1.1 Bisphenol A in the news again.
1.2 GM Food and Free Trade Agreements.
1.3 Wanton use of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers could destroy Earth.
1.4 Environment Largely Unmentioned in State of the Union.
2.1 Why Obama should stop pushing nuclear energy on India
2.2 Our only world
2.3 These are the Most Toxic Places on Earth
----------------
1.1 Bisphenol A in the news again (14/1/2015)
Bisphenol A — the banned-from-baby-bottles
chemical found in food-can linings, some plastic containers, paper
receipts and in the bodies of 95 per cent of adults and kids in North
America — is in the news again. This time, just as the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration declared that BPA levels in food were safe, an
important new study says the chemical can boost blood pressure. That
doesn't mean you should panic.
A growing stack of human studies highlights
associations between BPA exposure and risk for fertility problems,
diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, liver and kidney problems,
obesity and inflammation. These studies can't conclude that BPA causes
these problems. But one new study from Seoul National University College
of Medicine in South Korea draws a more direct connection. When
volunteers drank two servings of soy milk from cans lined with a
BPA-containing epoxy, their blood pressure increased an average of five
points. BP didn't go up when volunteers drank soy milk from glass
bottles.
At the heart of the BPA controversy: A
roiling scientific debate over whether our exposure levels are safe, or
too high. We'll know more when a major, government-funded study ends in a
few years. For now, these steps can help you sidestep BPA:
Eat fresh. Packaged food is the biggest source of BPA exposure for most people. ...
http://www.thespec.com/living-story/5255296-bpa-and-your-health-should-you-worry-/
Many of us have read the studies about bisphenol-A, and know the chemical is best avoided when it comes to
drinking containers,
baby bottles,
canned foods and
thermal paper.
The chemical, also known as BPA, has been linked to everything from
obesity and diabetes
to attention-deficit disorder and asthma. When a slew of new products
branded "BPA-free" hit the market amid public outcry a few years back,
many thought the problem solved.
But a damning new study from
scientists at the University of Calgary has found that the supposed
remedy -- a chemical similar to BPA called bisphenol-S -- may be just as
bad for your health. The researchers, including corresponding author
Dr. Deborah M. Kurrasch, end the paper urging for "a societal push to remove all bisphenols from our consumer goods." ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/bpa-free-bps_n_6465214.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=India
1.1 GM Food and Free Trade Agreements (14/1/2015)
Germany’s Environment Ministry is hoping for a complete ban on green
genetic engineering, but a Green party assessment warns that upcoming
free trade agreements like TTIP and CETA could still bring genetically
modified plants to the European market.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/agriculture-food/german-environment-ministry-seeks-unconditional-gmo-ban-311238
1.1 Wanton use of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer could destroy Earth
(18/1/2015)
The director of the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Professor Stephen Carpenter has decried the wanton use of
artificial fertilizers like phosphorus and nitrogen as going beyond the
“planetary boundaries” set to make our Earth inhabitable.
... The Earth was a much better place to live during the Holocene period,
because civilization improved the lot of man and the period was
conducive to refined development in social, political and religious
aspects. “Everything important to civilisation,” Carpenter contends,
took place prior to 1914. “The development of agriculture, the rise and
fall of the Roman Empire and the Industrial Revolution” were some of the
best thing that happened to our world – until about 100 years ago when
the activities of man began to destroy the earth.
... “We’ve (people) changed nitrogen and phosphorus cycles vastly more than
any other element. (The increase) is on the order of 200 to 300
percent. In contrast, carbon has only been increased 10 to 20 percent
and look at all the uproar that has caused in the climate.”
... The researchers stated that the use of artificial phosphorus and
nitrogen to boost agriculture in the US is unnecessary because the land
is already blessed with rich nutrients beneficial for bumper harvests; he
added that the excessive use of these elements in a land already rich
with them has an impact on the Earth and pushing the inhabitability of
the earth beyond “planetary boundaries.”
Since phosphorus and nitrogen do not have even distribution in the
soil, it is richer in the United States than in places like Africa,
hence the problem Africans face with growing food without artificial
fertilizers. “We’ve got certain parts of the world that are overpolluted
with nitrogen and phosphorus, and others where people don’t even have
enough to grow the food they need,” he says.
http://thewestsidestory.net/2015/01/17/27316/wanton-use-phosphorus-nitrogen-fertilizers-destroy-earth/
------------
Truely
surprising. Doesn't USA have the technology to measure the Nitrogen and
Phosphorus content in the soil? If this is the condition in USA, what
will be the condition in the rest of the world.
The attitude
towards fertilizer application in our own area of Kanyakumari District
may be summarized by the advise I once got 'thuki podunga sir, urea
thuki podunga' (Dump as much Urea - nitrogen - as possible).
