-
-
Scarce water in Argentina threatened by Barrick gold mine
Tearing mountains apart, destroying indigenous lands, polluting scarce water sources, for what? A few pieces of shiny metal excavated in a greedy material world where the metal means more than the lives and environment ruined by it.
From the article:
For nearly a year and a half, local residents in the northwestern Argentine province of La Rioja have been blocking the road that climbs up to the Nevados de Famatina mountain to protest a gold mining project that they say will pollute the water in the country’s driest district.
"The mountain is our only source of water, and it regulates the region’s climate," said Marcela Crabbé, a shopkeeper in Chilecito, a city of 45,000 located 30 km from Nevados de Famatina. "One hundred years ago this was a mining zone, but that left the area neither gold nor progress, just a huge environmental debt," she told IPS.
Chilecito and Famatina -- a town of less than 8,000 people located 20 km from the mountain it takes its name from -- are in the northern part of La Rioja, in the foothills of the Andes mountains, some 1,200 km northwest of Buenos Aires.
More than 2,000 people took part in the latest protest against the mine, earlier this month.
Criss-crossed by dry river beds, and with virtually no surface water, La Rioja is Argentina’s most arid province. It obtains its water from wells more than 200 metres deep, and from mountains like the 6,250-metre Nevados de Famatina, which provide water during the thaw period. If this melt water is polluted, the very survival of the two nearby towns would be in danger.
La Rioja Governor Luis Beder Herrera himself acknowledged this month that the province’s biggest problem is the lack of water: "We are the only province which practically has no rivers; water means everything for us." Nevertheless, his administration has promoted mining activity.
"I don't understand people who say we are going to pollute," said the governor. "I don't know of a single case of people who have died of this famous pollution. They are trying to scare people, but we aren't going to bring this to a halt."
*************
Their only source of water. Tearing mountains apart, destroying indigenous lands, polluting scarce water sources, for what? A few pieces of shiny metal excavated ... more -
Don't believe the GMO apologists
Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and political corruption propagated by the very governments and agencies like the World Bank that are now pushing GM foods that are untested. Notice a pattern here?
From the article:
Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that farming took a wrong turn after the last war, with widespread use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and sprays.
In Britain, we lost up to 95 per cent of our ancient woodlands, flower meadows, hedges and wildlife and saw massive losses of farms and farm workers' jobs. Farming became more oil-dependent. Our food lost vitamins, taste and diversity and our diet became unhealthy.
As the environmental and human cost of industrial farming became harder to deny, along came a new miracle cure ; genetic engineering. Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders ; fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertiliser or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.
The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. In America, they established the concept of "substantial equivalence" which means that if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is it no safety testing is needed before people eat it. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat.
GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry's claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices higher oil costs leading to higher fertiliser prices also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertiliser to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.
In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential" a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that "GM crops can have reduced yields". The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM foods: 'un'natural selection. Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and politi... more -
Ever wondered where your old tv's and computers go?
Containers full of e-waste arrive by ship from Europe, North America and Japan and find their way onto dumps such as this one in Agbogbloshie market in Ghana's capital Accra.
"Many of the chemicals released are highly toxic, some may affect children's developing reproductive systems, while other can affect brain development and the nervous system," said Dr Kevin Brigden of Greenpeace International. Containers full of e-waste arrive by ship from Europe, North America and Japan and find their way onto dumps such as this one in Agbog... more -
Plastics suspect in lobster illness
The search for what causes a debilitating shell disease affecting lobsters from Long Island Sound to Maine has led one Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) visiting scientist to suspect environmental alkyphenols, formed primarily by the breakdown of hard transparent plastics.
Preliminary evidence from the lab of Hans Laufer suggests that certain concentrations of alkyphenols may be interfering with the ability of lobsters to develop tough shells. Instead, the shells are weakened, leaving affected lobsters susceptible to the microbial invasions characteristic of the illness.
"Lobsters 'know' when their shell is damaged, and that's probably the reason when they have shell disease, why they molt more quickly," says Laufer, a visiting investigator at the MBL for over 20 years and professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of Connecticut. "But ultimately, they still come down with the disease. And we think the presence of alkyphenols contributes to that."
~~~~~~
Yet, how many plastic bottles and other plastic items will wind up in our waterways today alone? Our convenience and apathy are poisoning the Earth and those species who live on it, including ourselves. Not very bright. The search for what causes a debilitating shell disease affecting lobsters from Long Island Sound to Maine has led one Marine Biologic... more -
Toxic teddy bears: Harrods recalls hundreds of toys
Harrods is recalling hundreds of teddy bears that contain potentially harmful levels of formaldehyde.
