Rachel's Precaution Reporter #98
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #913 ..........[This story printer-friendly]
June 28, 2007

THE RESPONSIBILITY GAP

[Rachel's introduction: U.S. chemicals policy has failed to protect the public from continuous exposure to an array of toxicants that, singly or in combination, can cause a host of chronic diseases -- many of which are increasing in the general population. Here toxicologist Steven Gilbert argues that solving this problem will require a new approach.]

By Steven G. Gilbert

From his uncle Ben, Spiderman learned that "With great power comes great responsibility". Humans now have incredible power to reshape the environment and affect human health, but we have yet to fully acknowledge the responsibility that this implies. One area in which we need to take more responsibility is around the manufacture, use, and disposal of chemicals.

It is estimated that there are more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce and 2,000 new chemicals are added each year. Unfortunately, we know very little about the specific health effects of these chemicals because industry has not generated or made available the data. We do know, however, that children are more vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals and that annual costs of childhood related disease due to environmental contaminates is in the range of $55 billion.[1]

Children and adults are exposed to a wide range of chemicals at home, school, workplace and from the products we use. Exposure to some of these chemicals can cause significant adverse health effects such as cancer, Parkinson's disease, immunological disorders and neurobehavioral deficits, resulting in a needless loss of potential for both the individual and society.

A significant report on chemical policy was developed by Mike Wilson and others that both defined the problem and suggested a more rational approach.[2] Their report identified three gaps that contribute to the current failed chemical policy: a data gap, a safety gap and a technology gap. The data gap addresses the need to have health effects information on chemicals and the public's right to know this information. The safety gap results from the government's inability to prioritize hazardous chemicals and its inability to obtain the needed information. The technology gap reflects the failure by either industry or government to invest in the development of more sustainable chemical processes such as green chemistry. To these three identified gaps, I suggest adding a fourth: the responsibility gap.

Responsibility -- An Overview

Humans have amassed an enormous amount of power to change the physical environment as well as affect human and environmental health. Aldo Leopold, America's first bioethicist, summarized our ethical responsibilities in a simple statement in 1949: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."[3] When we expose our children to lead, mercury, or alcohol we are robbing them of their integrity, stability, and beauty. In essence we robbing them of their potential, reducing their ability to do well in school and to contribute to society.[4] We have the knowledge and must accept the responsibility to preserve the biotic community, which will preserve us and future generations. Key institutions in our society, as well as individuals, must address different aspects of a shared responsibility to ensure a sustainable biotic community.

Precautionary Principle and Responsibility

The precautionary principle is defined in the Wingspread Statement as: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." It both acknowledges our power and implies responsibility.[5,6]

One of the central elements of the precautionary principle is that proponents of an activity or product must take responsibility to demonstrate its safety. This concept is applied to the development of new drugs. The Food and Drug Administration requires the pharmaceutical or biotech corporations to demonstrate both efficacy and safety of their products before they are approved for use by the public. This precautionary approach was adapted after several high profile disasters with drugs, such as thalidomide. The same concept and responsibility could be required of chemical manufactures, which would result in data-driven decisions on health and would drive a shift toward sustainable and safer chemicals.

Corporate responsibility

Under current corporate rules and regulations the primary responsibility of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Corporate management's primary responsibility is to increase the value of the corporation for its shareholders, which is accomplished by increasing revenue or product sales and by reducing or externalizing costs.

In 1994 an array of suited white male tobacco executives stood before the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health and the Environment and swore that nicotine was not addictive. This was clearly false, but they were protecting the interest of their corporations and shareholders to profit at the expense of people's health. The health effects of tobacco are borne by the individual and collectively through taxes and health care costs.

The tobacco companies have a long history of externalizing the health costs of their product onto tax payers while reaping profits for the executives and shareholders. Other corporations have also externalized or not accounted for the costs of dumping chemicals into the air, water or land, which results disease and environmental damage. For example, the Asarco smelter in Tacoma, Washington spewed lead and arsenic across a wide area. Devra Davis brilliantly documented how industry poisoned the air and environment, which sickened the people of Donora, Pennsylvania. While the U.S. has tightened pollution laws, Doe Run Peru, an affiliate of the St. Louis-based Doe Run Resources Corp., continues the practice of externalizing costs by spewing lead from their smelters which sickens children, depriving them of their innate abilities. Our government, through the Departments of Defense and Energy, has created some of the most contaminated sites in the world, such as Hanford, Washington.

Corporations contaminate the environment because it is cost effective and our laws shield executives from personal responsibility. In other words, they operate this way because they can make larger profits by not investing in pollution control or adapting sustainable practices and they can get away with it. Of course not all corporations operate irresponsibly, but enough do, which creates problems for everyone. A new form of capitalism is needed that motivates corporate responsibility to the biotic community and greater social good. Peter Barnes explores some of these ideas in his recent book Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons.[7] The thrust of the book is the idea to create public trusts that are responsible for and account for the value of the common wealth such as that in the land, air, and water. Capitalism must change to account for using this wealth.

Government responsibility

The primary responsibility of the government is to protect and preserve the common wealth for the greater good of the people.

