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)
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/
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/
------------
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/
-----------
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/
-------------
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/
http://www.amazon.in/Our-Only-
2.3 These are the Most Toxic Places on Earth (17/2/2015)
3.1 The end of shop class (1/1/2015)
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-
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/
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-
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/
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/
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/
------------
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/
-----------
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/
-------------
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/
http://www.amazon.in/Our-Only-
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/2014/09/3.1 The end of shop class (1/1/2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment