Comination Calculators

Shale gas - the issue of the moratorium

Photo: checpitt

The long-term negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing at great depths of the Utica Shale are potentially too devastating: it is necessary that any activity, even exploratory stops NOW! Everybody thought okay, the Charest government shows no signs of wanting to impose a moratorium. Spring is upon us and drilling resumed with a vengeance soon, no doubt. TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

Regarding the issue of a moratorium, we will remember the crisis in the hog industry in Quebec in 1996. The parallels and lessons to be learned are too glaring not to make links. Andre Boisclair and company have declared a moratorium of two years on new hog barns in June 2002. However, during this moratorium, the Quebec pork exports have increased steadily and environmental protection measures have been released. The moratorium ended, poor agricultural practices such as fluid management on farms, feed made from GMO increased under-dosing of antibiotics and too narrow buffer strips are still the norm. Only the hard market has slowed the pork industry in Quebec pig cancer, and our rivers are still polluted. Integrators and pork industry are virtually all subsidies and tax breaks, while our farmers and organic agriculture made otherwise are not always encouraged by the state.

The MRC and municipalities who do not want an intensive pig farms in their territory are still denied the right to ban them. Here you familiar? As

BAPE recommendations on water and on pork production have been put on shelves, allow us to doubt the effectiveness of BAPE on shale gas. Since the moratorium on new hog farms has not changed in Quebec, let us fear that the moratorium on exploration and exploitation shale gas (if we ever get it) will bring nothing new either. That any government direction focuses on the economics in favor of private enterprise at the expense of human rights and environmental protection laws added to the appropriate measure to promote this course which are the source of our problems Quebec.

Our patience and our tolerance begin to fail. We can not say it enough: Without clean water, life is impossible! Photo: marcelluseffect.blogspot.com

Shale gas moratorium - what to make of it

The long term negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing shale Deeply in the Utica are potentially too devastating: all drilling activity, even for exploratory purposes, must STOP NOW ! Everybody in Quebec seems to agree on this, but the Charest Government is not showing any signs of even considering a moratorium. Spring is around the corner and drilling should start again soon. TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

As for the moratorium question: let's not forget the pig crisis in Quebec, well on its way around 1996. The similarities and the lessons to be learned are too obvious to deny. André Boisclair and his cronies declared a 2 year moratorium on new pig barns in June 2002. But while this "moratorium" was on, Quebec pork exports kept going up, and environmental protection measures were relaxed. Once the moratorium over, bad "agricultural" practices are "business as usual": liquid slurry instead of dry bedding (like hay or shavings), feed made of GMOs and peppered with antibiotics, too narrow green belts around fields are still the norm. Only the challenging worldwide pork market kept the pig folly under control. Our waterways are still very polluted. Integrators and their industrially produced pork receive almost all the subsidies and tax incentives, while our organic and friendly farmers are neglected by the state.

The MRCs and towns that don't want pig CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) still can't ban them. Doesn't that remind you of anything?

Like the recommendations of the BAPE on water and the BAPE on pig production that are gathering dust, we're afraid that this BAPE on shale gas will suffer the same fate. Like the moratorium on new pig farms didn't change a thing in Quebec (or maybe made things even worse), we feel that the same thing will happen again IF we do finally have a moratorium on shale gas. It is our government policies all aimed at economic benefits for private enterprise at the expense of human rights and environmental protection, with the help of laws made to fit these policies, that are the root causes of our problems here in Quebec.

Our patience and tolerance are running short. We say again: There is no life without clean water! Photo: Voix de l'Est

How To Ask For Money On An Invitation

Drinking water - do we measure radioactivity?


Une équipe of investigative journalists have questioned whether the environmental measures could see that drinking water was analyzed for radioactive products. It's a very valid question, knowing that we are asking our factories municipal wastewater receiving wastewater from drilling with hydraulic fracturing in the shale, such plants discharge their treated product in our waterways which in turn are used to drinking water for people downstream. The basement contains naturally radioactive materials, and it may well be that what emerges from the depths of the earth is radioactive! Here is a free translation of such a journalistic investigation in the United States. The article is very long and I've translated some passages. I recommend you read the entire article if the subject appeals to you.

