New Brunswick’s aging Point Lepreau nuclear power station still needs major refurbishment following major upgrades that have already cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. Even so, AECL is pushing for a second nuclear plant in New Brunswick using a model that is still under development. IICPH believes that New Brunswickers need to look at better options, considering the Auditor-General’s reports and the revealed deficiencies at Chalk River. This beautiful province has good winds, plenty of sunshine and tidal bores. If the tax dollars available for building a new power plant were spent on renewable energy, New Brunswick could fairly quickly replace it with affordable, clean and reliable energy. A switch to renewables would take less time than the present scenario. They’re doing this in many countries in Europe. It makes no sense to waste more money on nuclear power.
The International Institute of Concern for Public Health maintains that the problem of nuclear waste is ultimately unsolvable. There is still no satisfactory solution for disposing of the nuclear waste already accumulated; our children and future generations continue to be at extreme risk, even after years of trial and error. We believe there is sufficient evidence of harm to say that the use of nuclear reactors for any reason does not pass the test of the Precautionary Principle. Decisions to approve energy technologies must be based on the Precautionary Principle. When human activity puts human health or the environment at risk, we must take the road of precaution, even if all of the causes and effects aren’t yet fully proven by science.
For more information go to the IICPH site at: http://www.iicph.org
Contact information: IICPH Toronto Office: PO Box 80523 RPO White Shields, 2300 Lawrence Ave. East, Toronto M1P 4Z5 URL:
Email: info@iicph.org Tel: (416) 786-6128
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Officials must listen to concerns of those opposed to uranium mining
Following is as an excellent letter written by Kevin Newman of Hoyt, N.B. This area, like Southeast N.B., is being targeted by the uranium exploration companies. We need to write to all the newspapers, and often. And we have to make our voices heard in Fredericton. All those who are against any uranium activity in N.B., please stand up!!
By KELLY NEWMAN - For The Daily Gleaner, 28th November 2007
I do not support uranium mining. I am fundamentally opposed to it. It matters not where it is, for wherever it is, it should not be. The fact that it is being considered anywhere shows that society has been in a constant devolution since settlers came to this land and assumed false power over its stewards.
A ban on uranium mining is needed in New Brunswick. Actually, a world-wide moratorium is needed, but we should all start with our own backyards to clean things up.
I heard my community being offered up to be bought and sold on the stock market recently. But I am opposed to mining and most certainly opposed to uranium mining.
Does that really not matter? Does it matter not that none of us want it here?
What about we who choose to make a life instead of making money and a living? Why do we have no say in all of this? My great-grandfather warned of the politicians with silver tongues and golden promises. He surely would have included corporate reps had they been an entity then. I heard them wagging their tongues at a meeting about uranium mining. They answered nothing of importance and wasted our time.
We do not have the right to tear up and abuse the Earth as we do. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Did we not learn this as children? It is atrocious that our democratically elected government is selling out from under us our future and our children's right to life with clean air, water and earth. How can any part of the mining process be in the best interest of the people? Only those with investment or corporate connections think this to be good. And that is due to the money they will make. It is good for no living thing.
Premier Shawn Graham should not think for a moment that he speaks for me, my family, my community or any of our needs. He and his government and the Opposition think of profits, not people. Not one person I have spoken with is in favour of uranium mining coming to New Brunswick, yet they still pretend it is a positive thing.
The greedy, who are seeking more money, more power, more stuff see the Earth as a commodity, something one can own. But I do not, so how are we to agree on the importance of it existing in its natural way? And how do you not see how sacred the Earth is? We don't even know the difference between luxury and necessity anymore. How many acknowledge and appreciate the luxury of electricity anymore? We have been separated from our natural relations and place within this creation.
We are told to trust government and businesses with our lives, the Earth, the children and our sustenance. But how could they act in our best interests? They do not even know who we are. An Indian elder once said, "Only when the last tree has been felled, the last fish has been caught, and the last river poisoned, will man realize we cannot eat money."
Eat money? Not a chance. No one can. Stand up for what truly supports us, the Earth.
Kelly Newman lives in Hoyt, N.B.
For more articles, click on this source: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1734.htm
By KELLY NEWMAN - For The Daily Gleaner, 28th November 2007
I do not support uranium mining. I am fundamentally opposed to it. It matters not where it is, for wherever it is, it should not be. The fact that it is being considered anywhere shows that society has been in a constant devolution since settlers came to this land and assumed false power over its stewards.
A ban on uranium mining is needed in New Brunswick. Actually, a world-wide moratorium is needed, but we should all start with our own backyards to clean things up.
I heard my community being offered up to be bought and sold on the stock market recently. But I am opposed to mining and most certainly opposed to uranium mining.
Does that really not matter? Does it matter not that none of us want it here?
What about we who choose to make a life instead of making money and a living? Why do we have no say in all of this? My great-grandfather warned of the politicians with silver tongues and golden promises. He surely would have included corporate reps had they been an entity then. I heard them wagging their tongues at a meeting about uranium mining. They answered nothing of importance and wasted our time.
We do not have the right to tear up and abuse the Earth as we do. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Did we not learn this as children? It is atrocious that our democratically elected government is selling out from under us our future and our children's right to life with clean air, water and earth. How can any part of the mining process be in the best interest of the people? Only those with investment or corporate connections think this to be good. And that is due to the money they will make. It is good for no living thing.