Apparently, the 2008 Christmas teddy bears' foot pads contain too much of the chemical that has been linked to cancer, can cause skin irritations, headaches and other health problems. Toddlers with sensitive skin and asthma are particularly at risk.
Harrods sent a letter to customers who bought the bears last month and recalled the 8 in Michael bear and the 13 in Elliott bear, which cost between £15 and £25.
Trading standards officers spotted the problem after 800 of the soft toys, which are collectors items, had been sold. Harrods is recalling hundreds of teddy bears that contain potentially harmful levels of formaldehyde. ... more -
GMO containment?
The CBC's national news takes a look at how GM crops are being monitored in Canada.
-
Elixir of the Toxic Frog
Current's Mariana van Zeller heads to the Brazilian Amazon to search for the fabled Kambo frog, one of many organisms that could hold secrets for modern medicine. But are other potential cures being lost before they can be discovered? Current's Mariana van Zeller heads to the Brazilian Amazon to search for the fabled Kambo frog, one of many organisms that could ... more
-
Cow gas curdling climate? :: PostStar.com
CHICAGO - Burgeoning efforts to curb global-warming pollution are taking aim at an unlikely new target: the placid, cud-chewing cow.
Scientists have long known that cattle and other livestock are a major contributor to climate change worldwide, and although researchers, regulators and activists have devoted most of their attention to other culprits -- such as cars and coal-fired power plants -- that is starting to change.
As dairy and beef cows chew and rechew their feed, their belches and other, er, gastric eruptions produce enormous quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
All that cow flatulence is bad enough, but clearing forests for pastures and the manufacturing of fertilizers to grow cattle feed produce even more greenhouse gases. When those sources are considered, the United Nations estimates that the world's livestock system is a bigger part of the problem than transportation.
The impact is great enough that researchers are stepping up efforts to limit bovine burps by tinkering with cattle feed. Some large dairies, including three in Illinois, are pumping the millions of gallons of manure they produce into bacteria-filled tanks that capture methane and use it to generate electricity.
Changes are quietly taking place at supermarkets and dinner tables, too. Bon Appetit Management Co., which operates 400 cafes at universities, museums and corporate offices in the U.S., is pushing to cut the firm's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, in part by limiting the amount of beef and cheese served.
[more at the link] CHICAGO - Burgeoning efforts to curb global-warming pollution are taking aim at an unlikely new target: the placid, cud-chewing cow. ... more -
Martian soil may contain detrimental substance
LOS ANGELES - NASA's Phoenix spacecraft has detected the presence of a chemically reactive salt in the Martian soil, a finding that if confirmed could make it less friendly to potential life than once believed.
Scientists previously reported that the soil near Mars' north pole was similar to backyard gardens on Earth where plants such as asparagus, green beans and turnips could grow. But preliminary results from a second lab test found perchlorate, a highly oxidizing salt, that would create a harsh environment.
The first test "suggested Earth-like soil. Further analysis has revealed un-Earthlike aspects of the soil chemistry," chief scientist Peter Smith of the University of Arizona in Tucson said in a statement Monday.
On Earth, perchlorate is a natural and manmade contaminant sometimes found in soil and groundwater. It is the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel and can be found in fireworks, pyrotechnics and other explosives.
It's unclear how perchlorate forms on Mars or how much there is of it. NASA is investigating whether the substance could have gotten there by contamination before launch. Phoenix used another fuel, hydrazine, to power its thrusters and land on the red planet on May 25.
Phoenix detected the salt through a chemistry experiment. The lander mixed soil with water brought from Earth into a teacup-size beaker and stirred it. Two dozen sensors inside the beaker detect the soil's pH and probe for traces of mineral nutrients.
The first test determined the soil was slightly alkaline and contained nutrients such as magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride necessary for living things. The second test found the highly reactive perchlorate.
Scientists want to confirm their results because another Phoenix instrument that bakes and sniffs soil samples found no evidence of perchlorate during a run on Sunday.
Brown University geologist John Mustard, who has no role in the mission, said judgment about the soil's potential to support life should be reserved until all the data are in.
But at first glance, "it is a reactive compound. It's not usually considered an ingredient for life," Mustard said.