There
was a time when rubber cultivators in Kanyakumari Dist. were dumping as
much as 2 Kg of fertilizer / tree / year, when the required amount was
about 1 Kg - simply due to confusion in the recommendation from the
Rubber Board. The recommendation from the Rubber Board to apply about
1Kg in two installments / year was interpreted as 1Kg in each
installment.
Nowadays the Rubber Board strongly recommends
discriminatory fertilizer application to be done after testing the soil.
After we started testing our soil before applying fertilizer, our
fertilizer application / tree has come down to 0.6 Kg / tree / year.
Unfortunately most farmers are still to make use of this facility
provided by the Rubber Board, so much so that the soil testing labs run
by the Rubber Board in Kanyakumari District have been closed down and
one has to go to Nedumankadu near Trivandrum (Kerala) to have samples
tested.
Recently we had some doubt regarding the quality of Rock
Phosphorous fertilizer that we were using. When we approached the
government testing facility in Nagercoil to test the fertilizer for us,
they refused to test it, stating that they would have to obtain the
fertilizer themselves from the shop that sold the fertilizer to us. When
we explained that we only wanted to know the composition of the
fertilizer, we were not making any complaints, and we were prepared to
pay for the tests, they refused to entertain our request.
We need
soil (and fertilizer) testing facilities to dot every region of our
country, to test for not only the main nutrients, Nitrogen, Phosphorous
and Potassium, but also micronutrients.
I. Selvaraj, IITM, 72
1.1 Environment Largely Unmentioned in State of the Union (22/1/2015)
If you were hoping to hear something from
President Barack Obama about clean water, endangered species, air
quality in our poorest communities, or habitat protection, you went away
disappointed Tuesday night: the environment was essentially a no-show
in the 2015 State of the Union Speech.
That's not to say that no environmental issues at all were mentioned
in Tuesday's address: the President did devote a few moments of his
speech to mentioning climate change. But even adding that mention
together with an oblique reference to the controversial Keystone oil
pipeline, approved by the House of Representatives on January 9, and a
quick speculative mention of alternative fuels, President Obama devoted
less than five percent of his 2015 State of The Union to the
environment.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/environment-largely-unmentioned-in-state-of-the-union.html
-----------
Let's say we had a human habitat on the Moon or
Mars, there is no way we could ignore our environment. We would have to
keep close track of all our resources and the manner in which waste was
generated and recycled, if we were to survive.
It is only on
Planet Earth that in the past we were able to abuse our environment as a
source of infinite resources and a place to dump our infinite waste.
This is no longer possible.
If we are to survive as a species
there is an urgent necessity to rejig our Religious, Scientific,
Engineering, Educational and Political conversation around our
environment. By thinking clearly and thinking together we have a better
chance of solving our problems, most of which will hinge around our
environment.
Over the next fifty to hundred years we will
also be operating in a crisis mode, with our burgeoning population and
diminishing resources and issues such as Global Warming. We need a tacit
understanding to keep our differences - religious, related to national
boundaries, social, ethnic, etc. - at bay, so that we can give our
undivided attention to important issues.
I. Selvaraj, IITM, 72
2.1 Why Obama should stop pushing nuclear energy on India (3/2/2015)
The White House is claiming victory for a
breakthrough
in the impasse with India over nuclear energy. Indian laws have held
suppliers, designers and builders of nuclear plants liable in case of an
accident and this made U.S. companies fearful of doing business there.
During his recent trip, President Obama persuaded India’s government to
create an insurance pool to compensate victims of a potential disaster
and to cap the liabilities of companies supplying the technology.
This
is hardly a victory for the United States or for India. It no longer
makes sense for any country to install a technology that can create a
catastrophe such as Chernobyl or Fukushima — especially when far better
alternatives are available. Technologies such as solar and wind are
advancing so rapidly that by the time the first new nuclear reactors are
installed in India, they will be less costly than nuclear energy. Most
importantly, the alternative technologies are cleaner and safer.
Take
solar energy, which has become a political hot potato in the United
States because of Obama’s support of solar companies that failed.
Critics are arguing that solar is inefficient, too expensive to install,
and unreliable, and will fail without government subsidies. They argue
that after decades of development, solar power hardly supplies 1 percent
of the world’s energy needs and that we need to double our bets on
fossil fuels and nuclear. But they are simply wrong.
Solar power has been doubling every two years for the past 30 years — as costs have been dropping. At this rate, solar is
only six doublings
— or less than 14 years — away from meeting practically all of today’s
energy needs. Even with this, we will be using only one part in 10,000
of the sunlight that falls on the Earth. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/02/02/why-obama-should-stop-pushing-nuclear-energy-on-india/
-------------
Asking India to set up an insurance pool and India accepting the same is absurd.
Are
we expecting a nuclear meltdown every other day? If there is radiation
fallout from Kudankulam, it will affect not only Indians but also Sri
Lankans. A favourable wind could easily carry radiation to Colombo.
Worse situations will exist in Europe, where radiation will easily cross
national boundaries.
