Forging his way through the predictable UK media censorship: Dr Andrew Wakefield Responds to Measles Outbreak in Swansea
Entries in Water (86)
Shale Gas Bubble About to Burst
November 26, 2012 Bill Powers [2], editor of Powers Energy Investor [3], has a new book set for publication in May 2013 titled, "Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth [4]."
My thesis is that the importance of shale gas has been grossly overstated; the U.S. has nowhere close to a 100-year supply. This myth has been perpetuated by self-interested industry, media and politicians...In the book, I take a very hard look at the facts. And I conclude that the U.S. has between a five- to seven-year supply of shale gas, and not 100 years.
Put simply: There is production decline in the Haynesville and Barnett shales. Output is declining in the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma. Some of the older shale plays, such as the Fayetteville Shale, are starting to roll over. As these shale plays reverse direction and the Marcellus Shale slows down its production growth, overall U.S. production will fall.
Art Berman Also Sounds the "Shale Gas Bubble" Alarm
Who Will Be Left "Cold, Dark and Hungry" and Living in the "Dark Ages"?
Mr. President: Earth Does Not Have Forever
October 17, 2012 Listening to the US Presidential election, you wouldn't know Earth faces ecological emergencies including abrupt climate change and ecosystem collapse in water, forests, and food. The United States and world are less free, green and peaceful places – largely because human growth has met ecological limits. Ongoing rollbacks of human rights and civil liberties, as well as the state of perma-war waged by drones terrorizing entire populations, is a direct result of environmental decline caused by industrial growth and the resulting scramble for oil and other resources in a globalized world.
The human family faces its greatest planetary emergency ever as Earth, humanity and all life are poised upon the precipice of total ecological, social and economic collapse. Earth's biosphere – the thin mantle of life from underground, through terrestrial ecosystems, to the top of the atmosphere – is being destroyed. Fisheries, soils, the atmosphere, forests, wetlands, water, oceans, food and other ecosystems are uniformly in decline or simply gone. Global ecological crises are destroying conditions necessary for a habitable Earth, and our descent into resource anarchy has begun.
Global change and ecological science are clear that we are near or have surpassed planetary boundaries required to maintain a livable Earth. We know with certainty that endless growth on a finite planet is impossible. Humanity powers down, abandons growth for a steady state economy, learns to live more simply – but well – and share, or the existence of all life, including our own, is threatened.
Nowhere is the utter failure of leadership on issues related to ecological sustainability more apparent than in this year's U.S. Presidential election. Drought, enhanced by abrupt climate change, has spread to 2/3 of America - threatening national and global food supplies. Where are Romney's and Obama's urgent climate change policies? And the deep insight that such rapid ecological change dramatically affects national and global security, and must be urgently and adequately addressed at once?
Lack of action on abrupt climate change is stunning. The past year's extreme weather illustrates the United States clearly faces runaway climate change and drought-caused famine – yet political and economic elite, as well as many of their fellow citizens, are too ignorant and entitled to acknowledge it and act. The US economic and political elite – by refusing to address disturbingly rapid climate change and environmental decline – have in effect abdicated.
As ecosystems collapse and abrupt climate change intensifies, the U.S. political establishment isn't even trying to put forth sustainable development and ecosystem protection policies. There is nothing exceptional to be found in such greedy, superstitious and self-obsessed environmental negligence for a percentage or two in economic growth followed by collapse. Humanity will shed many tears, bleed profusely, and die an ignoble death, from such myopic hubris.
Republicans are unabashedly ecocidal – willfully destroying ecosystems until death – and deny established ecological science. Romney's policies are a road map to abrupt climate change and ecosystem loss – and also assured further declines in justice, liberty, and equity. Economic growth based upon destroying ecosystems for temporary jobs – which is often the case, particularly with fossil fuel exploitation – is not development or advancement of any kind, as post-boom local peoples are hard pressed to survive on devastated landscapes.
Democrats spout the rhetoric of climate change science and ecological concern, and then do big business's bidding destroying ecosystems. President Obama has tepidly dished up failed progressive green hope, promising when elected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet until recently he has been unable to utter the words "climate change". Long-term fuel efficiency standards do not a sufficient climate change policy make. The Obama administration continues to obstruct international climate talks, and has been backing off commitments to mandatory emission reductions, and the 2-degree limit for warming. President Obama's continued gutting of civil liberties, and undeclared perma-war using drones, including assassinating U.S. citizens without trial, is deeply troubling as well.
It's unconscionable that abrupt climate change, ecosystem collapse, record inequity and the rollback of civil liberties are being ignored politically. To ridicule global ecological collapse is pure evil ignorance – yet, to respond that what science indicates is a global ecological emergency is "not a hoax", is also dangerously inadequate. We need detailed plans now from both candidates to dramatically reduce emissions and loss of intact ecosystems if Earth is to remain habitable.
