DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 21, 2014, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Air Force aircraft returned from Vietnam identified as postwar
source of Agent Orange contamination
From 1971-1982 Air Force reservists, who flew in about 34
dioxin-contaminated aircraft used to spray Agent Orange and
returned to the US following discontinuation of the herbicide
spraying operations in the Vietnam War, were exposed greater
levels of dioxin than previously acknowledged, according to a
study published today in Environmental Research.
"These findings are important because they describe a previously
unrecognized source of exposure to dioxin that has health
significance to those who engaged in the transport work using
these aircraft," says lead investigator Peter A. Lurker, PhD,
PE, CIH, an environmental engineer with many years of experience
evaluating environmental exposures in the Air Force.
During the Vietnam War, in an operation known as "Operation
Ranch Hand," approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides,
including around 10.5 million gallons of dioxin-contaminated
Agent Orange, were sprayed by about 34 C-123 aircraft. These
aircraft were subsequently returned to the US and were used by
Air Force reserve units between 1971 and 1982 for transport
operations. After many years without monitoring, tests revealed
the presence of dioxin (also known as TCDD). All but three of
the aircraft were smelted down in 2009.
The Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs have previously
denied benefits to these crew members. Current policies
stipulate that "non-biologically available dried residues" of
chemical herbicides and dioxin would not have led to meaningful
exposures to flight crew and maintenance personnel, who are
therefore ineligible for Agent Orange-related benefits or
medical examinations and treatment.
Researchers estimated dioxin body burden using modeling
algorithms developed by the US Army and data derived from
surface wipe samples collected from aircraft used in Operation
Ranch Hand. They compared estimates with available guidelines
and standards and discuss the implications with respect to
current Air Force and VA policies.
These models suggest that the potential for dioxin exposure to
personnel working in the aircraft post-Vietnam is greater than
previously believed and that inhalation, ingestion, and skin
absorption were likely to have occurred during post-Vietnam use
of the aircraft by aircrew and maintenance staff. The estimated
dermal and oral exposure exceeded US standards. The estimated
airborne contamination exceeded the only available (German)
standard.
"Our findings, the results of three different modelling
approaches, contrast with Air Force and VA conclusions and
policies," concludes senior author Jeanne Mager Stellman, PhD,
Professor Emerita of Health Policy and Management at the Mailman
School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York. "The VA
concept of a 'dried residue' that is biologically unavailable is
not consistent with widely accepted theories of the behavior of
surface residues. Aircraft occupants would have been exposed to
airborne dioxin-contaminated dust as well as come into direct
skin contact, and our models show that the level of exposure is
likely to have exceeded several available exposure guidelines."
Explore further: Agent Orange linked to skin cancer risk
More information: "Post Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in
UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft," by Peter A. Lurker, Fred
Berman, Richard W. Clapp, Jeanne Mager Stellman. Environmental
Research, published online on February 21 (Volume 130, 2014),
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.02.004
Journal reference: Environmental Research search and more info
HTML http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-02-air-aircraft-vietnam-postwar-source.html#nRlv
#Post#: 809--------------------------------------------------
Population is NOT the problem; 20% using 80% of the Resources
IS!
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 26, 2014, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260214201233.png
#Post#: 815--------------------------------------------------
The Onion takes on Monsanto
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 27, 2014, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Onion takes on Monsanto
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
By Holly Richmond
--- Quote ---
> Agricultural biotech giant Monsanto unveiled its latest strain
of genetically modified corn Wednesday, claiming that the new,
hardier seed yields 400 percent more litigation against small
independent farms than the company’s previous GMO products.
--- End Quote ---
;D
HTML http://grist.org/list/the-onion-takes-on-monsanto/
#Post#: 835--------------------------------------------------
Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 28, 2014, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
02/28/2014 02:25 PM
Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg
SustainableBusiness.com News
Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's foundation is making the
largest philanthropic donation ever to help the world's oceans,
specifically to reform fisheries management.
