country back to the moon and, later, on to Mars, President Bush quite correctly said that we do it for purposes of scientific discovery, economic benefit, and national security. I've given speeches on each of those topics, and these reasons can be clearly shown to be true. And presidential science advisor Jack Marburger has said that questions about space exploration come down to whether we want to bring the solar system within mankind's sphere of economic influence. I think that is extraordinarily well put.

But these are not reasons that would make Americans miss our space program. They are merely the reasons we are most comfortable discussing. I think of them as "acceptable reasons" because they can be logically defended. When we contemplate committing large sums of money to a project, we tend to dismiss reasons that are emotional or value-driven or can't be captured on a spreadsheet. But in space exploration those are the reasons-what I think of as "real reasons"-that are the most important.

When Charles Lindbergh was asked why he crossed the Atlantic, he never once answered that he wanted to win the $25,000 that New York City hotel owner Raymond Orteig offered for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. Burt Rutan and his backer, Paul Allen, certainly didn't develop a private spacecraft to win the Ansari X-Prize for the $10 million in prize money. They spent twice as much as they made. Sergei Korolev and the team that launched Sputnik were not tasked by their government to be the first to launch an artificial satellite; they had to fight for the honor and the resources to do it.

I think we all know why people strive to accomplish such things. They do so for reasons that are intuitive and compelling to all of us but that are not necessarily logical. They're exactly the opposite of acceptable reasons, which are eminently logical but neither intuitive nor emotionally compelling.

First, most of us want to be, both as individuals and as societies, the first or the best in some activity. We want to stand out. This behavior is rooted in our genes. We are today the descendants of people who survived by outperforming others. Without question that drive can be carried to an unhealthy extreme; we've all seen more wars than we like. But just because the trait can be taken too far doesn't mean that we can do without it completely.

A second reason is curiosity. Who among us has not had the urge to know what's over the next hill? What child has not been drawn to explore beyond the familiar streets of the neighborhood?

Finally, we humans have, since the earliest civilizations, built monuments. We want to leave something behind to show the next generation, or the generations after that, what we did with our time here. This is the impulse behind cathedrals and pyramids, art galleries and museums.

Cathedral builders would understand what I mean by real reasons. The monuments they erected to the awe and mystery of their God required a far greater percentage of their gross domestic product than we will ever put into the space business, but we look back across 600 or 800 years of time, and we are still awed by what the builders accomplished. Those buildings, therefore, also stand as monuments to the builders.

The return the cathedral builders made on their investment could not have been summarized in a cost/benefit analysis. They began to develop civil engineering, the core discipline for any society if it wishes to have anything more than thatched huts. They gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. For example, they learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level, where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level, where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking: the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades.

It is my contention that the products of our space program are today's cathedrals. The space program satisfies the desire to compete, but in a safe and productive manner, rather than in a harmful one. It speaks abundantly to our sense of human curiosity, of wonder and awe at the unknown. Who can watch people assembling the greatest engineering project in the history of mankind-the International Space Station-and not wonder at the ability of people to conceive and to execute the project? And it also addresses our need for leaving something for future generations.

Of course the space program also addresses the acceptable reasons, and in the end this is imperative. Societies will not succeed in the long run if they place their resources and their efforts in enterprises that, for whatever reason, don't provide concrete value. But I believe that projects done for the real reasons that motivate humans also serve the acceptable reasons. In that sense, the value of space exploration really is in its spinoffs, as many have argued. But it's not in spinoffs like Teflon and Tang and Velcro, as the public is so often told-and which in fact did not come from the space program. And it's not in spinoffs in the form of better heart monitors or cheaper prices for liquid oxygen for hospitals, although the space program's huge demand for liquid oxygen spurred fundamental improvements in the production and handling of this volatile substance. The real spinoffs are, just as they were for cathedral builders, more fundamental.

Anyone who wants to build spacecraft, who wants to be a subcontractor, or who even wants to supply bolts and screws to the space industry must work to a higher level of precision than human beings had to do before the space industry came along. And that standard has influenced our entire industrial base, and therefore our economy.