Our information team has discovered that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) does not say everything in its reports on drinking water in the United States. One might be surprised because it was after making quite intentional by the agency that is supposed to protect the nation from contaminated waters.

"I think that the EPA erred in going completely off of certain radioactive materials." said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a physicist and former science consultant radiation. Makhijani has a PhD in physics from Berkeley and has testified before Congress and appeared as an expert witness in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It administers the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at the moment: "I told them that their ideas were dated drinking water science in 1959." he said.

However, the post KHOUAS found that the EPA has never updated its laws to ensure that treatment facilities test or measure some types of natural radiation which could expose us to greater doses of radiation and therefore a greater danger to health, such as strontium 90.

For example, lead 210, which is not a form of lead usually found in the rods and other industrial uses, is a very common by-product of radon gas that is itself radioactive. However, EPA does not regulate this element, and in fact misses the threat of this very possibility of contamination of our water.

In a statement sent to our office, the authorities of the agency say they do not regulate lead-210 from natural sources "because the law looks radioisotopes artificial (man made) only." However, lead 210 is a good example of how natural radiation can harm public health more than some types man-made, according to Makhijani. According to his calculations, lead-210 puts our natural bone to radiation almost 7 times higher than strontium 90, a radioactive contaminant made by man that EPA regulates. The two radioactive elements tend to "attack" our bones, cause cancer and other health effects at this location.

In the 1990s, the EPA thought to regulate radioactive lead-210, but was eventually dropped. Upon filing its final legislation in 2000, the agency suggested that it would make the monitoring of the contaminant under another federal program. The EPA has recently confirmed KHOUAS-TV that such monitoring has never occurred.

KHOUAS also found that politics and pressures from suppliers may play a role in the decisions of EPA regulations on drinking water. In some cases, the agency's response to fix a problem of high concentrations of certain radioactive elements in water is not to try to find out.

Take for example radium 224, which emits a form of radiation called alpha particles. In a Federal Register, an entry dated December 7, 2000, EPA reported in its final pier of the law on radiation in drinking water, if the systems Water should be tested for radium 224, it follows that many water systems violate the law. As a result, national laws on testing for alpha radiation does not include appropriate methods that could detect the radiation from radium-224. Ironically, the EPA requires all states and water systems inform the public about the total exposure of alpha radiation. However, because the energy of radium-224 is not included in these measures, the total alpha results disclosed to the public by their water supplier is not at all a total quantity.

But there is another reason why the total radiation alpha you are reported as annual reports of water quality of government and your supplier does not quite complete.

For example, you have just learned that some naturally occurring radioactive elements simply are not tested by the EPA, in other cases, the EPA allows providers to remove certain types of radiation detected by laboratory tests your drinking water.

Many health scientists we spoke to were surprised to learn that the EPA does not regulate uranium in its natural state as a radioactive element. A few years ago, the agency began to regulate uranium as a toxic metal as it does with other metals such as mercury or arsenic. Uranium has a very high toxicity to the kidneys and can hurt you in other ways by increasing your risk of getting cancer. However, the radiological risks remain unregulated and unrecognized by the EPA.

Mr. Makhijani said that uranium naturally ingested bones exposed to a radiation dose nearly 5 times higher than strontium 90, a contaminant artificial (man made) that EPA regulates in drinking water of the nation. He looked at the references EPA to calculate the radiation dose higher uranium compared with strontium 90. The post KHOUAS has revised calculations by some nuclear physicists who are all agreed that Makhijani is right.

Another alpha radiation emitter which is often where there is uranium or radium is radon. During the 1990s, the EPA came very near to require utilities to test for radon in drinking water and establish legal standards that would protect us. The EPA has declined after receiving pressure from utilities concerned about economic impacts of such laws on their finances.