Over the next five years, Bloomberg Philanthropies will donate
$53 million to nonprofits Oceana, Rare, and EKO, which will
simultaneously attack persistent problems that plague our oceans
and are leading to collapsing fish species across the world.
Under the Vibrant Oceans Initiative, the three groups will
focus on boosting fish populations in Chile, Brazil, and the
Philippines, which better practices would revitalize 7% of the
world's fisheries. Models developed there will hopefully turn
into policies that can be applied to many other countries.
There are three major causes of overfishing:
•Industrial fishing is too big - ships can catch twice the fish
that exist in the ocean! Inadequate or nonexistent quotas allow
species to be depleted to the point where they can't recover
>:(
•industrial bottom trawling, dynamiting and cyanide fishing,
which destroy complete habitats >:(
•bycatch - capturing many unintended species including sea
turtles and dolphins. >:(
"The good news is that marine ecosystems can rebound relatively
quickly if caught in time. The factors that led to mismanagement
must be addressed now to replenish fish populations and to help
meet the dietary needs of a growing global population," says
Bloomberg Philanthropies.
These problems have been known for decades but have yet to be
resolved. With over 80% of the world's fisheries either
exploited or threatened, Oceana will work with national
governments on policies that reform industrial fishing
practices, such as science-based quotas and bycatch.
Because 12 million local fisherman catch roughly the same
amount of fish, Rare will simultaneously help local governments
and coastal communities implement sustainable small-scale
practices. One reform will be to offer exclusive fishing rights
in exchange for creating marine preserves as California,
Australia and Costa Rica have done.
EKO Asset Management is developing an investment model where
private capital can reward fisheries that transition to
sustainable practices.
With the oceans reeling from absorbing much of humanity's carbon
emissions, reigning in pressure on fish and their habitats is
one of the few ways to make a difference. As climate change
advances and it becomes harder to grow food on land, a healthy
fish population could make a huge difference.
Bloomberg Philanthropies has made the same $50 million
commitment to end the reign of coal with the goal of shuttering
a third of aging coal plants by 2020 in the US. Their other big
environmental initiative is $20 million to help cities tackle
climate change through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Another emerging threat to oceans is mass industrialization of
deep sea ecosystems as people figure out how to mine for
minerals there. "Without international cooperation with a focus
on 'deep-ocean stewardship,' deep sea mining will follow the
destructive examples set by commercial fishing and offshore
fossil fuel operations, say scientists.
Incredibly, a group called the International Seabed Authority
has already issued 19 prospecting licenses to governments and
private companies. >:(
Graphic of Marine Preserves in Northern California at link:
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25552
#Post#: 845--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Kolbert reports from the frontlines of a dying world
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: March 1, 2014, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In “The Sixth Extinction,” Elizabeth Kolbert reports from the
frontlines of a dying world :(
By Grist staff
The New Yorker writer and acclaimed author Elizabeth Kolbert has
a penchant for depressing topics. Her 2006 book, Field Notes
from a Catastrophe, helped push climate change into the
mainstream (with bonus points for not mincing words in the
title).
Now that climate change is safely keeping most of us up at
night, Kolbert turned her pen to another big bummer: the sixth
extinction. We’re currently losing species at a rate of 1,000 to
10,000 times higher than unassisted nature wiping out the
occasional newt. While humans weren’t responsible for the last
five mass extinctions, our fingerprints are all over this one.
Yep: We collectively have the force of an asteroid when it comes
to erasing species (high five, guys!) and for the most part, our
response has been classic Urkel.
Kolbert dropped by the Grist office to chat mass extinctions,
climate inaction, and whether there’s any hope (short answer:
no. long answer: probably not). Here’s an edited and condensed
version of our conversation.
Q. How much do scientists attribute the current wave of
extinctions to climate change versus things like deforestation
or chemical pollution or invasive species?
book coverA. The fact of the matter is that there are probably,
right now, no extinctions that can be directly attributed to
climate change. But there are many extinctions that can be
pretty directly attributed to invasive species. So if you are
just chalking things up, invasive species definitely have a big
place.