Every day these crises remain unacknowledged and unaddressed – the entire human family and all life is closer to famine, mass death, and potentially the end of being. Ecological sustainability is not going to come from oil addicted Mitt or his party – who have long doubled down on perma-war and ecocide – so there is only the President to look to for leadership to sustain national and global ecology and peace. But Mr. Obama needs to earn our independent, progressive green votes, with specific and sufficient policy proposals that we have not yet heard.
The world does not have forever: either President Obama leads on climate change, civil liberties, and ending perma-war, or else on the big issues of survival and living well long-term, he is little different from Romney. Silence in the midst of a climate change emergency – during election season or not – is not leadership.
President Obama's lack of a detailed climate change policy - and his poor record on necessary environmental policies in general - matter a great deal. Unless he presents ambitious proposals in the closing weeks of the campaign to address abrupt climate change, restore civil liberties, and end drone perma-war, he is not worthy of progressive green support.
It may be better for greens to spend time in opposition, with clear diametrically opposite Romney policies to critique and oppose. If neither Presidential candidate can present a coherent policy position on climate change, liberty, and war - much less lead on these matters - voting for "None of the Above" or for the nascent greens may well be the best Presidential voting option.
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry161012.htm
World Food Crisis, Impact of US Drought
October 5, 2012 The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) announced on Thursday that world food prices rose in September. After experiencing the most widespread drought in 50 years, corn and soybean prices in the US soared to record highs over the summer. Compounded with the droughts in Europe and central Asia, there has been concern about possible food shortages, raising fears of renewed crisis.
An ear of corn from a Missouri farm from 2011, left, compared to one from this year. Photo by Dilip Vishwanat for The New York Times The FAO's price index—a measure of the monthly change in international prices of a basket of food commodities—rose 1.4 percent to an average of 216 points in September after remaining stable at 213 points in August. FAO's index remains below February 2011's peak of 238 points, when high food prices fueled the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, but, according to Reuters, "current levels are very close to those seen in 2008 which sparked riots in poor countries."
"Prices are remaining high... prices are sustained, it's highly unlikely we will see a normalization of prices anytime soon," FAO senior economist Abdolreza Abbassian toldReuters. "Volatility is not going to go away, if anything it may even intensify further in coming months," he said.
The FAO also predicts a decline in global cereal production this year. According to the government, drought in the US has left half of the nation's corn in "poor to very poor condition."
A government survey (pdf) last month estimated a national average yields of 122.8 bushels of corn per acre, the lowest in more than 15 years, and a 15 percent drop in soybeans yields.
In addition to the global impact on food prices, rural farmers in the US have been devastated. The waning supply means higher prices, which benefits grain farmers for the short term. However, it is not such good news for livestock farmers who depend on those crops to feed their animals.
The New York Times reports on some of the individuals who have had to sell off significant numbers of livestock in anticipation of the diminished returns next year. Missourians Theresa and Carl Bettles—whose 130 cows and crops produced a quarter of their average annual yields—are anticipating a $40,000 drop in earnings. The drought has forced them to dip into a retirement fund to pay their daughter’s college expenses.
“If it’s doing this for the next two years, I can’t see us being able to keep going,” Theresa said.
According to Abbassian of the FAO, there is a ministerial meeting that goes beyond the G20 Summit to be held on October16 to discuss food prices.
Global Warming Could Affect New York 's Drinking Water
October 5, 2012 A recent study [1] from Yale University , published in Geophysical Research Letters, indicates that the water quality of lakes and coastal systems "would be altered if hurricanes intensify in a warming world."
Co-authors Bryan Yoon, a doctoral student, and Peter A. Raymond, an ecosystem ecology professor, recorded amounts of dissolved organic matter in the Catskill watershed, which provides the majority of New York City's drinking water.
While dissolved organic matter is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be detrimental to the aquatic environment in excessive amounts, the study found. The matter can bind to metal pollutants and carry them, interfere with ultraviolet processes and aquatic metabolism and can even lead to the formation of carcinogenic disinfection by-products in chlorination.
"All of those problems become more serious as larger quantities of dissolved organic matter are transported to lakes and coastal systems," Yoon said in a statement.
With Hurricane Irene's record rainfall, Yoon and Raymond found that the water dispelled from Esopus Creek, which feeds into the one of the Catskill watershed's two reservoirs, increased 330-fold, causing an unparalleled amount of dissolved organic matter to flow into the water supply. Yoon likened the immense amount of drastic increase to someone eating 40 percent of his annual food within a few days.
"Hurricane Irene was a prime example that there is no limit to the amount of dissolved organic matter that can be exported by extreme rain events," Yoon said.