As for national security, what is the value to the United States of being involved in enterprises which lift up human hearts everywhere? What is the value to the United States of being a leader in such efforts, in projects in which every technologically capable nation wants to take part? The greatest strategy for national security, more effective than having better guns and bombs than everyone else, is being a nation that does the kinds of things that make others want to do them with us.

What do you have to do, how do you have to behave, to do space projects? You have to value hard work. You have to live by excellence, or die from the lack of it. You have to understand and practice both leadership and followership. You have to build partnerships; leaders need partners and allies, as well as followers.

You have to accept the challenge of the unknown, knowing that you might fail, and to do so not without fear but with mastery of fear and a determination to go anyway. You have to defer gratification because we work on things that not all of us will live to see-and we know it.

We now believe that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark energy or dark matter, terms for things that we as yet know nothing about. Is it even conceivable that one day we won't learn to harness them? As cavemen learned to harness fire, as people two centuries ago learned to harness electricity, we will learn to harness these new things. It was just a few years ago that we confirmed the existence of dark matter, and we would not have done so without the space program. What is the value of knowledge like that? I cannot begin to guess. A thousand years from now there will be human beings who don't have to guess; they will know, and they will know we gave this to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ambition, curiosity, and a reason the NASA Administrator admits has nothing to do with economic benefit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most widely used AZA statistics, updated annually.

Annual Survey Results

AZA members (Individual Professional category members and Primary Contacts of Conservation Partner, Commercial, Related Facility and Institution Members) may log in and download the results of the most recent AZA Annual Survey of Members.

Accreditation

237 accredited zoos and aquariums in 13 countries (Updated September 2023)

USA: 213 in 46 states and the District of Columbia

Canada: 7

Mexico: 4

Bahamas: 1

Bermuda: 1

Dominican Republic: 1

Argentina: 1

Colombia: 1

Spain: 1

Hong Kong: 1

Singapore: 2

South Korea: 2

United Arab Emirates: 2

15 accredited related facilities
Accreditation occurs every 5 years
Approximately 25 facilities undergo the accreditation process every 6 months

Types of Accredited Facilities

134 zoos

59 aquariums

9 both zoo and aquariums

16 safari and theme parks

15 science and nature centers

2 aviaries

2 butterfly houses

54% non-profit

35% public

11% for-profit

Animals in AZA-Accredited Facilities

Over 780,000 animals in the care of AZA-accredited zoo and aquarium professionals

Over 8,600 species

Over 800 Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Extinct In The Wild species as categorized by the IUCN Red List

Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Programs

42 Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs)

Nearly 500 Species Survival Plan Programs

AZA Reproductive Management Center

Supports SSP ® programs by monitoring the safety and efficacy of contraceptives used for all mammalian species and helping bring new contraceptive methods to the zoo, aquarium, and wildlife community

AZA Population Management Center

Population planning for 500 species for the next 100 years

Conservation

$252.2 million was spent on field conservation in 119 countries in 2022

232 species and subspecies that benefited are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

$29 million was spent on AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction species programs in 2022

AZA's Conservation Grants Fund

Over $8.7 million supporting over 470 conservation projects since 1991

Economy

In the most recent survey in 2018, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums:

Contributed more than $22.5 billion to U.S. economy

Supported more than 198,000 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Served more than 200 million annual visitors worldwide (183 million in the U.S.)

Informal Science Education

Based on the Education Programs survey data from 2019,

AZA members provided teacher professional development, curriculum resources and free planning visits that reached more than 96,000 teachers

5.5 million individuals were reached through field trips, outreach programs and education resources targeted to K-12 students

124 facilities reported more than 1,200 education programs that include content about connecting to nature, reaching more than 33 million.