Premier Shawn Graham should not think for a moment that he speaks for me, my family, my community or any of our needs. He and his government and the Opposition think of profits, not people. Not one person I have spoken with is in favour of uranium mining coming to New Brunswick, yet they still pretend it is a positive thing.
The greedy, who are seeking more money, more power, more stuff see the Earth as a commodity, something one can own. But I do not, so how are we to agree on the importance of it existing in its natural way? And how do you not see how sacred the Earth is? We don't even know the difference between luxury and necessity anymore. How many acknowledge and appreciate the luxury of electricity anymore? We have been separated from our natural relations and place within this creation.
We are told to trust government and businesses with our lives, the Earth, the children and our sustenance. But how could they act in our best interests? They do not even know who we are. An Indian elder once said, "Only when the last tree has been felled, the last fish has been caught, and the last river poisoned, will man realize we cannot eat money."
Eat money? Not a chance. No one can. Stand up for what truly supports us, the Earth.
Kelly Newman lives in Hoyt, N.B.
For more articles, click on this source: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1734.htm
Any hope for a pesticide ban in N.B.?
Pesticide foes hope for ban soon - December 14, 2007 - Canadaeast News Service
FREDERICTON - A coalition of organizations lobbying for a province-wide ban on the sale and use of pesticides says it feels the provincial government may make a move on the pesticide issue as early as the spring. However, the provincial Environment Department says that's not the case.
Representatives from environmental, health and labour organizations may have different focuses and issues, but they've joined forces when it comes to pesticides. "We have different mandates, different concerns," said Rosemary Boyle, senior manager of public issues with the New Brunswick division of the Canadian Cancer Society.
But the groups -- which also include the New Brunswick Conservation Counsel and the Lung Association of New Brunswick -- agree that there's no need for cosmetic pesticide use. Boyle said cosmetic pesticides are those used to maintain residential lawns and gardens, as well as golf courses, ball fields and public parks. The coalition isn't dealing with pesticides used in farming, for example. Such cosmetic pesticides, used only for esthetic purposes, have been linked in studies to various forms of cancer, Boyle said.
Liz Smith, environmental program co-ordinator with the lung association, said studies have also linked such pesticides with neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.
People may not be thinking of law care with so much snow on the ground now but the coalition is pushing the message now in part because the legislature is sitting, said Sharon Flatt, vice-president of the conservation council. The time is right for such a push, she said, because the public is much more aware of the links between the environment and health concerns. Flatt said the cabinet ministers with whom they've met seem to recognize that extensive pesticide use now will translate into major health-care costs later on. "We'd like to see something come up at this (legislative) sitting," she said.
Smith said the coalition has been given an indication the province plans to address the issue soon. "The announcement should be in the spring," she said. However, a spokesman with the Environment Department said that's not true. There is no imminent announcement regarding any kind of province-wide ban on pesticides, said communications officer Mike Wesson.
Environment Minister Roland Hache said there are four departments -- environment, health, agriculture and local government -- looking at the issue of cosmetic pesticides. "What we are planning to do is have the public input into the cosmetic pesticides used in the province of New Brunswick," he said. "It is very difficult for me to answer that at this time," Hache said about whether the Liberals would announce a new policy in the spring. "We will take into consideration what the public is saying."
Boyle said the scientific testing hasn't definitely demonstrated that the pesticides cause those illnesses but then again, one can't exactly expose children to dangerous chemicals as part of an experiment to prove such causation.
"But we have lots of studies that are pointing to the damage," said Flatt. She said coalition members have met with provincial cabinet ministers, who seemed open to their concerns and even shared them.
Boyle said government must act quickly to prevent future damage even if the science hasn't caught up with the lobbying efforts yet. "We can't wait for definitive evidence," she said. "Ultimately, those products are designed to kill."
It does damage to human health in subtle, long-term ways," Smith said.
Read more about this issue at: http://www.nben.ca/aboutus/caucus/archived_caucuses/pesticides/index.htm
FREDERICTON - A coalition of organizations lobbying for a province-wide ban on the sale and use of pesticides says it feels the provincial government may make a move on the pesticide issue as early as the spring. However, the provincial Environment Department says that's not the case.
Representatives from environmental, health and labour organizations may have different focuses and issues, but they've joined forces when it comes to pesticides. "We have different mandates, different concerns," said Rosemary Boyle, senior manager of public issues with the New Brunswick division of the Canadian Cancer Society.
But the groups -- which also include the New Brunswick Conservation Counsel and the Lung Association of New Brunswick -- agree that there's no need for cosmetic pesticide use. Boyle said cosmetic pesticides are those used to maintain residential lawns and gardens, as well as golf courses, ball fields and public parks. The coalition isn't dealing with pesticides used in farming, for example. Such cosmetic pesticides, used only for esthetic purposes, have been linked in studies to various forms of cancer, Boyle said.
Liz Smith, environmental program co-ordinator with the lung association, said studies have also linked such pesticides with neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.
People may not be thinking of law care with so much snow on the ground now but the coalition is pushing the message now in part because the legislature is sitting, said Sharon Flatt, vice-president of the conservation council. The time is right for such a push, she said, because the public is much more aware of the links between the environment and health concerns. Flatt said the cabinet ministers with whom they've met seem to recognize that extensive pesticide use now will translate into major health-care costs later on. "We'd like to see something come up at this (legislative) sitting," she said.
