| LINKS: | Car Sharing Companies are Rising to the Challenge
Car Sharing Network in Canada http://www.autoshare.com/ca/cl.html Car Sharing Network in the United States http://www.flexcar.com |
| "the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels" · graph |
Excerpts from Now Transcript, by Bill Moyers, May 10, 2002 http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript117_full.html) NARRATOR: This week on NOW. Are we poisoning our children? [...] DR. PHILIP LANDRIGAN: To me as a medical detective, the first clue is the increase in the incidence of childhood cancer. That signals that something is going wrong. [...] DR. STEINGRABER: Children have home and garden pesticides in their urine and they're peeing out wood preservatives. Women have termite poisons and toilet deodorizers and flame-retardants in their breast milk. [...] MOYERS: In my lifetime, more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals and metals have been put to use in America. Chemicals, that in many cases, make our lives easier and better. They kill insects and weeds, clean our clothes and carpets, unclog our drains, create produce and lawns, pretty as a picture. [...] DR. LANDRIGAN: Asthma is the leading cause of admission of children to hospital; it's the leading cause of school absenteeism. Cancer, after injuries, is the leading killer of children in the United States. Developmental disabilities are common. They affect anywhere from five to ten percent of all children. Things like attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, autism. [...] MOYERS: Of the 3000 or so high production volume chemicals in use in this country today only 43% have been even minimally tested. Only about 10 percent have been thoroughly tested to examine their potential effects on children's health and development. [...] MOYERS Pesticides can linger indoors for weeks ...sometimes years. Particularly in carpets they can reach concentrations 10 to 100 higher than those found outside. [...] DR. LANDRIGAN: Many of the pesticides in common use, particularly members of the organophosphate family, were deliberately designed to be toxic to the nervous system. They kill insects by poisoning the nervous systems of the insects and they have the same capability in humans. [...] DR. ROBIN WHYATT: There was a study done in 1997 that indicated, in fact, the major use of pesticides in New York State is not occurring in the agricultural communities but is occurring in the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. So we have been monitoring for eight different pesticides and we've so-far completed that for 166 women and all of those women are exposed to at least 3 pesticides and 30 percent of the women have been exposed to all eight. [...] MOYERS: In the late 1970s, Dr. Needleman studied the baby teeth of healthy school children in two Boston suburbs. DR. NEEDLEMAN: Instead of blood we used the tooth, because the tooth is a long-term storage measure. We collected 3,000 teeth from 2500 children and we brought the children with the highest tooth lead levels and the lowest tooth lead levels into our laboratory. Measured a lot of other things, I gave the mother an IQ test. And when we looked at the data we found that the children who had high lead in their teeth � by the way had never been identified as having any problems with lead � had lower IQ scores, poorer language function, and poorer attention. [...] DR. NEEDLEMAN: I don't think there are many public health triumphs as substantial as removing lead from gasoline. In the '70s the mean blood lead, the average blood lead for children was 16. Now it's two or below just because lead was taken out of gasoline. [...] MOYERS: He continues to find links between levels of lead in children's bones and a variety of behavioral problems: including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, aggression, violence and failure in school. [...] ROBYN WARDEN: We had the whole house tested and we had very high concentrations of lead in our carpeting. When the carpet was removed, their lead levels dropped off by half. [...] LESLIE WARDEN: We thought there were laws to protect us. We thought that's what the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency was for. But what we've been told by these agencies is that they don't have any authority to do anything to the company if they're out of compliance. [...] MOYERS: Leslie Warden was astonished to learn that Doe Run had never complied with Federal standards set 24 years ago. The plant had made some progress � but then failed to meet three deadlines set by the EPA. Nonetheless, as long as the company volunteered to try again the government wouldn't penalize it. [...] DR. STEINGRABER: Just because there are no smoke stacks visible around us just because you live a long way away from the source of these chemicals doesn't mean that nature won't bring them to you in some way. When we look inside the body, when we take a look at what's in people's blood, what's in breast milk, what's in their urine, we're seeing, we're seeing the results. |
|
Environment Canada
From http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_mercury_e.cfm
While much of the atmospheric mercury deposited within Canadian territory comes from outside our borders, Canadian emissions are nevertheless important. Domestic initiatives, such as the Canada-wide Standards process, are necessary to ensure that Canada reduces its own releases of mercury into our environment. Mercury and mercury compounds are a significant concern because they are known to cause environmental and health impacts. Everyone is exposed to some level of mercury in air, water and food. In the general population, the major sources of mercury exposure are through fish and shellfish consumption and from dental amalgam. Minor methyl-mercury exposure can occasionally occur from handling contaminated soil or drinking contaminated well water. Mercury bioaccumulates in humans and wildlife such as fish, loons and otters; as a result, governments have set guidelines on the quantity of fish we should consume. The main effects of human exposure to mercury are understood to be neurological and renal (kidney) disturbances. Chronic exposure to mercury, especially the organic form of methyl-mercury, can cause damage to the brain, spinal cord, kidneys, liver and developing fetus. Anthropogenic Sources