(Updated April 2023)

Over 785 zoo and aquarium professionals have completed in-person AZA courses from 2020-present

Almost 250 zoo and aquarium professionals participated in virtual AZA courses from 2021-2022

AZA offers 18 in-person courses that are team-taught by professionals in the field, designed to develop a variety of animal management, education, and leadership skills

AZA's Executive Leadership Development Program prepares the next generation of executive leaders to successfully advance the zoo and aquarium movement in the future. More than 80 leaders have completed the program since 2014, with 27 having been promoted to the role of Executive Director or CEO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Association for Zoos and Aquariums' members, educational programs, and conservation efforts, as well as the kinds of facilities we support.

# data[].attributes.body
Go to 12:44 to listen to the part about sharks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharks vs Skunks | Smash Boom Best, a debate podcast for kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About this film

The Story of Bottled Water, released on March 22, 2010 (World Water Day), employs the Story of Stuff style to tell the story of manufactured demand-how you get Americans to buy more than half a billion bottles of water every week when it already flows virtually free from the tap. Over five minutes, the film explores the bottled water industry's attacks on tap water and its use of seductive, environmental-themed advertising to cover up the mountains of plastic waste it produces. The film concludes with a call for viewers to make a personal commitment to avoid bottled water and support public investment in clean, available tap water for all.

Share

Movie Resources

Credits

The Story of Bottled Water was co-created and released by The Story of Stuff Project and a coalition of partners, including Corporate Accountability International, Food & Water Watch, Polaris Institute, Pacific Institute and Environmental Working Group. The movie was produced by Free Range Studios.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Story of Bottled Water - Story of Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About this film The Story of Bottled Water, released on March 22, 2010 (World Water Day), employs the Story of Stuff style to tell the story of manufactured demand-how you get Americans to buy more than half a billion bottles of water every week when it already flows virtually free from the tap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Animal Enrichment & Training

Animal training and enrichment go hand-in-hand here at the Saint Louis Zoo. Both have to do with an animal's behavior and how they act and react to different situations.

With animal enrichment, keepers create environments that provide a stimulating life for our animals, with opportunities to engage in natural behavior, be more active and have more control over their environment. Enrichment helps satisfy both the physical and psychological needs of animals and allows them to make choices.

Enriching an animal's environment comes in many forms, including altering the physical environment, modifying animal care, creating social groupings and increasing sensory stimulation. You may have seen our bears playing with boomer balls and our apes playing with plastic crates. These are examples of adding "furniture" for an animal to play with. Other examples of animals enrichment include:

Providing live and artificial plants for shade and barriers

Creating vertical dimensions using trees, ropes or rock work to increase and enhance living space

Using puzzle feeders that offer a challenging and time-consuming method of obtaining food

Housing a variety of compatible animals from the same habitat together

Applying scents (spices, perfumes, food, dung) around a habitat

Simulating or using real prey items in predator habitats to encourage stalk-and-chase behaviors

Animal training is another form of enrichment as well as an animal management technique.

The animals at the Saint Louis Zoo are trained through positive reinforcement. Through training animals voluntarily participate in doctors' visits, allow general housekeeping in their area and work with keepers while getting a pedicure or shower. Achieving these tasks through trained behaviors requires a devoted trainer, a well-prepared plan and a motivated "student." The motivation (or the reinforcement) can be food such as produce, bread or browse, or it can be tactile, such as brushing or scratching. Many animals are also motivated by the mental exercise and special attention during training sessions.

Training allows keepers and veterinarians to do their jobs more safely and easily. It also allows animals to receive the best care possible through their own willing involvement in the process. While training is often used to perform husbandry tasks, it is also enriching for the animals. It provides a challenge for them and offers them the opportunity to earn a reward that they find worthwhile. Training is rapidly becoming a vital tool in animal care.

Support Animal Enrichment

Guests can view the Zoo's animal enrichment "wish list" to learn more about what they can give to help animals at the Zoo.

Explore the list on Amazon or click below to view the PDF.