If nuclear power is to be promoted, we must
recognize that we all inhabit an increasingly shrinking planet where
what one nation does affects other nations. Hence:
1. A common worldwide insurance cover (with unlimited liability) must be provided to all power plants registered with the IAEA.
2.
IAEA must beef up its technical capabilities so that the kind of
mistakes that occurred in Fukushima do not occur. They must live up to
their initial boast that a nuclear disaster can take place only once in a
million years!
I. Selvaraj, IITM, 72
2.2 Our only world (13/2/2015)
The 10 essays in "Our Only World" convey outrage over environmental and
community ruin while also expressing hope that the very species that
inflicted such harm is capable of doing better. Stern but compassionate,
author Wendell Berry raises broader issues that environmentalists
rarely focus on.
.... Berry expands on that theme in "On Being Asked for 'A Narrative for the
Future'" which considers the harms from global warming. He writes that
"Millions of environmentalists and wilderness preservers are dependably
worried about climate change. But they are not conversant with nature's
laws, they know and care nothing about land use." He adds, "We must
understand that fossil fuel energy must be replaced, not just by 'clean'
energy, but also by less energy. ... If we had a limitless supply of
free, nonpolluting energy, we would use the world up even faster than we
are using it up now."
Berry challenges the assumption that
higher education
always makes sense, arguing that for the culture and people of rural
communities to prosper "we must reconsider the purpose, the worth, and
the cost of education — especially of higher education, which too often
leads away from home, and too often graduates its customers into
unemployment or debt or both."
... Berry persuasively argues that a healthy environment ultimately requires
healthy communities filled with spiritually healthy people. Whether the
issue is global warming, good jobs for young people, or good marriages,
Berry writes that "If we want to save the land, we must save the people
who belong to the land. If we want to save the people, we must save the
land the people belong to."
In one sense Berry is the voice of a rural agrarian tradition that stretches from rural
Kentucky
back to the origins of human civilization. But his insights are
universal because "Our Only World" is filled with beautiful,
compassionate writing and careful, profound thinking.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/world-reflects-people-environment-28915679
http://www.amazon.in/Our-Only-World-Eleven-Essays/dp/1619024888
2.3 These are the Most Toxic Places on Earth (17/2/2015)
Over the last 100 years or so, humanity
has made astounding technological advances at an overwhelming pace.
These advances in science and technology may have made our lives easier
and more exciting, but the trail of waste we have left (and still
continue to leave) behind is simply horrendous. Pollutants of all kinds –
chemical, nuclear, basic garbage, electronic waste – have seriously
ruined our environment. Many locations have been so drastically impacted
that living in them is a near impossibility. Chernobyl, Ukraine is a
great example, the town witnessed the worst nuclear power plant accident
in human history and since then has been an uninhabitable ghost town.
Although this list doesn’t feature
any locations in the United States, they do exist. There are a number of
sites that have been declared extremely toxic such as Love Canal, New
York, Tar Creek, Oklahoma, and Gowanus Canal, New York. A recent case
for alarm is a practice called Hydraulic Fracturing, or Fracking, which
is a perfect example of modern day methods that have been linked to
pollution of water and air. Mountaintop Removal is another controversial
practice that is known to tarnish local water and wildlife.
Hazaribagh is an area of Dhaka city, the
capital of Bangladesh, and is principally known for its tannery industry
and large leather processing zone. Currently, 270 registered tanneries
operate here employing between 8,000-12,000 people.
In 2013, the Zurich-based Green Cross
Switzerland and the New York-based Blacksmith Institute published a
report on the most polluted places in the world. The report “The Top Ten
Toxic Threats, Clean Up, Progress and Ongoing Challenges,” puts
Hazaribagh at number five. Each day in Hazaribaugh, more than 5,000
gallons of hexavalent chromium is dumped into the Buriganga river. A
known carcinogen, when inhaled at high levels hexavalent chromium can
also burn a hole through the septum, the nasal wall that seperates the
nostrils. Direct contact with the toxic chemical can damage the eyes and
cause sores to erupt in skin.
But the district is not solely industrial.
Most of the 185,000 residents of this area work in the factories and
tanneries. They are very poor, and are forced to live in the highly
contaminated surroundings. Local children and teenagers work in the
factories in direct contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child, which prohibits hazardous work for youth under the age of 18.
The residents of Hazaribagh and the
adjacent areas rely on the extremely contaminated Buriganga river as
their primary water source. The surrounding ecosystem is relentlessly
spoiled. Fish and other organisms are barely present, the water infected
with poisonous chemicals and waste. The drains, canals and the river
Buriganga all lost the ability to host aquatic species long ago. Yet the
people of Hazaribaugh must continue to use the fetid water, breathe the
densely polluted air and endure the horrible stench. FSRN’s Tithe
Farhana visited Hazaribagh and brought back these photos.
http://fsrn.org/2014/09/slideshow-hazardous-hazaribagh-one-of-the-worlds-most-polluted-places/
3.1 The end of shop class (1/1/2015)