Smith said the coalition has been given an indication the province plans to address the issue soon. "The announcement should be in the spring," she said. However, a spokesman with the Environment Department said that's not true. There is no imminent announcement regarding any kind of province-wide ban on pesticides, said communications officer Mike Wesson.
Environment Minister Roland Hache said there are four departments -- environment, health, agriculture and local government -- looking at the issue of cosmetic pesticides. "What we are planning to do is have the public input into the cosmetic pesticides used in the province of New Brunswick," he said. "It is very difficult for me to answer that at this time," Hache said about whether the Liberals would announce a new policy in the spring. "We will take into consideration what the public is saying."
Boyle said the scientific testing hasn't definitely demonstrated that the pesticides cause those illnesses but then again, one can't exactly expose children to dangerous chemicals as part of an experiment to prove such causation.
"But we have lots of studies that are pointing to the damage," said Flatt. She said coalition members have met with provincial cabinet ministers, who seemed open to their concerns and even shared them.
Boyle said government must act quickly to prevent future damage even if the science hasn't caught up with the lobbying efforts yet. "We can't wait for definitive evidence," she said. "Ultimately, those products are designed to kill."
It does damage to human health in subtle, long-term ways," Smith said.
Read more about this issue at: http://www.nben.ca/aboutus/caucus/archived_caucuses/pesticides/index.htm
Monday, January 14, 2008
Would you say we're poor, uneducated or greedy??
There are three ways in which uranium mining companies can get into a region. The first one is that the people are so poor, they will take anything that will give them some employment. The second is that the people are so uneducated that they are not aware of the extreme negative impact of uranium mining and that they don't know how it will affect them, their land, water and air. The third is that the people are so greedy that they don't care how much environmental and health degradation takes place as long as they get their cut of the pie.
Where would you put the people of New Brunswick? Obviously these companies think we're one of the three or is it that they think our government is one of the three? hmmmm ......
Where would you put the people of New Brunswick? Obviously these companies think we're one of the three or is it that they think our government is one of the three? hmmmm ......
Saturday, January 12, 2008
DO YOU KNOW about URANIUM...in NEW BRUNSWICK????
Inform yourself now because it's our future and that of our children -
· Uranium is a highly dangerous and radioactive heavy metal
· Exploration and mining of uranium releases these radioactive substances into the air, water and soil over long distances. These substances include, among many others, radium, radon gas, and polonium-210
· Prospecting for uranium is being conducted in areas between Sussex and Moncton. Including land that borders Turtle creek, the drinking water supply for 100,000 of Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe residents.
· Mineral exploration and prospecting on “PRIVATE PROPERTY” have taken place near Moncton, on the Ammon and Irishtown Rds and surrounding areas.
· Prospectors have been offering “water testing” to residents of the Ammon Rd., as a ploy to determine minerals in the land.
· Uranium exploration and mining is banned in British Columbia.
ASK your MLA:
1. Why there are no limits on Uranium and mineral exploration in our drinking water supply?
2. Why New Brunswickers health is not being considered in permitting uranium exploration?
3. Why there are few limits on uranium and mineral exploration close to people’s homes, in rural areas and even in towns and cities?
· Phone: Rt.Hon. Shawn Graham (506) 523-7980
Hon. Mike Murphy 869-6115 (Minister of Health)
Hon. Wally Stiles 756-3137
John Betts 869-6579
Chris Collins 856- 2595
Bruce Fitch 869-6117
Cy Leblanc 869-6580
Wayne Steeves 856-3006
Joan MacAlpine-Stiles 869-6360
Bernard Leblanc 758-9293
Claude Williams 525-4025
OR: Email: premier@gnb.ca
MLA emails: Firstname.familyname@gnb.ca
Example: Claude.Williams@gnb.ca
· DID YOU KNOW -Excerpts from the Mining Act of New Brunswick
· “Most minerals, as defined under the Mining Act, are owned by the Crown.”
· “Crown owned minerals are property separate from the soil; that is, a landowner owns the surface rights out does not own minerals”
· “The Province makes Crown owned minerals available for exploration and development.”- on “private” or Crown lands, by anyone holding a prospectors license
· A prospecting license may be issued to “a person who is at least 16 years old, to a company, or to a registered partnership.”
****According to the U.S Surgeon General, Radon released in massive quantities into the air and dissolved in surface waters, is the SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF LUNG CANCER in the U.S.
· Uranium is a highly dangerous and radioactive heavy metal
· Exploration and mining of uranium releases these radioactive substances into the air, water and soil over long distances. These substances include, among many others, radium, radon gas, and polonium-210
· Prospecting for uranium is being conducted in areas between Sussex and Moncton. Including land that borders Turtle creek, the drinking water supply for 100,000 of Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe residents.
· Mineral exploration and prospecting on “PRIVATE PROPERTY” have taken place near Moncton, on the Ammon and Irishtown Rds and surrounding areas.
· Prospectors have been offering “water testing” to residents of the Ammon Rd., as a ploy to determine minerals in the land.
· Uranium exploration and mining is banned in British Columbia.
ASK your MLA:
1. Why there are no limits on Uranium and mineral exploration in our drinking water supply?
2. Why New Brunswickers health is not being considered in permitting uranium exploration?
3. Why there are few limits on uranium and mineral exploration close to people’s homes, in rural areas and even in towns and cities?