Today, the EPA says on its website Webbed that radon in drinking water is a serious threat to public health.

The agency cited a report by the National Academy of Sciences as the accumulation of scientific data most comprehensive on the risks of radon in drinking water on public health. This report details the risks of radon in drinking water and confirms that there are deaths due to cancer linked to drinking water, mainly because of lung cancer. However, without laws in place, any report received by the public on radon in drinking water do not require these providers to make these reports available public. High rates of detection does not require decontamination, allowing radiation to flow freely.

"Since there are no standards of tolerance, you do not have to measure them." said Dr. Irina Cech, retired last month after leading the research on radon in drinking water sources in Texas since the 1980s to the Health Science Center at the University of Texas. "If you have water that contains radon, your chances of dying from cancer are much higher." by Cech. Dr. Cech said that regions where there are more cancers are probably caused by some water wells drinking that were drilled close to natural fractures or salt domes where Cech said that some radioactive elements tend to gather. Another problem is that drinking water wells are drilled thousands of wells near oil and natural gas throughout certain areas of Harris County, which facilitates migration of radon gas from underground deposits to the surface, she said. She probably told you breathe radon gas after taking a shower with water that contains. The water vapor that contains radon can breathe directly into your lungs, she said.

But Dr. Cech said that because the lack of federal regulation, the municipal authorities are not legally obliged to do anything, although she believes it is a major public health issue.

"Legally, they do not have to. Morally, yes." she said. Next-Up.org

"I-Team: EPA underreports radiation in America's drinking water Americans Remain Largely

in the Dark About their true exposure to a number of radioactive contaminants That Could Be In Their drinking water. Surprisingly, Because of it's intentional decisions by The Environmental Protection Agency, The Federal Government Office That Is Supposed to Protect the nation from contaminated water.

“Where I think the EPA was wrong was in neglecting some natural radioactive materials altogether,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a physicist and former advisor to the EPA on radiation science. Makhijani, who has a PhD in physics from Berkeley, has testified before Congress, and has served as an expert witness in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings. He now runs the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. “I have told them that their drinking water notions are dating from science from 1959,” he said.

However, KHOU has discovered the EPA never updated its regulations to make sure water utilities test for or measure certain naturally-occurring types of radiation that may actually produce a far greater radiation dose, and thus a greater health risk, than Strontium 90.

For instance, lead 210, which is not the form of lead commonly found in pencils and other industrial uses, is a common by-product of radon gas and is in itself radioactive. However the EPA does not regulate the element, effectively ignoring the threat from the very real possibility of it contaminating your water. In a written statement to KHOU, agency officials said they do not regulate naturally occurring radioactive lead 210, “since the rule covers man-made radionuclides only.” However, lead 210 is a prime example which shows how naturally occurring radiation can harm the public more than certain man-made types, Makhijani said. By his calculation, naturally occurring lead 210 produces nearly seven times the radiation dose to your bones as Strontium 90, the man-made form of radioactive contaminant the EPA does regulate. Both radioactive elements have a tendency to “target” your bones and produce cancer and other health effects there.

Years ago in the 1990s, the EPA considered regulating radioactive lead 210, but eventually decided not to do so. When it finalized changes to its rules in 2000, the agency suggested it would, instead, simply monitor for the presence of the contaminant under another federal program. The EPA recently confirmed to KHOU-TV that no such monitoring ever took place.

KHOU also discovered that politics and pressure from utilities can play a part in the EPA’s regulatory decisions about drinking water. In some instances, the agency’s solution for fixing a problem with high amounts of certain radioactive elements in water is to not look for the problem.

Take radium 224, which emits a form of radiation called alpha particles. In a Federal Register entry dated Dec. 7, 2000, the EPA stated in its final rulemaking on regulating radiation in drinking water that if water systems actually had to test for radium 224, “doing so could cause many systems to find themselves to be out of compliance with the (law).” As a result, national rules for testing for alpha radiation do not include appropriate methods that would pick up radiation from radium 224. Ironically, the EPA mandates that all states and water systems inform the public about their “gross” exposure to alpha radiation. However, because the energy for radium 224 is not included in that measurement, the “gross alpha” result that the public is told about by their water utilities isn’t truly a “gross” number at all.