Though the study focuses on the detrimental effects of Hurricane Irene on the Catskills watershed, it does not specify the breadth of the potential damage to New York 's drinking water. With the New York City Department of Environmental Protection actively monitoring the city's water supply system, there's no reason to think New York 's water is unsafe to drink.
However, the implications of the study's outcome do not bode well for New York if another hurricane of equal or higher intensity were to hit the coast in the future.
The study follows a recent report commissioned by 20 governments that indicates more than 100 million people could die by 2030, if crucial climate change issues are not addressed. Experts predicted a rise in extreme storm and weather conditions, but are still hesitant to attribute individual extreme weather events directly to climate change.
Yet with more reports on the hazards of climate change appearing – from food distribution risks to threats against the quality of drinking water supplies- the outlook for the future becomes increasingly serious.
Nestlé: Malevolent Corporation Capitalizes on Global Water Crisis
September 27, 2012 I have just returned from a week in Switzerland to promote the right to water and to challenge the giant Swiss bottled water giant Nestlé. My visit was arranged by Franklin Frederick, an activist and leader in the global fight against Nestlé Waters, who is originally from Brazil, but now lives and works in Switzerland. Franklin is an extraordinary man. He is fiercely committed to global water justice and has been a thorn in the side of the water privateers for years. I also reconnected with Rosmarie Bar, a former Green Member of the Swiss Parliament and former senior member of the Swiss development network, Alliance Sud. Rosmarie and I worked together to form an international group called Friends of the Right to Water and worked for many years to lay the groundwork for the recognition of this right at the UN.
I spoke at the universities of Bern and Lucerne and in a beautiful 500 year-old church located in the heart of Bern. In the magnificent wood paneled Swiss Parliament, I also met with a delegation of MPs from every party who are committed to protecting public water and the human right to water. In all these venues, I met wonderful, committed people working for economic and social justice.However, it is very clear that Nestlé is a powerful presence in Switzerland and its influence in the halls of power goes deep. Everyone I talked to said so in one way or another. Switzerland has no law limiting political donations from corporations, or requiring transparency in campaign financing. Given that the marketing department of Nestlé has a larger annual budget than the World Health Organization, it is widely understood that the company has great political influence.
Of special concern is the partnership that the Swiss Federal Agency for Development and Cooperation - SDC - has entered into with the company. Nestlé is a charter member of the newly formed Swiss Water Partnership, along with civil society groups and aid agencies, that will advise the Swiss government on water policy in the Global South. The stated desire is to come to a set of “shared values” so that governments, NGOs and the private sector are promoting common policies and world views when giving aid money for water development, or what the SDC calls “speaking with one voice.” But what is this voice?
Nestlé was one of the first companies to commodify water. In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, seeing what it did to the groundwater supplies of the surrounding regions, the company bought up huge quantities of mineral water deposits in Switzerland. Nestlé is the biggest bottled water company in the world and is scouring countries all over the planet for new supplies of water.
Nestlé has consistently promoted public-private partnerships whereby private water companies run water services on a for profit basis. Company head Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, referred to often in the Swiss media as the “Water Man,” repeatedly promotes the full commodification of water (although after much criticism, now admits that the poor need some water too.) He has proposed setting aside 1.5 per cent of the planet’s water for human rights, the rest going into the market. Nestlé also promotes GMO crops, which are voracious users of pesticides.
So these policies are the ones that the company will promote to the Swiss government in its development work. It is a travesty that this is the water face to the world of Switzerland. The country has one of the finest public water systems anywhere. SDC defends this partnership and publicly states that a key goal is to promote the interests of Swiss water companies abroad.
But what does Nestlé know about delivering water and sanitation services? Nothing! It is involved with this partnership to gain credibility and to have the Swiss government open doors to new private water markets in the developing world. It is the same reason the company is deeply involved with the funding arm of the World Bank. In fact, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe chairs a new advisory board called the 2030 Water Resources Group that helps set policy models and priorities for water and sanitation programs around the world.
This is a disaster in a world where demand for water is outstripping supply at an accelerating rate. As Wenonah Hauter from Food and Water Watch says, Nestlé’s goal is to shift government policy away from providing public municipal water supplies to people, and toward a dependency on bottled water to provide basic drinking water. And of course, it is about capitalizing on the global water crisis.
It is time to call out Nestlé and the governments that partner with them. I will return to Nestlé’s home base again soon where we will shout out against this malevolent water hunter.
Ethan A. Huff - How to fight water fluoridation in your city
June 6, 2012 Water fluoridation has become quite the hot-button political issue in America today, especially as the pro-fluoride establishment is increasingly being forced to address the myriad of emerging scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of fluoride. But many city officials and legislators continue to remain largely unaware of, and in some cases willfully defiant against, the truth about fluoride.