· Phone: Rt.Hon. Shawn Graham (506) 523-7980
Hon. Mike Murphy 869-6115 (Minister of Health)
Hon. Wally Stiles 756-3137
John Betts 869-6579
Chris Collins 856- 2595
Bruce Fitch 869-6117
Cy Leblanc 869-6580
Wayne Steeves 856-3006
Joan MacAlpine-Stiles 869-6360
Bernard Leblanc 758-9293
Claude Williams 525-4025
OR: Email: premier@gnb.ca
MLA emails: Firstname.familyname@gnb.ca
Example: Claude.Williams@gnb.ca
· DID YOU KNOW -Excerpts from the Mining Act of New Brunswick
· “Most minerals, as defined under the Mining Act, are owned by the Crown.”
· “Crown owned minerals are property separate from the soil; that is, a landowner owns the surface rights out does not own minerals”
· “The Province makes Crown owned minerals available for exploration and development.”- on “private” or Crown lands, by anyone holding a prospectors license
· A prospecting license may be issued to “a person who is at least 16 years old, to a company, or to a registered partnership.”
****According to the U.S Surgeon General, Radon released in massive quantities into the air and dissolved in surface waters, is the SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF LUNG CANCER in the U.S.
HOW LONG CAN YOU HOLD YOUR BREATH?
speech by Ralph Pritchard based on info from Ten Billion Acres http://10ba.org/?gclid=CI22tta86ZACFQSOFQoddl0UWQ
In just 300 years there has been a 25% reduction in the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere, for a total reduction of 33% since Christopher Columbus discovered America some 500 years ago. The amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has quadrupled. Yes, emissions from burning fossil fuel accounts for a portion of it, but a very small one at that.
There are 100 billion reasons for this reduction…deforestation! In the mere span of 500 years we have cut down over 54% of the world’s oxygen-producing, carbon dioxide-consuming miracles. Over 10 billion acres worth!
Right now as I speak, the atmosphere is storing heat, and CO2, losing oxygen and ozone and humanity is suffering - less oxygen leads to more disease, and eventual extinction. Do you need to wonder why cancer rates are up, emphysema in non-smokers, asthma? Did we recently set records for high temperatures in January?
Since almost everyone on the planet learned in school that trees and plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through photosynthesis, why is it so difficult to believe that deforestation on a global scale would have such impact? I am not here to discuss the psychology of economics, greed, or even ignorance. I am only here to share the facts as they have been researched and to encourage each and everyone of you to take “some” action. If we don’t, scientists predict that within 100 years we will lose up to 90% of the world’s population of oxygen breathing mammals and guess what, that means our children and grandchildren.
Let’s take a trip back to 1492 when Columbus sailed the blue (not green) ocean and landed in what was first believed to be America. At that time nearly 18.5 Billion Acres of Forests covered Planet Earth, yet, the total human population of Earth was only about a half billion. Today, there are in excess of six billion human beings: but there are far fewer trees, 100 billion more or less. Only 8.5 Billion Acres of Forests remain in the world today scrubbing and cleaning the carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. By the way, did I tell you that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has quadrupled in the last 500 years and also as I speak, is rising at an unprecedented rate. Is it any wonder that our atmosphere has changed?
A question to get you thinking if I may…if we started planting right now, how long would it take to replenish the 33% reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere?
Let’s go back again to 1492: At that time, 66% of all the oxygen in our atmosphere came from trees and 33% from algae, now it is reverse. At that time, the planet could process 100% more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year then it can now. Ecologically our atmosphere has regressed to where the planet was some 1 million years ago when the oceans were green with algae and only a handful of trees and mammals were alive.
A disruption of the balance of trees and plants versus algae, has caused, among other things, a high nitrogen overload content to fall in rainstorms, leading to so-called "Acid Rains" that damage plants and human activity.
At the each earth’s poles, the Sun's heat is being deflected off the upper atmosphere by higher concentrations of CO2. This causes lower temperatures right at the Poles which draws the over-heated 85% balance of the ocean to the Poles to cool them. When the northern currents chill, it leads to a not quite as severe, yet no less dangerous "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004 - Roland Emmerich) like effect: increasing snow amounts in the northern areas during Winter, pockets of extreme snow, and increased atmospheric turbulence towards the middle regions in the Spring and Summer, and a worsened Hurricane / Typhoon Season and warmer middle states weather, depleted water in drought prone areas and so forth. This has the bad side effect of creating worse periods of collateral storm systems, raising higher summer temperatures, causing much more coastal flooding damages and more beach erosion.
As a result, far more rain occurs in some areas, causing land flooding and river overflow flooding, while barometric effects cause wind change, shifts to the Jet Stream, and other major air flows. That change has potentially catastrophic impact on current Farming zones, the earth's food producing centers. Increased arid dryness and drought drastically and unexpectedly in various parts of the world, could lead to "dustbowl" syndrome in areas ordinarily the source of the world's foods. When Solar Flare cycles peak and heat the middle of our atmosphere towards the equator, deadly more violent storms such as Hurricane Katrina and beyond will happen.
With human population on the rise, Humanity is on a near term collision path with the decline in the number of Trees. Even the renewing of existing trees in the spring is not happening at the levels it used to anymore due to nutrient pollution such as the release of sewage effluent and run-off from lawn fertilizers into natural waters (rivers or coasts) and acid rain all leading to eventual human extinction if left unchecked.