But there is another reason that “gross alpha” radiation totals you are told about, in required annual water quality reports, are actually being underreported by the government and your utility.

For instance, while you’ve just learned about how some naturally occurring radioactive elements are simply never tested by the EPA to begin with, in other cases, the EPA actually allows utilities to subtract off certain types of radiation labs detect in tests of your drinking water.

Many health scientists we spoke to were surprised that the EPA does not regulate naturally occurring uranium as a radioactive element to begin with. A few years ago, the agency began regulating uranium as a poisonous metal, as it does with other metals like mercury or arsenic. Uranium, which has high kidney toxicity, can harm you in other ways besides increasing your risk of cancer. However, its radiological risk remains unregulated and uncounted by the EPA.

Makhijani said naturally occurring uranium, when ingested, actually produces nearly five times the radiation dose to the surface of the bone as that of Strontium 90, a man-made radioactive contaminant the EPA does regulate in the nation’s water supply. He used the EPA’s own reference documents to calculate uranium’s greater radiation dose compared to Strontium 90. KHOU had the calculations reviewed by several nuclear physicists, who all agreed that Makhijani was correct.

Another alpha radiation emitter that is often found where uranium or radium is present is radon. During the 1990s, the EPA came close to forcing utilities to test for radon in drinking water and implementing legal standards that protect against it. The EPA backed off the proposal after receiving intense pressure from utilities concerned about the financial impact such a regulation could have on them.

Today, the EPA does state on its website that radon in drinking water “is a serious public health threat.”

The agency cited a report by the National Academy of Sciences as the “most comprehensive accumulation of scientific data on the public health risks of radon in drinking water… This report goes on to refine the risks of radon in drinking water and confirms that there are drinking water related cancer deaths, primarily due to lung cancer.” Yet, without regulation in place, any reports utilities receive of radon in drinking water do not have to be passed on to consumers. High readings do not have to be legally cleaned up, allowing the radiation to continue to flow.

“Once there is no standard, you don't have to measure it,” said Dr. Irina Cech, who retired this month after leading research since the 1980s for the University of Texas Health Science Center into radon in Texas water supplies. “If you have water containing radon, your chances of dying of cancer are much increased,” Cech said. Cech said those hot spots are likely caused because the particular water wells were drilled next to natural faults or salt domes, where Cech says some radioactive elements tend to congregate. Another problem is that the water wells are also drilled near thousands of man-made oil and gas wells littered throughout certain areas of Harris County, which help bring the radon gas up from underground deposits, she said.Cech warns, elevated radon levels in area water supplies even affect those residents who don’t drink city tap water. She says you’re likely to breathe the radon gas in after showering in water that contains it. The vapor mist, she says, contains radon which you can inhale directly into your lungs.

But Cech points out that because of the lack of federal regulation, city officials are not legally obligated to do anything about what she believes is a very real public health concern.

“Legally, they’re not required. Morally, yes,” she says."

Excerpts from article written by Mark Greenblatt/11 News published here: http://www.khou.com/news/investigative/116634593.html Photo: Bellona

Kidde Carbon Monoxide Alarm Won't Stop Beeping

Roundup - scientists warn


The pesticide Roundup, a creature of Monsanto, continues to cause controversy: a scientist, a retired pathologist at Purdue University, Professor Don Huber wrote a letter to Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to prevent a newly discovered pathogen and widespread growing impact the health of plants, animals and probably humans as well. He said that the pathogen appears to be related to the use of glyphosate, the key ingredient of Roundup.

Prof. Huber leads a committee of the American Phytopathological Society, a creature of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System. He has long criticized biotech crops as soybeans and corn "Roundup Ready" Monsanto that have been genetically modified to tolerate applications of Roundup.