Animal Enrichment Wish List PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Saint Louis Zoo is dedicated to saving species and bringing people and wildlife together. Home to over 16,000 animals, many of which are endangered, entry is free every day for everyone, an important part of our commitment to people and animals - always.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smart, Social and Erratic in Captivity (Published 2013)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A film, a book and a trainer’s death have renewed debate among scientists and animal advocates on the wisdom and morality of keeping killer whales in marine parks.

# data[].attributes.headline
How much it costs to climb Mount Everest

# data[].attributes.subject
How much it costs to climb Mount Everest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least 11 people have died climbing Mount Everest in the past week, drawing attention to how severely overcrowded the mountain has become.

Upwards of 700 people climb the mountain each year, most within a narrow time frame of decent weather.

Most people hire commercial expedition operators, which usually charge between $60,000 and $65,000, according to The British Mountaineering Council.

Some people pay up to $130,000 for "VVIP" expedition packages.

Climbers also need to spend between $6,000 and $8,000 on gear such as a down suit, sleeping bags, boots, a trekking backpack, and an ice axe.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

At least 11 deaths on Mount Everest in the past week has drawn attention to just how severly overcrowded the mountain has become.

A record 381 people were granted permits to climb Mount Everest in 2019, according to The Washington Post, and the number of guides can easily double the number of people on the mountain.

Many of these climbers are on Everest at the same time, in a narrow time frame when conditions are best. This results in bottlenecking and queuing in the mountain's "death zone," where there's simply not enough oxygen for the body's cells to survive.
Read more: Mount Everest is so crowded that climbers are dying after being forced to queue in the 'death zone' while waiting to reach the summit, expedition companies say
But the crowds aren't stopping climbers from dropping some serious cash to summit one of the world's most famous mountains.

Most people who climb Everest hire commercial expedition operators, which usually charge between $60,000 and $65,000, according to The British Mountaineering Council (BMC). This includes a guide and "a high ratio of support climbers, usually Sherpas," Tina Gardner wrote for the BMC.

In some cases, people reportedly pay up to $100,000 or more, depending on the climber's desired amount of comfort.

One company, Seven Summit Treks, charges $130,000 per person for a "VVIP" Mount Everest package that includes a welcome dinner, a stay in a five-star Kathmandu hotel, a private bakery and bar at base camp, private heated kitchen, shower, and toilet tents at base camp, a personal photographer, meals, and unlimited tea and coffee, plus a private helicopter service. The package doesn't include international flights to and from Nepal, required gear, or tips for the crew.

It can be cheaper to hire a local expedition in Nepal, but that will still cost you around $35,000.

And then there's the gear you'll need to buy.

Garrett Madison, an Everest guide at Madison Mountaineering, which charges $65,000 for its standard package, told The Manual that someone who wants to reach the summit of Mount Everest should plan to spend between $6,000 and $8,000 on items such as a down suit, sleeping bags, boots, a trekking backpack, and an ice axe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People are paying up to $130,000 to climb Mount Everest with personal photographers and private bars at base camp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mount Everest is becoming increasingly overcrowded, with hundreds of people each year dropping between $35,000 and $100,000 to climb it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bloodthirsty, ruthless, killer: shark. For years people have feared and slaughtered sharks because of the bad rap they have received from Hollywood, but these beliefs are not justified.

Sharks are not vicious and are actually quite gentle. Of the more than 388 species of sharks only two (the Great White and the Tiger) have been known to attack man and then only because of mistaken identity. Wetsuits and surfboards used by surfers are mistaken by sharks as the thick, rubbery, skin of seals, which are their main diet. Once the shark bites the surfer, it almost immediately lets go because it does not taste like its favorite meal.

Not all big sharks have huge jaws full of teeth, as many people believe. Whale sharks, the largest fish in the world, are the most affable creatures you will encounter in our world's oceans. These sharks (that can weigh over three thousand pounds and grow up to five stories in length) have no teeth at all. Instead they have a mouth full of baleen that they use to filter plankton and tiny fish out the hundreds of gallons of sea water that passes through their monstrous mouths at one time. These peaceful giants have been known to let divers ride on their backs and don't show any aggression when approached.