The threat to Human Survival will hit home far, far sooner than mere global warming, over population or pollution of the environment, however it will steadily worsen the climate changes. The lack of Trees (and plants) to "scrub" CO2 from the Atmosphere is also creating a "greenhouse gas canopy" (G2C) in the upper atmosphere, causing heat to be retained by the atmosphere, leading to climate change in a variety of ways which has been so eloquently elaborated on by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Adding to the complex problem specifically is the clearing of rainforests, over 20% of these crucial rainforest areas are now gone. These dense zones of Trees and Plants are in constant danger from the spread of civilization and industry. When I say dense, I am talking about thousands of trees and plants per acre compared to perhaps hundreds in our forests.
So how much oxygen is left? The atmosphere contains about 1.3 x 10(to the power of 14) tons today vs. 2.0 x 10(to the power of 14) 500 years ago. You also have to realize that in the atmosphere strong ionizing cosmic radiation causes the production of ozone and atomic oxygen within the stratosphere. The ozone layer protects the biosphere effectively from short-wave UV-radiation. All of the remaining oxygen in the atmosphere means absolutely nothing if we can’t get it into our lungs in the proper ratio.
If we do nothing to increase the number of forests and trees within 50 years, by then it will be too late to do anything about. It will be like a runaway train with no brakes, since tree growth and fundamental reforestation in nature without our help could take hundreds of years. Once oxygen drops below the critical level, humanity will simply start dying off until the ratio of trees to humans (T2H2A) to Algae balances off. We have to equalize the ratios (called: the Perfect Climate) to achieve proper ratios, which would also have the secondary effect of reducing the impact of Industrial Carbon / CO2 to a manageable one.
If the citizens of this planet could aggressively rally to reforest the lost 10 billion acres iin the next 50 years, the earth's atmosphere would be vastly improved, with 33% higher oxygen and reduction in CO2 and CO by 85%. Simultaneously, the Oceans would also improve, with reduction in CO2 and acidity that is greatly imperiling Ocean Coral Reefs, plant life and sea creatures of all kind. Such would more than quintuple the success rate of Ocean based fish reproduction, creating larger volumes of edible fish than existed at the time of Christopher Columbus, a boon for solving the Human Hunger problems.
This can only be done using a "planting factor" of about 100 to 294 trees to an acre…and we need to plant trees in an area the size of Africa. To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, check out how many country’s land masses would fit into Africa.
Saving the world starts…saving humanity…starts right in this very room:
1. Get the word out. Tell everyone you know
2. Form a coalition. It will take the concerted effort of all humans. People, business, science and government need to ally to solve this.
3. Effect Change. Start with your own yard, join planting groups, contact the Forestry Department, write Ottawa.
4. Monitor and Guide. Join an association that monitors this and stay involved to do your part.
5. Adjust and Compensate for Errors Made. Understand that there are a vast array of problems and priorities. Don’t become a vigilanty. Use gentle persuasion.
So…Let me ask you another question…would you mind if I reduced the amount of oxygen in this room in order to save money and even to perhaps to give it to some new members of my growing family? Hmmm, I didn’t think that would go over so well.
In just 300 years there has been a 25% reduction in the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere, for a total reduction of 33% since Christopher Columbus discovered America some 500 years ago. The amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has quadrupled. Yes, emissions from burning fossil fuel accounts for a portion of it, but a very small one at that.
There are 100 billion reasons for this reduction…deforestation! In the mere span of 500 years we have cut down over 54% of the world’s oxygen-producing, carbon dioxide-consuming miracles. Over 10 billion acres worth!
Right now as I speak, the atmosphere is storing heat, and CO2, losing oxygen and ozone and humanity is suffering - less oxygen leads to more disease, and eventual extinction. Do you need to wonder why cancer rates are up, emphysema in non-smokers, asthma? Did we recently set records for high temperatures in January?
Since almost everyone on the planet learned in school that trees and plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through photosynthesis, why is it so difficult to believe that deforestation on a global scale would have such impact? I am not here to discuss the psychology of economics, greed, or even ignorance. I am only here to share the facts as they have been researched and to encourage each and everyone of you to take “some” action. If we don’t, scientists predict that within 100 years we will lose up to 90% of the world’s population of oxygen breathing mammals and guess what, that means our children and grandchildren.
Let’s take a trip back to 1492 when Columbus sailed the blue (not green) ocean and landed in what was first believed to be America. At that time nearly 18.5 Billion Acres of Forests covered Planet Earth, yet, the total human population of Earth was only about a half billion. Today, there are in excess of six billion human beings: but there are far fewer trees, 100 billion more or less. Only 8.5 Billion Acres of Forests remain in the world today scrubbing and cleaning the carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. By the way, did I tell you that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has quadrupled in the last 500 years and also as I speak, is rising at an unprecedented rate. Is it any wonder that our atmosphere has changed?
A question to get you thinking if I may…if we started planting right now, how long would it take to replenish the 33% reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere?
Let’s go back again to 1492: At that time, 66% of all the oxygen in our atmosphere came from trees and 33% from algae, now it is reverse. At that time, the planet could process 100% more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year then it can now. Ecologically our atmosphere has regressed to where the planet was some 1 million years ago when the oceans were green with algae and only a handful of trees and mammals were alive.
A disruption of the balance of trees and plants versus algae, has caused, among other things, a high nitrogen overload content to fall in rainstorms, leading to so-called "Acid Rains" that damage plants and human activity.