But people trying to looking into the future with things like
modeling — which may or may not be correct, but we won’t
necessarily be around to see it — tend to project that the
climate is going to become a major driver of extinctions over
this century, for all the obvious reasons.
Q. How do we stack up in the extinctions? Like, wow, the Permian
extinction is way better, but we’re better than the Chicxulub
crater. Are we close to being the best extinction?
A. Well, that’s an unanswerable question, but I will say that
I’ve now had several very serious scientists say to me, “We
cannot rule out an outcome like the end Permian extinction.” If
that ain’t sobering, I don’t know what is.
Q. We’re No. 1?
A. The end Permian extinction was almost certainly caused by a
huge CO2 release, and no one is quite sure from where. And the
scope of it was quite enormous.
We’re not there yet, but if we burn through everything, I think
we could get there. Are we capable of getting there? These are
questions that no one can answer at this point.
Q. It wasn’t until the late 1700s or early 1800s that the
concept of extinction was even thought about. What process led
to that discovery? We now know that there have been five
extinctions to date, so a lot has occurred in 200 years in terms
of our awareness.
A. As Europeans colonized North America and South America, they
found a lot of fossils. One of the major finds was in the 1730s
by French soldiers who were going down the Ohio River. They come
to this site in what’s now Kentucky and they find mastodon
bones, which they shipped to Paris.
Mastodons are interestingly weird because they have tusks like
elephants, but teeth like people. So they were very confused by
this. People actually speculated that they were two animals that
had died, like a hippo and an elephant. Since they didn’t even
have this concept of extinction they couldn’t really get their
minds around it. (Thomas Jefferson was quite convinced that
Lewis and Clark were going to find mastodons.)
People played around with it for a long time until this French
naturalist, who’s sort of a main character in the book, came
along. [Georges Cuvier] made this (what we would consider) not
very scientific observation that if these animals were out
there, we would have seen them already, so they were gone. He
made that logical leap of faith. And he was right! He was the
first person to really theorize extinction.
Q. There have been five extinctions, and each time Mother Nature
has brought things back in a different direction — so can’t you
see some hope in that? It may not involve humans.
A. If you take the really long view, yeah. Really long. Super
long. People make this point about the planet. Well, the
non-living planet will be fine. Even most microbial life will be
fine, and what are we worried about? Vertebrates? People have
said to me, “If the dinosaurs hadn’t been done in, we wouldn’t
be here.” That is most certainly true, yeah, but it did take 66
million years, and for a while if you’d been around — I wasn’t
there — it would have been pretty grim.
The end Permian didn’t do in life on Earth, and we will not do
in life on Earth, but I think most people have a hard time
seeing that — something that not even their most distant
descendants will be around to see — as a hopeful thing.
Geologists take that sort of view.
Q. On the scale of bummed-outed-ness, which one of your books
caused you to be the most depressed? Your previous book, Field
Notes from a Catastrophe, is probably one of the most important
books written on climate change to date, and really helped
introduced the topic to a whole new range of readers.
A. For Field Notes, I interviewed a lot of the country’s top
climate scientists, and they all agree that [climate change] is
a pretty clear and present danger to human society. And yet, we
can’t seem to come to terms with that at all. So it seemed to me
that a species that can’t even do the sort of things that seem
to be called for, for its own self, is that species really going
to do the things called for everything else on the planet?
It’s maybe a little bit of writerly vanity — you say, OK, I’m
going to put this out there and it true and it’s going to make a
difference. The same year that my book came out, An Inconvenient
Truth came out. It had a huge impact, but — what happened?
Nothing happened. So I was already pretty bummed out, I guess.
Q. You visited different natural places around the world. What
was your favorite thing that you encountered?