Mercury enters the environment during the life cycle of a range of consumer, medical and industrial products such as:
|
| LINKS: | Green Peace
Calculate Your Green House Gas Emissions Tips to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions |
Contrasting Views"Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more [...] Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. [...] Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal, oil and natural gas, and of hydroelectric power. Their interest in solar power, biofuel power, wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy. [...] During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked. Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. This force is led by influential people who understand very well the benefits of abundant usable energy and seek to keep mankind from realizing those benefits � not because they want to save the planet, but because they seek global control. Through the major media and the environmental lobby, the latter heavily funded by huge tax-exempt foundations, they have beguiled millions into believing that too many people and too much technology will cause environmental devastation. Thirty years ago, they demonized nuclear power with false claims about its safety. As a result, nuclear power development in the United States stopped. At that time, America was the world technological leader and therefore the largest user of energy. At present, American leadership is being challenged by Asian nations, which are building nuclear power plants at a rapidly increasing rate. [...] The enemies of humanity are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades..." (Science, Politics, and Death, by Arthur B. Robinson & Jane M. Orient, The New American - June 14, 2004 - Vol. 20, No. 12, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm)"Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge. [...] The current increase in carbon dioxide follows a 300-year warming trend: Surface and atmospheric temperatures have been recovering from an unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The observed increases are of a magnitude that can, for example, be explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise. Indeed, recent carbon dioxide rises have shown a tendency to follow rather than lead global temperature increases (6). [...] For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the ''Little Ice Age.'' It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the ''Medieval Climate Optimum.'' During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia. What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an 11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for the same period. It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass and age to the sun (13). [...] Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution." (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) Their Global Warming Petition to the United States government (over 17,000 signatures +) "We urge the United States Government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Global Warming Petition, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)
|
Chernobyl's Legacy"The effects of the Chernobyl disaster were felt far beyond the limits of the 30km (19 mile) zone around the plant. Reindeer as far away as the Nordic countries and sheep in some British uplands became unfit for human consumption. The land rendered uninhabitable also stretches out beyond the 30km mark, mainly to the north, in Belarus, and to the west, in Ukraine. At the same time there are areas inside the 30km zone (mainly in the south) which are less contaminated than parts of Kiev. Blame the weather for this. The wind blew fallout in various directions before it fell to earth or was chucked down in rainstorms. It took a while to draw up a good contamination map, but people needed to be evacuated quickly. There was at least one case where people were moved from one of the cleaner villages inside the zone, to a more severely contaminated area outside it. [...] What to do with more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste is one of the many problems confronting the Chernobyl authorities. A lot of it was buried quickly in the aftermath of the disaster. About 460 burial sites have been properly identified and studied. Some of these have to be moved because they are too close to the Pripyat river, and occasionally get covered by spring floods. Another 500 or so burial sites have yet to be found, 20 years after the disaster. Experts know roughly where they are, but not precisely, and they don't know what they contain..." (BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4843316.stm April 6, 2006)"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000..." (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406) "A paper co-authored by Mousseau and published this week in Trends in Ecology and Evolution (DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.008) points to studies suggesting that fallout from Chernobyl has already caused germline mutations in animals and plants..." (New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19025464.400.html April 6, 2006)
|
|