At the each earth’s poles, the Sun's heat is being deflected off the upper atmosphere by higher concentrations of CO2. This causes lower temperatures right at the Poles which draws the over-heated 85% balance of the ocean to the Poles to cool them. When the northern currents chill, it leads to a not quite as severe, yet no less dangerous "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004 - Roland Emmerich) like effect: increasing snow amounts in the northern areas during Winter, pockets of extreme snow, and increased atmospheric turbulence towards the middle regions in the Spring and Summer, and a worsened Hurricane / Typhoon Season and warmer middle states weather, depleted water in drought prone areas and so forth. This has the bad side effect of creating worse periods of collateral storm systems, raising higher summer temperatures, causing much more coastal flooding damages and more beach erosion.
As a result, far more rain occurs in some areas, causing land flooding and river overflow flooding, while barometric effects cause wind change, shifts to the Jet Stream, and other major air flows. That change has potentially catastrophic impact on current Farming zones, the earth's food producing centers. Increased arid dryness and drought drastically and unexpectedly in various parts of the world, could lead to "dustbowl" syndrome in areas ordinarily the source of the world's foods. When Solar Flare cycles peak and heat the middle of our atmosphere towards the equator, deadly more violent storms such as Hurricane Katrina and beyond will happen.
With human population on the rise, Humanity is on a near term collision path with the decline in the number of Trees. Even the renewing of existing trees in the spring is not happening at the levels it used to anymore due to nutrient pollution such as the release of sewage effluent and run-off from lawn fertilizers into natural waters (rivers or coasts) and acid rain all leading to eventual human extinction if left unchecked.
The threat to Human Survival will hit home far, far sooner than mere global warming, over population or pollution of the environment, however it will steadily worsen the climate changes. The lack of Trees (and plants) to "scrub" CO2 from the Atmosphere is also creating a "greenhouse gas canopy" (G2C) in the upper atmosphere, causing heat to be retained by the atmosphere, leading to climate change in a variety of ways which has been so eloquently elaborated on by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Adding to the complex problem specifically is the clearing of rainforests, over 20% of these crucial rainforest areas are now gone. These dense zones of Trees and Plants are in constant danger from the spread of civilization and industry. When I say dense, I am talking about thousands of trees and plants per acre compared to perhaps hundreds in our forests.
So how much oxygen is left? The atmosphere contains about 1.3 x 10(to the power of 14) tons today vs. 2.0 x 10(to the power of 14) 500 years ago. You also have to realize that in the atmosphere strong ionizing cosmic radiation causes the production of ozone and atomic oxygen within the stratosphere. The ozone layer protects the biosphere effectively from short-wave UV-radiation. All of the remaining oxygen in the atmosphere means absolutely nothing if we can’t get it into our lungs in the proper ratio.
If we do nothing to increase the number of forests and trees within 50 years, by then it will be too late to do anything about. It will be like a runaway train with no brakes, since tree growth and fundamental reforestation in nature without our help could take hundreds of years. Once oxygen drops below the critical level, humanity will simply start dying off until the ratio of trees to humans (T2H2A) to Algae balances off. We have to equalize the ratios (called: the Perfect Climate) to achieve proper ratios, which would also have the secondary effect of reducing the impact of Industrial Carbon / CO2 to a manageable one.
If the citizens of this planet could aggressively rally to reforest the lost 10 billion acres iin the next 50 years, the earth's atmosphere would be vastly improved, with 33% higher oxygen and reduction in CO2 and CO by 85%. Simultaneously, the Oceans would also improve, with reduction in CO2 and acidity that is greatly imperiling Ocean Coral Reefs, plant life and sea creatures of all kind. Such would more than quintuple the success rate of Ocean based fish reproduction, creating larger volumes of edible fish than existed at the time of Christopher Columbus, a boon for solving the Human Hunger problems.
This can only be done using a "planting factor" of about 100 to 294 trees to an acre…and we need to plant trees in an area the size of Africa. To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, check out how many country’s land masses would fit into Africa.
Saving the world starts…saving humanity…starts right in this very room:
1. Get the word out. Tell everyone you know
2. Form a coalition. It will take the concerted effort of all humans. People, business, science and government need to ally to solve this.
3. Effect Change. Start with your own yard, join planting groups, contact the Forestry Department, write Ottawa.
4. Monitor and Guide. Join an association that monitors this and stay involved to do your part.
5. Adjust and Compensate for Errors Made. Understand that there are a vast array of problems and priorities. Don’t become a vigilanty. Use gentle persuasion.
So…Let me ask you another question…would you mind if I reduced the amount of oxygen in this room in order to save money and even to perhaps to give it to some new members of my growing family? Hmmm, I didn’t think that would go over so well.
Friday, January 4, 2008
THE NEW DAWN OF SOLAR
GREEN TECH 2007 Award winner - NANOSOLAR POWERSHEET
Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Just a coating, thin as a layer of paint, that takes light and converts it to electricity. From there, you can picture roof shingles with solar cells built inside and window coatings that seem to suck power from the air. Consider solar-powered buildings stretching not just across sunny Southern California, but through China and India and Kenya as well, because even in those countries, going solar will be cheaper than burning coal. That’s the promise of thin-film solar cells: solar power that’s ubiquitous because it’s cheap. The basic technology has been around for decades, but this year, Silicon Valley–based Nanosolar created the manufacturing technology that could make that promise a reality.