A. I’d say the most astonishing place I went was the Great
Barrier Reef. I got to go to this very tiny island — the islands
on the Reef are built out of the reef, the height of a table,
basically, they’re very low and they’re all made out of coral —
and they’re spectacularly beautiful. This tiny little research
station was on this island. Going out on the reef — you know,
you see nature movies and stuff — it’s even better than the
nature movies. Unfortunately I don’t dive, but even just
snorkeling was amazing. You never have access to that on land,
you never see that many different living creatures. Even if you
were in the middle of the Amazon, you’d just see leaves! But
when you’re looking underwater, it’s just spectacular. And as
you know — I was out there with a bunch of scientists studying
ocean acidification — the prognosis for reefs is really, really
grim.
Q. You also write about some efforts to save species. Could you
share some of those?
A. I happened to go to the San Diego Zoo, where they have a very
impressive conservation program. I was there to see something
called the “frozen zoo.” It’s just a bunch of vats of liquid
nitrogen with cell lines from, in many cases, highly endangered
animals and, in one case, an animal that doesn’t exist anymore,
a Hawaiian bird. The idea is pretty much what it sounds like:
You have these cell lines, you’re going to keep them alive
forever, and eventually people are going to figure out how to
resurrect some of these species. Or maybe if you don’t want to
go quite that sci-fi, we’ll take the cell lines, we’ll do a DNA
analysis, we’ll try to figure out why this population is having
trouble.
They took me to see this bird named Kinohi, one of the last
Hawaiian crows. He’s “reluctant to part with his genetic
material,” let’s put it that way. He had been taken from this
breeding facility on Maui to San Diego, and he is ministered to
by a PhD physiologist who is trying to, let’s say, pleasure this
bird, so that he will give up some sperm, so she can
artificially inseminate a bird back in Maui. When I visited he
had not yet, you know, come through. She was literally preparing
to try again — I don’t know if it has ever worked, I should call
her.
That was really, to me, emblematic of this crazy situation we
find ourselves in. We’re incredibly smart, we’ve figured out how
to freeze cell lines and quite possibly bring back extinct
animals — we’re willing to pleasure crows. And yet, the Hawaiian
Islands are called the extinction capital of the planet — it’s
an absolutely devastated ecosystem. Many, many birds are extinct
already; those that aren’t are just clinging to existence. Those
forces are not changing and, in fact, things are getting worse.
There used to be no mosquitoes in Hawaii; there are now
mosquitoes. They carry avian malaria, and as the climate warms,
avian malaria is moving up the slopes so that even these
refugees species that are high on the mountains are increasingly
not there. A lot of birds are in terrible trouble there.
All of these things are happening at once and, once again,
they’re all true. People are devoting a lot of time and energy
and love to trying to preserve these species, and meanwhile the
world is increasingly screwed up. So that is how I end the book:
They can both be true; it’s not one or the other.
HTML http://grist.org/climate-energy/in-the-sixth-extinction-elizabeth-kolbert-reports-from-the-frontlines-of-a-dying-world/
#Post#: 903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 8, 2014, 12:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brvhCnYvxQQ&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 954--------------------------------------------------
Fracking in America
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 25, 2014, 12:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hERUwnZjI18&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
DIR By: Surly1
Date: April 25, 2014, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you watched any of "Years of Living dangerously" yet?
Just spinning up to speed on what is happening with
deforestation in Indonesia alone tends to put a sober global
perspective on things. I had no idea of the scope of the
destruction, not its impact on global warming, prior to viewing
that.
#Post#: 962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 25, 2014, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there.
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png<br
/>
The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get
to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the
other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let
me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert ;D
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg919/#msg919
#Post#: 968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
DIR By: Surly1
Date: April 26, 2014, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote=AG]Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there.
The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get
to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the
other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let
me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert ;D
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg919/#msg919[/quote]
I watched the first two on cable, but I'll try to keep an eye
out.
BTW, does your "quote" function work properly-- or is is just my
browser?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 88
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page