Earth Day Festival Turns A Gray Day Green

In 1970, 100,000 people gathered in Washington DC to protest the Vietnam War.  The deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin that year had fatally deglamorized the hippie lifestyle.  Smog-darkened skies were accepted as a byproduct of prosperity.  Environmental concerns had never been at the forefront of serious discussion.  It was Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson who first proposed a “national teach-in” on the environment to take place at every university campus in the US.  What better way to ignite a grassroots-led movement than to take advantage of the existing energy from anti-war protests?  The poignant events of 1970 awakened an emerging consciousness on which Earth Day was able to capitalize.  Consequently, 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day, and thousands of colleges protested against the deterioration of the environment.

Forty-two years later, new generations are still helping to make Earth Day a huge international event.  Although the subject of most concern has shifted from local toxic pollution to the complexities of climate change, Earth Day continues to stress the importance of a sustainable society.

This year at Georgia Tech’s 15th Annual Earth Day celebration the opportunity to unite our voices for a sustainable future was palpable.  Events were designed to encourage environmentally aware behaviors such as recycling, energy efficiency, and reducing disposable items.  The event featured a car exhibit, a green market, a clothes swap, an E-waste drop-off, free bike repair stations, Captain Planet, Reynard the Fox, a stage, and 70 exhibitors all on one sidewalk.

Most of Earth Day, I volunteered with the Engineers Without Borders (EWB) booth where participants had the opportunity to paint a recycled cardboard tile, with labels “land” or “water” or both, so that when all tiles were pasted together, a map of the world emerged.  The message?  “EWB wants to highlight the interconnectedness of our environment, our world and the importance of sustainability.  Our goal at EWB is to help people on an international level to become more sustainable,” said EWB president Hannah Kates.

An Earth Day-goer for the last few years, Janna San Juan noted, “Earth Day seems like it’s growing every year.  It gets people excited and reinforces the idea of being green.”  She was looking forward to trying the ‘Renewable Energy Challenge’ where participants could race against a solar panel on a stationary bike to generate energy.  They could light a bulb or fan themselves, such as the person in this image chose to do.

Shoes flying through the air soon caught my attention.  The ‘Shoot the Shoe’ booth was run by the women’s basketball team, where participants had the opportunity to throw an old tennis shoe through a basketball hoop.  Earth Day committee member, Luke Chambers, who was promoting the booth in collaboration with Nike’s Reuse-A-Shoe program said, “Nike’s shoe recycle program reduces the need for new rubber and other materials which decreases environmental impact.  Our goal is to collect 500 pairs of worn-out tennis shoes.”  He also went on to tell me that $10,500 worth of reusable office supplies were donated for the ‘Office Supply Exchange’ event where students could shop for free.

Before I could walk anywhere else, I was accosted by what could only be described as the Abominable Plastic Bag Man.  One More Generation, the non-profit organization founded by two elementary school students, was at Earth Day to raise awareness about Americans’ plastic bag use.  Fittingly, their “Plastic Bag Monster” donned 500 bags, the average person’s yearly usage and, hopefully, scared many others into purchasing reusable grocery bags.

 

Like a child at a carnival, I let my senses lead the way at this event, so I ended up next in front of the live music.  This anomaly of a band, appearing in swing attire while at one point dishing out Spoon’s punk rock song “I Turn My Camera On,” attracted a large crowd with their energetic dancing and old school vibes.  Champagne Room lead singer Jared McGrath announced to the audience in between songs, “My favorite thing that comes from this Earth would have to be… beer.”  Cheers to that.

 

After taking dozens of photos of the self-proclaimed “Southern Fried Swing Punk” band, I turned around to find another simple sensory boost.  Dry ice!  It was the American Chemical Society giving out cups of cold smoking punch.  They really sealed the deal with some bubble action.  By filling a bowl with a block of dry ice and running soapy water over the top, they created a ‘CO2 bubble’ which eventually erupted into a cloud of fog.  The kids, myself included, loved it.

Free T-shirts were available for a very small labor fee.  You could collect your olive green “Helluva GREENgineer” shirt by participating in the ‘deconstructed’ maze.  Four eco-trivia stations were distributed throughout the event representing earth, wind, fire, and water.  Participants collected a stamp at each booth by answering the trivia question correctly, and four stamps got you the 100% organic cotton t-shirt.  “We’ve already given out about 150 stamps,” Marcela Moreno, a volunteer at the wind booth, informed me two hours into the event.  I quickly decided to take advantage of this freebie and ran to each station before the event ran out of shirts.

Near the end of the event, I went back to the EWB booth where all the tiles had been painted.  As I helped paste the painted world back together again, I couldn’t help but think about all of the strides that have been made since the first Earth Day in 1970.  The development of the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, necessary laws that were formed because of the grassroots effort behind an unsettled generation.  I then noticed that someone had painted a new continent in the middle of our Pacific Ocean, and someone else had painted trees and flowers in our Antarctica.  Clearly, we still have a lot to work on, but with a united society and events like Earth Day, we can still continue to make large strides to save our environment.

 

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.