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. With backing from Google’s founders and $20 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, Nanosolar’s first commercial cells rolled off the presses this year.
To read more, click here: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Just a coating, thin as a layer of paint, that takes light and converts it to electricity. From there, you can picture roof shingles with solar cells built inside and window coatings that seem to suck power from the air. Consider solar-powered buildings stretching not just across sunny Southern California, but through China and India and Kenya as well, because even in those countries, going solar will be cheaper than burning coal. That’s the promise of thin-film solar cells: solar power that’s ubiquitous because it’s cheap. The basic technology has been around for decades, but this year, Silicon Valley–based Nanosolar created the manufacturing technology that could make that promise a reality.
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. With backing from Google’s founders and $20 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, Nanosolar’s first commercial cells rolled off the presses this year.
To read more, click here: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
MiningWatch Canada Policy Statement on Uranium Mining
Tuesday December 11, 2007 03:54 PM
Uranium mining is a highly contentious issue across Canada and globally. Uranium mining, from exploration through to mining, processing, and eventual decommissioning, is risky and dangerous to the environment, wildlife, local peoples and communities, and workers.
Uranium is used for three purposes: weaponry, medical and scientific technology, and energy. MiningWatch Canada believes that there is no public support in Canada for the use of uranium for weaponry, and that medical and scientific technology uses could be well served by existing stockpiles of uranium.
The use of uranium for energy purposes is complex and contentious:
The efficiencies, sustainability, costs, and benefits of nuclear energy must be considered and weighed against the efficiencies, sustainability, costs, and benefits of other energy sources (for example: gas, oil, coal, wind, and thermal), and against greatly enhanced conservation.
The opportunity costs of the use of non renewable fuels (for example: coal, oil, and gas) for energy must be considered and weighed.
The very serious short and long term waste management issues and risks of nuclear energy must be considered and weighed. At this point, there is no proven or publicly accepted technology for managing the long term risks.
The risks of nuclear energy (for example: terrorist attacks and serious failures of nuclear plants) must be considered and weighed, particularly as these risks have far wider public impacts beyond the impacts on local environments, wildlife, people, and communities.
Arguments have been made that nuclear energy is environmentally “clean and green”. While this may be true at the point of burning processed uranium as a fuel, the nuclear industry, seen as a whole, is not clean, nor green. It does contribute to green house gas emissions.
There is no public consensus across Canadian society about overall energy policy, nor about nuclear energy as a key or primary part of public energy policy.
MiningWatch Canada takes the position that there should be a total moratorium on uranium exploration and new uranium mines across Canada until such time as:
There is a full, well informed, and serious public debate and national consensus regarding energy policy, and the role of nuclear energy as part of this overall energy policy;
The destructive environmental legacy of past and existing uranium mining has been cleaned up and permanently neutralized, and the people who have suffered injury to their health from involvement in or exposure to uranium mining and processing have been adequately compensated individually and collectively; and
There is a sound, long term, economically feasible, scientifically demonstrated, and publicly acceptable means of isolating radioactive wastes (from the mining, processing, and use of uranium) from the environment and from human communities.
Uranium exploration and mining creates serious negative short and long term impacts on the environment and on individuals and local communities.
MiningWatch Canada takes the position, as it does with all exploration and mining, that these impacts must be minimized and mitigated against, no matter what the public benefits of uranium may be.
Uranium mining is a highly contentious issue across Canada and globally. Uranium mining, from exploration through to mining, processing, and eventual decommissioning, is risky and dangerous to the environment, wildlife, local peoples and communities, and workers.
Uranium is used for three purposes: weaponry, medical and scientific technology, and energy. MiningWatch Canada believes that there is no public support in Canada for the use of uranium for weaponry, and that medical and scientific technology uses could be well served by existing stockpiles of uranium.
The use of uranium for energy purposes is complex and contentious:
The efficiencies, sustainability, costs, and benefits of nuclear energy must be considered and weighed against the efficiencies, sustainability, costs, and benefits of other energy sources (for example: gas, oil, coal, wind, and thermal), and against greatly enhanced conservation.
The opportunity costs of the use of non renewable fuels (for example: coal, oil, and gas) for energy must be considered and weighed.
The very serious short and long term waste management issues and risks of nuclear energy must be considered and weighed. At this point, there is no proven or publicly accepted technology for managing the long term risks.
The risks of nuclear energy (for example: terrorist attacks and serious failures of nuclear plants) must be considered and weighed, particularly as these risks have far wider public impacts beyond the impacts on local environments, wildlife, people, and communities.
Arguments have been made that nuclear energy is environmentally “clean and green”. While this may be true at the point of burning processed uranium as a fuel, the nuclear industry, seen as a whole, is not clean, nor green. It does contribute to green house gas emissions.
There is no public consensus across Canadian society about overall energy policy, nor about nuclear energy as a key or primary part of public energy policy.
MiningWatch Canada takes the position that there should be a total moratorium on uranium exploration and new uranium mines across Canada until such time as:
There is a full, well informed, and serious public debate and national consensus regarding energy policy, and the role of nuclear energy as part of this overall energy policy;
The destructive environmental legacy of past and existing uranium mining has been cleaned up and permanently neutralized, and the people who have suffered injury to their health from involvement in or exposure to uranium mining and processing have been adequately compensated individually and collectively; and
There is a sound, long term, economically feasible, scientifically demonstrated, and publicly acceptable means of isolating radioactive wastes (from the mining, processing, and use of uranium) from the environment and from human communities.