The latest soil finding comes less than a week after NASA extended Phoenix's three-month mission by another five weeks through the end of September.
Since arriving at Mars, the three-legged lander has impressed scientists by confirming that ice exists in the Martian arctic plains. Its main task is to study whether the landing site could be a habitable zone for primitive life forms to emerge. LOS ANGELES - NASA's Phoenix spacecraft has detected the presence of a chemically reactive salt in the Martian soil, a finding th... more -
Burning joss sticks causes cancer just like smoking, study shows
Burning joss sticks fills the air with cancer-causing toxins that are every bit as deadly as traffic fumes and cigarette smoke, according to a study in Thailand.
Dr Manoon Leechawengwong, who has just completed a two-year study of temple workers tasked with clearing the smouldering sticks, found the cocktail of chemicals in the smoke put them at risk of leukaemia, lung, blood and bladder cancers.
“One joss stick creates the same amount of cancer-causing chemicals at one cigarette,” said Dr Manoon, who led the research. “I knew there would be some carcinogens, but I was surprised by the levels.”
Joss sticks are a type of incense used in worship in many Asian countries. In Buddhism they are believed to aid spiritual communication and serve as an offering.
Dr Manoon’s study was conducted among 40 workers in three temples at Ayutthaya, Chachoengsao and Samut Prakan, sites chosen deliberately far from Bangkok’s traffic pollution. The findings were compared with another 25 people living in a joss-stick free environment.
Temple workers were exposed to high levels of benzene, also known as petroleum ether, related to leukaemia; butadiene involved in blood cancer; and benzo[a]pyrene that can cause lung, bladder and skin cancers.
The level of benzene in the temple workers was four times higher than normal, butadiene was 260 times higher, and benzo[a]pyrene - the most dangerous carcinogen - 63 times greater.
Analysis of the temple workers blood and urine samples discovered damage to their DNA, with a correspondingly lower capacity of their bodies to repair that damage.
“We know from our study that there’s DNA damage,” said Dr Manoon. “But what we don’t know is if they will develop cancer. Certainly they have a greater risk. It’s like smoking. Not all smokers get cancer, it’s about 20% .”
Should incense sticks carry a health warning just like cigarettes? Has your valiant attempt to quit smoking been thwarted by the ill effects of your hippy joss stick habit? Burning joss sticks fills the air with cancer-causing toxins that are every bit as deadly as traffic fumes and cigarette smoke, accord... more -
Chevron Lobbyist: ‘We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies’
Few legal battles have been more exotic than the lawsuit tried over the past five years in a steamy jungle courtroom in Ecuador’s Amazon rain forest. Brought by a group of U.S. trial lawyers on behalf of thousands of indigenous Indian peasants, the suit accuses Chevron of responsibility for the dumping (allegedly conducted by Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2001) of billions of gallons of toxic oil wastes into the region’s rivers and streams. Activists describe the disaster as an Amazon Chernobyl. The plaintiffs-some suffering from cancer and physical deformities-have showed up in court in native garb, with painted faces and half naked. Chevron vigorously contests the charges and has denounced the entire proceeding as a “shakedown.”
But this spring, events for Chevron took an ominous turn when a court-appointed expert recommended Chevron be required to pay between $8 billion and $16 billion to clean up the rain forest. Although it was not the final verdict, the figures sent shock waves through Chevron’s corporate boardroom in San Ramon, Calif., and forced the company for the first time to disclose the issue to its shareholders. It has also now spawned an unusually high-powered battle in Washington between an army of Chevron lobbyists and a group of savvy plaintiff lawyers, one of whom has tapped a potent old schoolmate-Barack Obama.
Chevron is pushing the Bush administration to take the extraordinary step of yanking special trade preferences for Ecuador if the country’s leftist government doesn’t quash the case. A spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab confirmed that her office is considering the request. Attorney Steven Donziger, who is coordinating the D.C. opposition to Chevron, says the firm is “trying to get the country to cry uncle.” He adds: “It’s the crudest form of power politics.”
Chevron’s powerhouse team includes former Senate majority leader Trent Lott, former Democratic senator John Breaux and Wayne Berman, a top fund-raiser for John McCain-all with access to Washington’s top decision makers. (A senior Chevron exec has met with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on the matter.) Chevron argues that it has been victimized by a “corrupt” Ecuadoran court system while the plaintiffs received active support from Ecuador’s leftist president, Rafael Correa-an ally of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. The company says a loss could set a dangerous precedent for other U.S. multinationals. “The ultimate issue here is Ecuador has mistreated a U.S. company,” said one Chevron lobbyist who asked not to be identified talking about the firm’s arguments to U.S. officials. “We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies like this-companies that have made big investments around the world.”