Report on the International Aspects of Nuclear Reactor Safety, June 2002 From http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep15jun02-e.htm "In June 2001 the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources issued an interim report under the terms of its mandate from the Senate. [...] The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), with its headquarters in Paris and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), located in Vienna, are the two foremost international organizations that deal with nuclear safety issues. [...] In short, the role of the NEA is a technical one aimed at maintaining and enhancing the nuclear option by promoting international co-operation related to the safe use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. During its visit the Committee was told that the NEA is an analytical tool of the OECD, and is not in the business of promoting nuclear power. [...] The NEA works closely with the IAEA, which is an autonomous organization within the United Nations. [...] The mandate of the agency is broader and more promotional than that of the NEA. The IAEA was created: �to promote peaceful applications of atomic energy worldwide for humanity�s benefit while, simultaneously, guarding against the spread of its destructive use.�[5] [...] [Their] technology transfer programs, for example, are aimed at fostering the role of nuclear science in addressing �pressing worldwide challenges � hunger, disease, natural resource management, environmental pollution, and climate change.�[7] Much of the technology transfer work is done in developing countries, in association with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the U.N. Programs involve the use of isotopes and radiation in such areas as plant breeding and genetics, insect pest control, soil fertility, irrigation and crop production, animal husbandry and food preservation and disinfection. The work of the IAEA in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is perhaps its most well known function. Inspectors from the IAEA verify that nuclear materials are not diverted from legitimate peaceful uses to military uses. Member states, including Canada, must first sign a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and declare all nuclear material within the country. From this point on, the agency will carry out on site and remote surveillance inspections and verify records to ensure that no nuclear material is diverted. To date there are 225 safeguard agreements with 141 states. In light of the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iraq in the last decade, the IAEA is in the process of expanding and refining its safeguards program to better identify signs of clandestine activities. [...] NEA officials noted that, over the past few years there has been a general trend towards improved safety performance in the world�s nuclear reactors, including those in Canada. Enhanced attention to safety issues following the Chernobyl accident along with the efforts of organizations such as WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators), the NEA and the IAEA are having an impact. [...] The Committee recommends that in the interests of public safety, the Government of Ontario and the Federal Government consider amendments to human rights legislation that would permit drug and alcohol testing of workers in areas critical to public safety. [...] The Committee regrets that the international community has not yet developed a consensus on the importance of promoting and standardizing such testing. It seems paradoxical that, airline pilots, as well as some truck drivers are randomly screened for drugs and alcohol in the interest of public safety, but those in charge of safely operating a nuclear power plant are not. The Committee sees this as a serious gap in the safety culture, especially when one considers that more damage could be done to the environment and to the population by a serious runaway nuclear reaction and/or explosion resulting from operator error (see Chernobyl) than would result from a terrorist flying an airplane into a reactor building. The Committee would like to see the problem addressed at the international, as well as the national level, and urges the NEA to consider taking up the issue. [...] While there is obviously already a large body of internationally agreed upon safety standards, there is as yet no mandatory oversight of their implementation. [...] In its interim report on nuclear reactor safety, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources reported on the status of nuclear liability coverage in Canada. The Nuclear Liability Act calls for operators to carry a minimum of $75 million (Canadian) in liability insurance. If damages beyond that amount occur, the federal government must cover costs. The amount of coverage is far below the international standards and the Committee urged the federal government to quickly address this issue by amending the Act. [...] Following the accident at Chernobyl, the international community also realized that compensation provided for under existing conventions, even as amended, would be inadequate in the event of another such incident. As a result in 1997, after much negotiation, the IAEA Standing Committee on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage adopted the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, a stand-alone convention to which any State could become a Party whether or not they were also parties to the Paris and/or Vienna Conventions. The new convention has a two-tier system. Tier 1 compensation will come from the 300 million SDR (Can$600 million) minimum coverage to be provided by the operator or the Installation State (or combination, depending on national legislation). Tier 2 compensation will come from an international fund to which all Contracting Parties will contribute. Its size will depend on the number and type of States that eventually ratify the agreement; however, if most nuclear generating States sign on, it is expected to be about the same size as the Tier 1 fund. The Convention also spells out in detail how the funds are to be distributed (to cover victims both in and outside of the country in which the incident takes place). The United States and nine other countries have signed, but not yet ratified, this Convention. Canada is still considering its participation. Only three countries-Argentina, Romania and Morocco- have so far ratified the agreement. Committee members and officials from the NEA also discussed the North American situation with regard to nuclear liability. Concern was expressed about the huge difference between the levels of liability coverage in