People should treat sharks with respect, as they should all earth's creatures. The only way for future generations to learn to appreciate these magnificent creatures (instead of fear them) is through education. This can be accomplished through programs which highlight the good points about sharks, instead of the myths surrounding them. Another way is to make ocean research available to all people - everyone should have the chance to learn the truth about sharks. ^

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharks: Killers Or Just Misunderstood? | Teen Ink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bloodthirsty, ruthless, killer: shark. For years people have feared and slaughtered sharks because of the bad rap they have received from Hollywood, but these beliefs are not justified.Sharks are not vicious and are actually quite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toronto is banning plastic shopping bags in stores.

Starting in January 2013, you'll have to bring your own reusable bag to the store to cart your goods away.

More than 250 million bags end up in landfill every year, never breaking down into compost, according to a report by CBC News.

Plastic bags can also clog drainage systems and, when they are washed out to sea, can hurt fish and other marine animals.

Plastic bags are banned or restricted in about a quarter of the countries in the world, according to online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Countries including Italy and South Africa have banned plastic bags. Many large cities have also banned them.

Toronto currently charges five cents per bag-for instance, for people who want a plastic bag to carry their groceries home.

The five-cent fee was put in place to discourage people from using the non-environmentally friendly product. Instead, people are encouraged to bring their own reusable bags to stores.

After Ireland put a fee on plastic bags in 2002, 90 per cent fewer bags were used. In 2010 Washington D.C. began charging five cents per plastic bag and that city's consumption of them went down from 22.5 million to three million in the first month.

In Toronto, the plastic bag fee has cut down on the number of plastic bags used by half, according to Metro newspaper.

A ban was not exactly what Toronto mayor Rob Ford had in mind when he brought up the subject at City Council on Wednesday. In fact, he wanted to end the five-cent fee on bags.

However, Councillor David Shiner proposed a very different motion. He suggested Toronto do away with plastic bags altogether.

That motion passed, 24 to 20. Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, retailers in Toronto will not be allowed to give out or sell any plastic shopping bags, including ones that claim to be "compostable or biodegradable."

According to Metro, "Ford appeared upset after the vote, blinking rapidly." Ford said council's decision didn't make any sense, and said he felt the motion will be overturned.

Council also voted to stop the five-cent fee for plastic bags, from July 1 until the ban takes effect. That means stores will be able to hand out plastic bags free in Toronto for six months.

Ford later told a news radio station that he would like to see Torontonians come down to City Hall to protest the ban. He said he thinks the ban is the dumbest thing Toronto council has ever done.

CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS
By Jonathan Tilly

Writing/Discussion Prompt
What do you think should be done about plastic bags. Should they be free of charge, cost 5 cents, or be banned altogether. Make a jot list of reasons to support your answer.

Reading Prompt: Purpose
Use the information in today's article to write a letter to Toronto's City Counsel. OK, now go ahead... and send send it. Let them know what you think!

Primary, Junior, & Intermediate
Identify a variety of purposes for reading and choose reading materials appropriate for those purposes (OME, Reading: 1.2).

Grammar Feature: Verbs
Verbs are action words. Every sentence includes at least one verb. The verbs authors choose help readers understand the text. Underline the "key" verbs in today's story that help you understand it. How do these verbs affect your understanding?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mayor Ford is furious that Toronto's city council voted to ban all plastic bags in 2013. Read the facts and form your own opinion! Kids News

# data[].attributes.headline
Are there animal care problems at the National Zoo

# data[].attributes.subject
Are there animal care problems at the National Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS News

WASHINGTON - The National Zoo has a reputation as a leader in animal care, science and cute photo opportunities such as the naming of Bao Bao the baby panda earlier this month.

But a CBS News investigation has learned that behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animal care. Five sources with more than 35 years' combined experience at the National Zoo have raised concerns to CBS News about recent animal injuries, deaths and escapes.