But Chevron’s foes are not without their own resources. Just recently, Donziger and other trial lawyers in the case retained their own high-profile D.C. superlobbyist, Ben Barnes, a major Democratic fund-raiser. And they have tapped a capital connection that may pay off even more. Roughly two years ago, when Donziger first got wind that Chevron might take its case to Washington, he went to see Obama. The two were basketball buddies at Harvard Law School. In several meetings in Obama’s office, Donziger showed his old friend graphic photos of toxic oil pits and runoffs. He also argued strongly that Chevron was trying to subvert the “rule of law” by doing an end run on an Ecuadoran legal case. Obama was “offended by that,” said Donziger. Obama vetted the issue with Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (who has long worked on Latin American human-rights issues), and in February 2006 the two wrote a letter to the then U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman urging the administration to permit the Ecuadoran peasants to have “their day in court.” Few legal battles have been more exotic than the lawsuit tried over the past five years in a steamy jungle courtroom in Ecuador’s Amaz... more -
US Consumer Bill Partially Bans Plastic Softener
A partial ban on controversial plastic-softening chemicals called phthalates has been agreed on as part of a bill to revamp consumer product safety, lawmakers involved in the negotiations said on Monday.
The legislation also would sharply cut the amount of lead allowed in toys and other products while increasing funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an agency much criticized after millions of toys, mostly made in China, were recalled last year.
The ban on phthalates, which some believe can cause abnormal reproductive development in children, was one of the most hotly debated items considered by members of the House and Senate who hammered out the final version of the legislation.
Three types of phthalates would be permanently banned in children’s toys and child care items, except for minute amounts, while three others would be temporarily banned pending further study.
“The compromise on phthalates is a significant victory for families, because the ban goes into effect before the research review is completed,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, a consumer group. “Congress put children’s safety first.”
But the American Chemistry Council criticized the phthalate restrictions. “There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products,” the industry group said.
The bill, which still needs to be voted on, also would mandate national safety standards for all-terrain vehicles, linked to hundreds of deaths each year, as well as set standards for toys.
It would authorize an increase in the CPSC’s annual budget from its current $80 million to $118 million starting in fiscal 2010 and growing to $136 million over five years.
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been a neglected agency for too many years, but this legislation puts an end to that neglect,” said a statement by Sen. Daniel Inouye, an Hawaii Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The legislation also includes whistle-blower protections, third-party testing requirements for certain children’s products, and gives CPSC the authority to inspect manufacturers’ proprietary labs.
In addition, the bill would increase maximum criminal penalties for violations.
“This reauthorization gives the CPSC more teeth and a deeper bite, and makes it dramatically more certain that toys aren’t tested for safety by kids on the living room floor before they’re tested in a lab by experts,” said Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and ranking minority member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senate and House members have been meeting in conference for several weeks to resolve differences between two bills that aimed to overhaul the CPSC. House members passed their legislation in December, and the Senate passed its bill in March, that included a ban on phthalates.
The conferees agreed the legislation should not preempt state regulations and requirements.
Mattel Inc (MAT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), RC2 Corp (RCRC.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), and other companies were forced to pull millions of their toys from shelves last year, mainly due to excessive lead content in paint.
The trend continued into 2008, with total recalls up 22 percent so far this year compared to that same period in 2007, according to an analysis of CPSC data by a group of consumer advocate organizations including Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America.
“We applaud the conference committee for reconciling their differences and coming up with an extremely strong and consumer protective bill,” said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel for the CFA. A partial ban on controversial plastic-softening chemicals called phthalates has been agreed on as part of a bill to revamp consumer p... more -
'New car smell' becoming less toxic, report says
Car interiors and car seats are becoming less toxic, although "new car smell" continues to carry poisons linked to allergies and cancer, according to a report last week by the Ecology Center.
The Ann Arbor, Mich., group found that General Motors made the most progress in reducing potentially harmful materials, followed by Mazda and Nissan, since the nonprofit's initial Healthy Car report last year.
The Acura RDX appears to smell sweeter than other SUVs in a report by the Ecology Center.
The ingredients in question include lead, chlorine, and phthalates from plastics, as well as brominated flame retardants from cushions and padding.