our two countries. In the U.S., the Price Anderson Act caps commercial nuclear operator liability at US$ 9.4 billion nationally. Operators must carry US$200 million of private, primary insurance on each reactor as well as US$88 million per reactor in �second level� insurance. This legislation is set to expire in August 2002 and its renewal has been hotly debated in Congress over the past year. The House of Representatives has already voted to extend the Act for a further fifteen years. On March 7, 2002 the Senate approved the extension of the Act for a further ten years. This proposal will now form part of the comprehensive energy legislation. Since the Bush energy plan calls for an increased reliance on nuclear power in the future, it is unlikely that there will be any major changes to the legislation or the proposed extension, although critics continue to argue that no other industry receives such protection from financial risks.[15] The level of coverage (US$9.4 billion) is especially upsetting to some critics in light of a 1982 U.S. study that predicted the cost of a worse case scenario accident at a nuclear reactor could range from US$24.8 to US$590 billion.[16] Contrasting this required coverage of US$9.4 billion to the Canadian legislation that only requires operators to carry insurance for Can$75 million in the event of an accident confirms the urgent need to update our law. Canada and the United States have signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a reciprocal arrangement in the event of a nuclear accident in one country having an impact on the other. Under subsection 34 (2) of the Nuclear Liability Act Canada has recognized the United States as a reciprocating country for purposes of the Act. The United States has undertaken to pay compensation to Canadian victims of an accident in the U.S.. Despite this agreement, perhaps it is time to give serious consideration to a formal North American Convention, similar to the Paris or Vienna Conventions. [...] The Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei is quoted a saying �The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat much more likely than it was before September 11th.�[17] In the past, the greatest threat of terrorism at a nuclear power plant was expected to come from within � from someone working at the station sabotaging the safety systems, for example. This is still a greater threat than an external attack, although the September 11th attacks have temporarily shifted the focus to external threats. It should be remembered, however, that the devastation caused by a runaway nuclear reaction and/or explosion (i.e. a nuclear reactor �blowing itself up�) would be far greater than that caused by an external attack with an airplane or a truck bomb (someone else �blowing up� the reactor.) In a Press Release issued on 1 November 2001 the IAEA pointed out that the nuclear power industry has always been subject to a higher level of security and protection than any other industry. �From its inception, the nuclear industry has been keenly aware of the dangers of nuclear material falling into terrorist's hands. At all levels - operator, State and international - there is a complex infrastructure at work to ensure nuclear material is accounted for; safeguarded from diversion; and protected from theft and sabotage. However, like other large industrial complexes, they are not �hardened to acts of war.� [18] One of the themes that emerged in the Committee�s discussions on reactor security with IAEA officials was the growing recognition that, as in the case of nuclear reactor safety, the issue of nuclear reactor security from terrorist attack is an international one. The radioactivity that could be released by such an attack would not recognize national boundaries. As the Director General of the IAEA said following the September 11th attacks, �An unconventional threat requires an unconventional response, and the whole world needs to join together and take responsibility for the security of nuclear materials.�[19] [...] Finally, after several years of study and input from many sources, the Committee feels secure in the knowledge that Canada�s domestic nuclear reactors are among the safest in operation anywhere in the world. With continued vigilant oversight, we feel that nuclear generated electricity can continue to play a vital role in providing Canadians with electricity. On the international front, the Committee is encouraged by the level of attention being paid to the issue of nuclear reactor safety. In the coming years, many believe that there will be a resurgence in the use of nuclear power around the world as countries seek to supply their growing demand for electricity while curbing greenhouse gas emissions. International oversight of nuclear safety will surely be needed to augment domestic efforts." |
|
RELEASES OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES (IMPACTS ON NON-HUMAN SPECIES) (1165) From http://www.scorecard.org Recognized: Carcinogen P65 Suspected: Developmental Toxicant P65-MC "P65: The most current and authoritative list of chemicals that are recognized to cause cancer is California's Proposition 65. Substances are placed on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer" if an independent science advisory board has concluded they possess sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals or humans, or if an authoritative organization such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the National Toxicology Program have reached a similar conclusion, or if a federal regulatory agency requires a cancer warning label." (http://www.scorecard.org/health-effects/references.tcl?short_hazard_name=cancer) |
Green Peace |
| Sierra Club |
|
Bank of America Policy
Bank of America Climate Change Position 2003 Corporate Responsibility Report (pdf - 54 pages) | Switching Your Student Loans
Take Action With Ran.org |
Corp Watch Holding Organizations Accountable
|
HPV [High Production Volume] Chemical Tracker
EPA Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants | Trend Charts
International Emissions |