The sources don't want to be identified for fear of retaliation. They say problems began last year when the zoo decided to double the population of the Cheetah Conservation Station, adding a half dozen new species but no extra space. Besides cheetahs, the CCS also houses zebras, gazelles and other species.

CBS News asked animal biologist and ethicist Marc Bekoff to look at the complaints. He was an independent reviewer of a 2005 National Academy of Sciences investigation of the zoo that found "systemic problems at the highest levels."

Of the newly raised issues, Bekoff said: "I call it 'fetch and pray.' You get the animals and then you pray that the project will work out."

The CCS' new animal mix didn't always work out. Issues identified by the zoo sources include two newly acquired hornbill birds that were kept in an indoor shack for seven months because their exhibit yard wasn't ready. Only after a volunteer complained were the birds allowed in an outdoor space. But the wallaby that had to share its yard with these new arrivals became frightened, according to sources, bloodied its nose and spent much of its time frightened and hiding.

One of two new red river hogs quickly became malnourished and died of an infection. The other hog, along with oryxes and sitatungas (two types of antelopes), sometimes became overly aggressive when mixed together, and some were injured in vicious fights.

It's not unusual for animals to spar, but the zoo sources say management failed to predict easily foreseeable conflicts between species and genders, and had ineffective backup plans for separating and protecting the animals when the conflicts arose.

"It's no surprise to me as a field biologist that so many of them do not work out," Bekoff told CBS News. "They're just too hastily put together and they're not well thought through."

Zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson says the National Zoo meets the highest industry standards and the animals always receive the best care.

"We take great care in introducing our animals to these various habitats and transitioning them. Ideally, these things wouldn't happen, of course," said Baker-Masson. "I think my colleagues were very well aware and they know these species and they know how to take care of these species. ... Every single animal has a very specific course of action and a plan."

Bekoff says the zoo's plans appear to have been inadequate. "They should only be able to get the animals when it can be shown that they can properly house them and care for them."

Two animals in the CCS, a Dama gazelle and a pregnant kudu (another type of antelope), died when they got spooked on separate occasions and ran into barriers in their confined spaces, breaking their necks.

The gazelle death happened last month after a zebra attacked a veteran zookeeper. The commotion apparently frightened the gazelle, which is on the endangered species list. Zoo sources say it wasn't found for hours. The pregnant kudu died last June. Zoo sources say as the animal lay suffering with a broken neck, workers were unable to quickly locate necessary veterinary records.

Baker-Masson says Dama gazelles and kudus are skittish animals by nature and were housed in adequate spaces that met the requirements of the American Zoological Association, which recently re-accredited the facility.

As for the hornbill birds that were keep indoors for eight months, Baker-Masson says the space was "more than adequate and it gave the staff a very good amount of time to prepare and work with the hornbills" but "ideally they would have [had] access to their outdoor yard space more quickly."

Bekoff calls the lengthy indoor confinement "totally unacceptable."

"There's not one single excuse that I would accept," he said. "Basically this is a form of animal abuse and animal neglect. ...They get an 'F' in this project.'

Zoo sources also expressed concern about two escapes from the CCS: a vulture whose wings were allegedly not properly clipped and a red panda who managed to climb out of its exhibit. Both animals were later recaptured and zoo officials say the failures that allowed the escapes have been fixed.

CBS News has learned that the zoo convened a task force last summer to investigate the internal complaints about animal care at the CCS. The task force made findings last August and Baker-Masson says some of its recommendations are already being implemented.

Zoo officials refused CBS News' repeated requests to release the task force report even though, under public records law, it's considered public material.

As to why the National Zoo is withholding the information, Baker-Masson provided a number of rationales. First, she said that the task force report was still only a draft, four months after it was scheduled to be completed. However, when CBS News asked for the draft, she would not provide that either.

Later, in an interview, Baker-Masson said that the task force report is finished, but that the zoo isn't ready to release it.

"We're more than happy to [release the task force report]," Baker-Masson told CBS News. "But we have to do it in a thorough and process-oriented way that makes sense."

She acknowledged that some of the concerns investigated were founded.