In his letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prof. Huber said the body was found in high concentrations in feed and soybean Roundup Ready corn used to feed livestock. He said laboratory tests confirmed that the body is found in pigs, cattle and other livestock species that have suffered spontaneous abortions and infertility. The organism proliferates

in corn and soybean attacked by diseases by Huber. "I think the threat of this pathogen is unique and has a very high level of risk." he writes. "In other words, we should consider it as an emergency."

Monsanto scans of hand these claims and says its own research and independent studies and field tests of other U.S. universities do not confirm these allegations.

Huber said in his letter of 17 January to USDA that the data are preliminary, but it seems the side effects of glyphosate use could contribute to proliferation of the pathogen, or allows it to cause more harm to plants or animals already weakened. It requires the involvement of the USDA to investigate and demand a moratorium on other permits Roudup Ready crops.

Roundup draws the grumbling of several critics who argue that encourages the proliferation of herbicide resistance in weeds to crops, "super weeds".

"Although the evidence is considered preliminary, the potential harm to humans and animals is serious." by Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

There were other warning signals about Roundup, including a report out last year prepared by scientists from Argentina, which advanced as Roundup contribute little to congenital malformations in frogs and chickens.

Monsanto said that the chemical binds tightly to soil particles, is not dangerous and does not harm the crops. But some scientists say there are signs of increased fungal root diseases and nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops. They say that manganese deficiency in soybeans in particular seem to be a major problem in some agricultural regions

U.S. EPA said last year that the agency could review the adverse effects du glyphosate en tant que révision de protocoles des produits faite à tous les 15 ans.
"Scientist warns on safety of Monsanto's Roundup
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Questions about the safety of a popular herbicide made by Monsanto Co have resurfaced in a warning from a U.S. scientist that claims top-selling Roundup may contribute to plant disease and health problems for farm animals.

Plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor Don Huber has written a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack warning that a newly discovered and widespread "electron microscopic pathogen appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings." He said the pathogen appears to be connected to use of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.

Huber coordinates a committee of the American Phytopathological Society as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System. He is a long-standing critic of biotech crops, such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybean and corn, which have been genetically altered to withstand treatments of Roundup herbicide.

In his letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Huber said the organism has been found in high concentrations of Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, which are used in livestock feed. He said laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of the organism in pigs, cattle and other livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility.

The organism is also prolific in corn and soybean crops stricken by disease, according to Huber.

"I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status," Huber wrote. "In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

Monsanto scoffed at the allegations and said its own research as well as independent field studies and tests by multiple U.S. universities do not corroborate Huber's claims.

"Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant's susceptibility to diseases," the company said in a statement.

EARLY STAGE FINDINGS

Huber said in his January 17 letter to the USDA that the findings were at an "early stage," but it appeared side effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated growth of the pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts.

He requested USDA participation in an investigation, and he urged a moratorium on approvals of Roundup Ready crops.

USDA officials declined to comment about the letter's contents.

"We're reviewing it, and will respond directly to Dr. Huber, rather than responding through the media," said USDA spokesman Andre Bell.

Roundup has long been a draw for critics, who say the herbicide promotes widespread weed resistance, or "super weeds."

"While the evidence is considered preliminary, the potential damage to humans and animals is severe," said Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

There have been other alarms raised about Roundup, including a report last year from Argentine scientists who claimed that Roundup can contribute to birth defects in frogs and chickens.

Monsanto says the chemical binds tightly to most types of soil, is not harmful and does not harm the crops. But some scientists say there are indications of increased root fungal disease as well as nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops. They say manganese deficiency in soybeans in particular appears to be an issue in key U.S. farming areas.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said last year that it may review glyphosate for any adverse effects as part of a protocol to review products every 15 years.

But the agency had no immediate comment Thursday as to whether or not such a review would be undertaken."

Excerpts of article written by Carey Gillam for Reuters published here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224