Still entrenched in the political framework of public health today is the idea that artificially fluoridating public water supplies prevents tooth decay and lessens the overall costs associated with dental treatments. This flawed ideology dates back to about the 1930s when the aluminum mining and smelting industries concocted a way to dispose of their unwanted fluoride chemical byproducts by pushing them on the unsuspecting masses as a remedy for tooth decay.
Though science has never backed up this and many other claims made by the pro-fluoride lobby, fluoridation remains a blindly-accepted public health measure throughout America today. And yet at the same time, things are also starting to change as citizens, health officials, and former fluoride advocates learn the facts about fluoride and begin spreading the truth (http://www.esterrepublic.com/Archives/dyates2.html).
Hundreds of North American communities have axed fluoride from their water supplies in recent decades (http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.aspx), and many more are in a position to follow suit if science can ultimately break the political stronghold that is holding on for dear life to the fluoride myth.
Read More:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036084_water_fluoridation_protests_activism.html
BP is an Enemy of Academic Freedom: Scientists
June 6, 2012 Oceanographers Richard Camilli and Christopher Reddy, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, have accused oil giant BP of stifling academic freedom and attempting to skew scientific research from the Gulf of Mexico after the massive BP oil spill in 2010.
This week, the two expressed concern after BP successfully subpoenaed thousands of confidential emails between the two regarding their research on the effects of the spill.
"BP claimed that it needed to better understand our findings because billions of dollars in fines are potentially at stake. So we produced more than 50,000 pages of documents, raw data, reports, and algorithms used in our research — everything BP would need to analyze and confirm our findings. But BP still demanded access to our private communications. Our concern is not simply invasion of privacy, but the erosion of the scientific deliberative process," the two wrote in an article for the Boston Globe.
They fear that the email exchanges, written during the process of research, could be used for deliberate misinterpretation in reports released by BP, the Guardian reports.
"Incomplete thoughts and half-finished documents attached to emails can be taken out of context and impugned by people who have a motive for discrediting the findings. In addition to obscuring true scientific findings, this situation casts a chill over the scientific process. In future crises, scientists may censor or avoid deliberations, and more importantly, be reluctant to volunteer valuable expertise and technology that emergency responders don't possess," the scientists stated.
Read More:
Tom Philpott - Are Our Oceans on a Collision Course?
June 6, 2012 Back in 2006, a team of scientists from Canada, the United States, Sweden, and Panama published a landmark report [1]in the prestigious journal Science on the state of the oceans. The researchers highlighted what they called an "ongoing erosion of diversity" in sea-life that, if left unchecked, would lead to the "collapse of all taxa currently being fished by the mid-21st century."
Stripped of scientese, what the report described was the real possibility of the ocean as a vast, fetid grey zone, not quite dead but no longer able to provide a significant amount of food to humanity. And not in some unimaginably distant future, but rather in just four short decades, around the time when your aughts-era infant will reach middle age.
When the report dropped, it grabbed attention in the eco-foodie world like a great white shark sunning its dorsal fin in the shallows of a crowded beach. I was just beginning to write about food politics at the time, and the Science study jolted me from my land-locked fixations and opened the ocean as a rich and urgent topic.
Not only do the oceans cover more than two-thirds of the planet, but they're also home to 90 percent of the planet's living biomass. [2] Snuffing out their astonishing biodiversity would have unpredictable consequences for we creatures who dwell on the earth's relatively rare swaths of dry land. Surely, I thought at the time, the Science paper would spark a global push to heal what ails that murky, saline region that surrounds us.
Read More:
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/06/oceans-still-headed-disaster
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - Green Tea Compound for Radioprotection
June 4, 2012 Green tea polyphenol antioxidant protects against bystander effects of low dose ionizing radiation that damage cells and cause numerous diseases including cancer.
The recent discovery of bystander effects from low levels of ionizing radiation has thrown risk assessment and radioprotection into disarray [1] (Bystander Effects Multiply Dose and Harm from Ionizing Radiation, SiS 55). However, it has also led to the discovery of potential mitigating measures against exposure to radioactivity, especially from nuclear accidents like Chernobyl (and Fukushima), the devastation health impacts of which are still surfacing 25 years later [2] (Chernobyl Deaths Top a Million Based on Real Evidence. SiS 55).
Ionizing radiation has been known to produce free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS), predominantly by ionizing water, the most abundant molecules in tissues and cells (see [1] for an explanation of ROS). ROS are responsible for oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids, initiating cell death, genomic instability and other consequences of radiation, both in cells that have been directly targeted, and in bystander cells that have not been irradiated [1]. There is evidence that various antioxidants can protect cells against bystander radiation damages, and new findings published online in Mutation Research appear particularly promising.
Ashu Tiku and Benila Richi at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Roasaheb Kale at Central University of Gujarat in India may have found the ideal antioxidant for radioprotectopm [3].
Read More:
http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/05/30/green-tea-compound-for-radioprotection/