"Absolutely," Baker-Masson said. "Anytime a concern is raised, it's looked at very seriously and we have to examine, you know, what changes are appropriate for that particular species, what changes are appropriate for the staff, what changes are appropriate for the facility itself. So yes, absolutely, some changes have been made."

Another incident the zoo is keeping mum about is the November zebra attack on the zookeeper. Baker-Masson says that AZA standards require that there always be a barrier between a keeper and zebras, which can inflict serious bite wounds. But the zoo says three weeks after the attack, it still has not identified how the zebra got to the keeper and it would not release the incident report or other public information about it. The injured zookeeper was recently released after several weeks in the hospital.

Sharyl Attkisson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are there animal care problems at National Zoo?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animals at famed D.C. facility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When a kid in Malibu, California forced the rest of her classmates to miss out on a day at SeaWorld because she was misled by Blackfish, it made national news.

Ever since that girl forced the radical agenda of animal rights groups like PETA, The Dodo and others, they have claimed that children are rejecting accredited zoological organizations in favor of a debunked documentary.

However, we are learning this isn't the case, and in fact quite the opposite is happening nationwide!

Children of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking for alternatives. Not only are they analyzing the source material the school is presenting to them, they're demanding they be allowed to think critically by hearing both sides of the issue, which is a victory for anyone interested in education.

Here we have a few stories of kids who are standing up to radical activists and demanding that they hear the full story and learn the truth:

Austin and Goliath in San Antonio, Texas

When one of Austin's teachers announced that they would be required to watch Blackfish in school, Austin stood up and demanded that they allow a SeaWorld trainer from SeaWorld San Antonio to come in afterwards to comment about the film.

The teacher responded, "We don't have time for that." Austin quickly countered, "Then we don't have time for Blackfish." The teacher agreed and the class was spared 80 minutes of out-of-context YouTube clips and propaganda.

Chris Brings Keiko to Texas

When Chris learned about the new book "Killing Keiko" by Mark Simmons, he went straight to his school's library. When he found out it wasn't available, but other radical animal rights books were, he kindly asked if "Killing Keiko" could be included. The librarians happily agreed and ordered the book. It is now available to all the students at his high school.

We have begun to learn that students in Florida, California, Idaho, Utah, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and more are all requesting that their libraries stock Killing Keiko.

Nikki vs. The Debate Team in New York, New York

When Nikki learned that her debate team would have to debate "Pro: SeaWorld should be closed" she had to fight other class members to represent the "Con" which was to defend SeaWorld in the debate. After days of research and preparation, she ended the debate convincing numerous audience members from the rival school that SeaWorld does incredible good in the world and should NOT be closed!

These 3 stories are just the tip of the iceberg. There has been so much interest in SeaWorld's real story that SeaWorld has been piloting an education program that would allow their trainers to virtually talk with any classroom about the amazing animal care their animals receive.

It is a new era and children around the country are demanding that they get to hear both sides and learn the truth!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids Nationwide Reject the Blackfish Agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking to be allowed to think critically about the issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 310 people have died climbing Everest since exploration first started in the early 1900s.

It's dangerous to retrieve the bodies, so many litter the mountain to this day.

Many have blamed overcrowding for deaths in recent years, and 2023 saw a record number of climbers.

Dead bodies are a common sight on top of Mount Everest.

On average, six people die climbing the world's tallest peak each year. The year 2015 was the mountain's deadliest in recent history, when an avalanche killed 19.

Climbing season in 2023 came close to that record with at least 12 deaths and five more climbers missing and presumed dead. It was also the most crowded year on the mountain yet. Nepal issued a record 463 permits.

Including sherpas that accompany climbers, that means about 900 people tried to summit the mountain from the South side during the main 2023 climbing season, which only lasts about eight weeks, each April and May

In April, three Nepalese sherpas died while trying to set the summit rope up for other climbers. In May, an American man died on his way to the summit.