Uranium exploration and mining creates serious negative short and long term impacts on the environment and on individuals and local communities.
MiningWatch Canada takes the position, as it does with all exploration and mining, that these impacts must be minimized and mitigated against, no matter what the public benefits of uranium may be.
Nova Scotia backing away from moratorium on uranium mining.
From the following press release from Capella Resources, it is clear that the Nova Scotia government is backing away from its commitment to a uranium ban in that province without making it public.
#1 September 6, 2007 News Release from Capella Resources on Canada Newswire.
Corporate Update from the President of Capella Resources VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 6 /CNW/ - CAPELLA RESOURCES LTD.
(TSX VENTURE:CPS) ("Capella" or the "Company") has been active in Atlantic Canada since acquiring Tripple Uranium Resources Inc. ("Tripple Uranium") in June. Capella's management is also actively seeking potential acquisitions to add to the Company's portfolio of prospects in order to build its asset base and at the same time increase shareholder value.
With the acquisition of Tripple Uranium came a group of geologists and field personnel that have proven to be a great asset to the Company. In addition to the acquisition of Tripple Uranium, Capella has taken further steps to build its asset base by closing a $10 million financing and conducting an extensive exploration program in Atlantic Canada (as outlined below). While the stock markets overall, and uranium stocks in particular,
have experienced a decline, Capella's management believes that the current share price does not reflect the current status of the Company.
In June, Capella began an extensive exploration program on its 407,000 hectares in Atlantic Canada (see the Company's news release dated August 15, 2007, posted on SEDAR at www.sedar.com). To date, Capella has drilled 10 holes on its Wentworth property in Nova Scotia, and the Company is awaiting results and expects the same by mid-September. Capella's two drill rigs that were working in Nova Scotia were sent to Labrador in August to explore the Company's Kanairktok River property, which is east-northeast of the joint venture between Universal Uranium Ltd. and Silver Spruce Resources Inc. in the Labrador Central Mineral Belt.
Capella has secured two additional drill rigs for its drilling program. One drill rig is heading to Nova Scotia to complete the Company's 7,000-meter program and the other drill rig will be heading to New Brunswick. Evaluation of these properties continues, with diamond drilling planned in early September. Drilling on both the Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick properties will continue throughout the winter. At the peak of Capella's 2007 summer drill program the Company had 24 geologists with field crews working on its various properties.
Capella's claims in Atlantic Canada represent approximately one million acres of land, or approximately 1,574 square miles, making Capella one of the leading land holders in Atlantic Canada.
#1 September 6, 2007 News Release from Capella Resources on Canada Newswire.
Corporate Update from the President of Capella Resources VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 6 /CNW/ - CAPELLA RESOURCES LTD.
(TSX VENTURE:CPS) ("Capella" or the "Company") has been active in Atlantic Canada since acquiring Tripple Uranium Resources Inc. ("Tripple Uranium") in June. Capella's management is also actively seeking potential acquisitions to add to the Company's portfolio of prospects in order to build its asset base and at the same time increase shareholder value.
With the acquisition of Tripple Uranium came a group of geologists and field personnel that have proven to be a great asset to the Company. In addition to the acquisition of Tripple Uranium, Capella has taken further steps to build its asset base by closing a $10 million financing and conducting an extensive exploration program in Atlantic Canada (as outlined below). While the stock markets overall, and uranium stocks in particular,
have experienced a decline, Capella's management believes that the current share price does not reflect the current status of the Company.
In June, Capella began an extensive exploration program on its 407,000 hectares in Atlantic Canada (see the Company's news release dated August 15, 2007, posted on SEDAR at www.sedar.com). To date, Capella has drilled 10 holes on its Wentworth property in Nova Scotia, and the Company is awaiting results and expects the same by mid-September. Capella's two drill rigs that were working in Nova Scotia were sent to Labrador in August to explore the Company's Kanairktok River property, which is east-northeast of the joint venture between Universal Uranium Ltd. and Silver Spruce Resources Inc. in the Labrador Central Mineral Belt.
Capella has secured two additional drill rigs for its drilling program. One drill rig is heading to Nova Scotia to complete the Company's 7,000-meter program and the other drill rig will be heading to New Brunswick. Evaluation of these properties continues, with diamond drilling planned in early September. Drilling on both the Nova Scotia and the New Brunswick properties will continue throughout the winter. At the peak of Capella's 2007 summer drill program the Company had 24 geologists with field crews working on its various properties.
Capella's claims in Atlantic Canada represent approximately one million acres of land, or approximately 1,574 square miles, making Capella one of the leading land holders in Atlantic Canada.
The Southeast Chapter of CCNB needs you!
Southeast New Brunswick has a voice from the grassroots that promotes a cleaner environment and positive changes to combat global warming. The Southeast Chapter of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick is that voice. We work in partnership with the other organizations in the area dedicated to getting the message out to the public through announcements, initiatives and events throughout the year. The recent highly successful March on Climate Change on December 8 was one of our initiatives, in partnership with the Council of Canadians.
The Chapter meets the first Wednesday of every month at the Moncton Press Club on Assumption Blvd. The next meeting is January 9, 2008 - Come add your voice.
The Chapter meets the first Wednesday of every month at the Moncton Press Club on Assumption Blvd. The next meeting is January 9, 2008 - Come add your voice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)