The car with the best marks was the Acura RDX SH sport-utility vehicle. Three Smart cars made the list of 10 best picks, as did two Chevy models and two Toyotas. Also among the lauded models were the Chevy HHR SUV, as well as the BMW MS and Honda Accord EXL sedans.
Among the worst vehicles, according to the rankings, were the Mitsubishi Eclipse Spider convertible and Suzuki Reno hatchback, as well as the BMW 120i and Volkswagen Beetle convertibles. Car interiors and car seats are becoming less toxic, although "new car smell" continues to carry poisons linked to allergies... more -
Monsanto & ADM Set Up New Front Group to Deflect Ethanol Criticism & Promo...
Doug Cameron reported in today's Wall Street Journal that, "A group of U.S. agribusiness companies including Archer Daniels Midland Co. are uniting in the intensifying food-versus-fuel debate, forming an alliance to promote the idea that technology can ease global supply shortages.
"The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy - which includes seed makers Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., as well as farm-gear maker Deere & Co. - wants to spread its belief that renewable fuels won't cut into food supplies if new technologies, such as genetically modified crops, are used to their fullest. The group is also working hard to protect government subsidies for ethanol production.
"ADM, Monsanto and others have seen their own profits soar in recent years, as booming demand for agricultural products in emerging markets has pushed up commodity prices and spurred additional production."
And Reuters writer Lisa Shumaker reported yesterday that, "A new group is adding its voice to the debate on using crops to produce alternative fuels such as ethanol amid rising food prices and shortages in some countries.
"The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy in Washington D.C. was created by Archer Daniels Midland Co, DuPont Co, Deere & Co, Monsanto Co and the Renewable Fuels Association (www.foodandenergy.org ).
"'There are critics who are trying to create an either-or decision between food and fuel,' said Mark Kornblau, the alliance's executive director. 'We believe this is a false choice. Today, more than 90 percent of crops in the United States and around the world are used exclusively for food.'"
--
Keith Good
President FarmPolicy.com, Inc.
Champaign, IL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you have it. Unequivocal proof that these biotech agribusiness corporations don't care one whit about you.The battle lines have been drawn. It is them against us and this planet. Profit trumping sustainability and fair access to food and water. I don't think it is then too dramatic to state that this is a battle for our lives. These companies with the full backing of our own government, including those who voted for their subsidies (and yes, that also includes Obama) are set on total control of our food and water supply in order to control us.
In the last post I placed here on this topic today regarding Monsanto raising the price of corn seed during a food crisis it was stated that it is time this be given serious attention... well, I go one further here... this requires serious ACTION.
Please go to the article link and there you will find a petition calling for the boycott of Monsanto. The people this will affect, mainly the poor, farmers, and people living in developing countries must join together to fight this insidious takeover of our lives. And yes, it's that serious. Click on the tag, 'Monsanto' to see much more on exactly what is transpiring on a global scale and why the majority of this world is AGAINST GMOs and allowing Monsanto to patent life itself. Doug Cameron reported in today's Wall Street Journal that, "A group of U.S. agribusiness companies including Archer Daniels ... more -
Toxic Chemicals Found in Laundry Products
A study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals. All six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, but none of those chemicals was listed on the product labels.
"I first got interested in this topic because people were telling me that the air fresheners in public restrooms and the scent from laundry products vented outdoors were making them sick," said Anne Steinemann, a University of Washington professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. "And I wanted to know, 'What's in these products that is causing these effects?'"
Manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose the ingredients, so Steinemann analyzed the products to discover their contents.
"I was surprised by both the number and the potential toxicity of the chemicals that were found," Steinemann said. Chemicals included acetone, the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover; limonene, a molecule with a citrus scent; and acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane.
Nearly 100 volatile organic compounds were emitted from the six products, and none were listed on any product label, she said. Plus, five of the six products emitted one or more carcinogenic "hazardous air pollutants," which are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to have no safe exposure level, Steinemann said.
The study is detailed online in today's issue of the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review. A study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals. All six products ... more -
Teflon - Where's the Ban?
It takes ten years to get this stuff out of our bodies - and it's been found in every-BODY that has been tested. Yet - it's still out there - for sale? What? It has been used in fast food takeout containers because it keeps the food from soaking through and sticking. It's everywhere. It takes ten years to get this stuff out of our bodies - and it's been found in every-BODY that has been tested. Yet - it's... more
-
Is Nuclear Power Viable?
Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a standstill over the past couple decades. It's now poised to make a dramatic comeback. At least, that's what many politicians and the media say. As the Senate this week debated the Warner-Lieberman carbon cap-and-trade bill, which would put a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, many doubtful senators said they wouldn't vote for the measure unless massive subsidies for nuclear were included. (The bill was shelved.) Even some veteran greens who were once dead set against atomic power, like Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now see nukes as the only way to save civilization from climate change. And last month Wired magazine urged environmentalists to "Go Nuclear," claiming, "there's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source."
That's debatable, to say the least. There's no question that a nuclear plant, once it's up and running, produces comparatively little carbon dioxide — a British government report last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s, a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U.S. since 1996, and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown, or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste.
But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it," he says.
More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a s... more -
Danger of toxic mercury fillings exposed in groundbreaking lawsuit
"The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings ("silver fillings") and disastrous neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of "mercury mongers" made up of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufacturers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury - one of the most toxic heavy metals known to modern science - posed no health threat whatsoever.
Today, that reign of toxicity is about to end. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), the FDA has now been forced to acknowledge a fact so fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that? Simply that mercury is toxic to humans.
The FDA's stonewalling on this issue has been nothing less than a circus of politically-motivated denials, much like the Big Tobacco executives swearing under oath that "Nicotine is not addictive." In similar style, the FDA insisted for decades that "Mercury is not toxic." Both statements, as any sane person can readily conclude, are the outbursts of lunatics. Sadly, those lunatics somehow remain in charge of our nation's food, drugs and cosmetics (and dental care), meaning that any real progress to protect the People must come from outside the FDA.
And that's exactly what just happened. Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury (www.MomsAgainstMercury.org) to sue the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded earlier this week with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement).
Remarkably, the FDA's website no longer claims mercury is harmless. The language has now been changed in dramatic fashion, reading: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus."
There's still a lot of fudging there. Note the careful use of the word "may," which means the FDA still isn't sure whether mercury is neurotoxic, but it might be. This is the FDA's way of continuing to stonewall this issue, even as it lost its lawsuit. For any FDA officials who don't yet think mercury is toxic to the human nervous system, I invite them to chug a few milliliters of the substance themselves and find out what the effects might be. It certainly couldn't make them any more mad than they are already!"
By Mike Adams// Natural News
http://www.naturalnews.com/023367.html
Full story at link. "The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismis... more -
On Cancer's Trail: Navajo Biologist Follows Trail To Uranium
Uranium is not just an emotional issue for Raymond-Whish, but for the tribe as a whole. The legacy of mining the element on the 27,000-square-mile reservation is so deeply and collectively felt that the Navajo Nation banned it altogether in 2005 in the face of globally rising ore prices. During the ’40s and the Cold War period, the U.S. government used yellow cake - or milled and concentrated uranium ore - to build nuclear weapons. The government stopped buying the ore for weapons in 1971, but the commercial nuclear energy market picked up the slack until the early 1980s. Only about a quarter of all U.S. uranium miners were Native American - Laguna, Hopi, Zuni and Ute as well as Navajo. But Native Americans have been disproportionately affected: Their tribal lands are still contaminated, and former miners suffer illnesses and deaths for which many families are still awaiting compensation.
Despite the tribal ban, at least five companies are seeking state permits in New Mexico to mine lands just off the reservation, including on tribal allotment land. In Arizona, 700 individual mining claims were filed in 2005. The prehistoric sea and river beds that run underground from Naturita, Colo., to Grants, N.M., and across to Moab, Utah, still hold an estimated 600 million pounds of low-grade ore. But for every 4 pounds of uranium extracted, 996 pounds of slightly radioactive waste is left over, in piles, in pits and eventually in the soil, arroyos and underground aquifers.
Some Western tailings piles, like those outside of Monticello, Utah, or Grand Junction, Colo., have been cleaned up. But those on tribal lands have fallen through yawning bureaucratic and regulatory gaps. It’s estimated that up to 25 percent of unregulated water sources on the Navajo Reservation exceed federal drinking water standards for uranium. And many families still haul water from these wells, despite warnings by health providers and advocacy groups.
end of excerpt. Uranium is not just an emotional issue for Raymond-Whish, but for the tribe as a whole. The legacy of mining the element on the 27,000... more -
Celebrate clean coal, come on!
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects. In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in Am... more
-
related topics
Toxic
Contributors (189)
Toxic