When people die on Everest, it can be difficult to remove their bodies. Final repatriation costs tens of thousands of dollars (in some cases, around $70,000) and can also come at a fatal price itself: Two Nepalese climbers died trying to recover a body from Everest in 1984.

Lhakpa Sherpa, who is the women's record-holder for most Everest summits, said she saw seven dead bodies on her way to the top of the mountain in 2018.

"Only near the top," she told Insider in 2018, remembering one man's body in particular that "looked alive, because the wind was blowing his hair."

Her memory is a grim reminder that removing dead bodies from Mount Everest is a pricey and potentially deadly chore.

Everest is crowded with tourists

These days, tourists spend anywhere from $50,000 to well over $130,000 to complete a once-in-a-lifetime Everest summit. It's difficult to know for sure exactly how many people have died trying to get up and down, and where all those bodies have ended up.

Recent fatality estimates are as high as 322 after an especially deadly 2023 season. A BBC investigation in 2015 concluded "there are certainly more than 200" corpses lying on Everest's slopes.

Some hikers are blaming the surges in deaths in recent decades, in part, on preventable overcrowding.

As May temperatures warm and winds stall, favorable springtime Everest climbing conditions sometimes only last a few days. These brief climbing windows can create conveyor-belt style lines that snake toward the top of the mountain.

Climbers can be so eager to reach the peak and stake their claim on an Everest summit that they develop what's called "Summit Fever," risking their lives just to make it happen.

Other Everest climbers complain about risky human traffic jams in the mountain's "death zone," the area of the hike that reaches above 8,000 meters (about 26,250 feet), where air is dangerously thin and most people use oxygen masks.

Even with masks, this zone is not a great place to hang out for too long, and it's a spot where some deliriously loopy trekkers may start removing desperately-needed clothes, and talking to imaginary companions, despite the freezing conditions.

Removing bodies is dangerous and costs thousands of dollars

Getting bodies out of the death zone is a hazardous chore.

"Even picking up a candy wrapper high up on the mountain is a lot of effort, because it's totally frozen and you have to dig around it," Ang Tshering Sherpa former president of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, told the BBC in 2015. "A dead body that normally weighs 80kg might weigh 150kg when frozen and dug out with the surrounding ice attached."

Mountaineer Alan Arnette previously told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that he signed some grim "body disposal" forms before he climbed Everest, ordering that his corpse should rest in place on the mountain in case he died during the trek.

"Typically you have your spouse sign this, so think about that conversation," he added. "You say 'leave me on the mountain,' or 'get me back to Kathmandu and cremate,' or 'try to get me back to my home country.'"

For years, Everest climbers often referenced one particular dead body they called "Green Boots" who some spotted lying in a cave roughly 1,130 feet from the peak. It was the body of Tsewang Paljor, a 28 year-old Indian climber who died on the mountain in 1996, during the same storm that inspired Jon Krakauer's bestseller, "Into Thin Air."

But in recent years, Everest's most infamous corpse has been tougher for hikers to spot, leading to widespread speculation that the body was either moved, or covered by rocks, as climber Noel Hanna told the BBC.

Nepalese Sherpas generally consider it inappropriate and disrespectful to their mountain gods to leave dead bodies littering their holy mountain. In 2019, at least four bodies were taken down from the mountain by Nepalese trash collectors.

"There's sort of this idea that there's only one mountain that really matters in the kind of Western, popular imagination," filmmaker and director Jennifer Peedom told Insider when her documentary, "Mountain" was released in 2017.

Peedom had climbed Everest herself four times as of 2018, but said the thrill of summiting Everest is largely relegated to the history books, and for "true mountaineers," it's just an exercise in crowd control these days.

"There seems to be a disaster mystique around Everest that seems to only serve to heighten the allure of the place," she said. "It is extremely overcrowded now and just getting more and more every year."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dead bodies litter Mount Everest because it's so dangerous and expensive to get them down - and 2023 could be the most deadly season yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the corpses that fall on Everest still litter the mountain today, because it's a dangerous and life-threatening task to get those bodies down.