Government has a duty and responsibility to ensure the "integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community". In essence government must ensure that future generations have an environment in which they can reach and maintain their full genetic potential. The U.S. Government has made various attempts to control chemicals while the governments of many developing countries such as China are just beginning to consider the problems of uncontrolled corporate exploitation of the environment and people.

A failed effort by U.S. Congress was the passage of Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). This law was meant to empower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control the introduction of new chemicals into the environment. Unfortunately, corporations are not required to generate or make available health effects data (thus the data gap), which impedes the government or the public from making informed decisions on safety of products (thus the safety gap). Our representatives in the government must take seriously their responsibility to protect common wealth for the greater good of all. A first step would be to fix TSCA by requiring greater chemical testing and disclosure of this information. Our legislatures can take responsibility by supporting the Kids Safe Chemicals Act.[8]

Media Responsibility

The primary responsibility of the media is to create an informed and engaged public not just inform the educated public. The media has an obligation to produce socially responsible material that is fair, objective, and balanced. This does not mean giving equal time to clearly very minority views as was the case with global warming. Most importantly the media has a responsibility to be open and transparent about sources of information and acknowledge any potential conflicts of interest. The burden and obligation of the media to be responsible must also be shared with the listeners, viewers, and readers. The media has great power to inform and influence people, and with that comes a grave responsibility.

Academic Responsibility

The academic community, particularly those engaged in issues related to public health, have a responsibility to be thoughtful public health advocates and share their knowledge beyond narrow academic journals and conferences. Being a scientist includes the obligation to seek the truth and question the facts, there is also an obligation and responsibility to speak out on public health issues. Scientists and educators have tremendous amounts of knowledge that can be shared with K-12 students, media, legislators, and the general public. Educators and researchers have a responsibility to help create an informed public by sharing their knowledge and being thoughtful public health advocates.

Individual responsibility

Individuals have the greatest burden of responsibility because we must take into account not only the above responsibilities of our professional lives, but we must also address the responsibilities of our personal lives. We must confront individually and collectively that we have the power, and the means to reshape or even destroy the world. Individually it may seem as if we have little control over global warming, nuclear weapons, or the food imported from other countries. We have a responsibility to consider how our individual actions combine to collectively shape the world and society around us. This extends from who we elect for office to what we buy in the store, to the temperature in our homes, and the pesticides on our farms and lawns. We also have a responsibility to stay informed and demand that the media inform us. Democracy is a participatory sport and we must be well informed to participate. Our corporations run on and will respond to what we purchase. Our government and corporations will respond to our opinions and demands for a fair, just, and sustainable society. We must translate responsibility into action to create a just and sustainable world.

References

[1] P.J. Landrigan, C.B. Schechter, J.M. Lipton and others, Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110, No. 7 (2002), pg. 721 and following pages..

[2] Michael P. Wilson and others. Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation. Berkeley, Calif.: California Policy Research Center, University of California, 2006.

[3] Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949.

[4] Steven G. Gilbert, "Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues: Our Children's Future," Neurotoxicology Vol. 26 (2005), pgs. 521-530.

[5] Peter Montague, The Precautionary Principle In A Nutshell. New Brunswick, N.J.: Environmental Research Foundation, 2005.

[6] Steven G. Gilbert, "Public Health and the Precautionary Principle," Northwest Public Health (Spring/Summer, 2005), pg. 4.

[7] Peter Barnes. Capitalism 3.0 -- A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006, pg. 195.

[8] Kids Safe Chemical Act. Senate Bill 1391, 109th Congress. Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg. See discussion here and get the text of the bill here. Reportedly, the bill is presently undergoing significant revisions with input from a broad range of stakeholders.

Steven G. Gilbert, Ph.D., DABT, directs the Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders (INND) (8232 14th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98115); phone: 206.527.0926; fax: 206.525.5102; E-mail: sgilbert@innd.org.

Web: www.asmalldoseof.org ("A Small Dose of Toxicology") Web: www.toxipedia.org -- connecting science and people

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Vancouver 24 Hours (Vancouver, B.C.) ................[This story printer-friendly]
July 5, 2007

BUSH ANGLES FOR ALASKA

[Rachel's introduction: "It would also mean that despite individual state bans on fin fish farming in Alaska, Oregon and California, the entire west coast covering Canada and the U.S. could soon be speckled with fish farms."]

By Robyn Stubbs

A recently proposed U.S. bill to open federal waters to offshore fish farming is sending shivers through Alaskan fishermen.

The Bush administration-led bill would effectively open the door to big businesses wanting to set up open-pen fish farms in federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore.

It would also mean that despite individual state bans on fin fish farming in Alaska, Oregon and California, the entire west coast covering Canada and the U.S. could soon be speckled with fish farms. Offshore farms are typically open-net pens that are either submerged or float on the surface in the open ocean.

There are currently no offshore fish farms in B.C., and there's not enough research on them for environmental watchdogs to support the idea, says Craig Orr of B.C.'s Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

"It's just a big unknown. The idea of moving them out of really close proximity to migration routes is good, but we still don't have enough science to know what impact this will have on wild salmon," he says.

Alaskan fishermen and environmental groups also have grave concerns about the proposed U.S. legislation, and what it could mean for their thriving local fisheries.

Alaskan politicians looked to B.C.'s developing commercial aquaculture industry and decided not to follow suit after investigating escapement and pollution concerns.

Now it seems the federal government is undermining that ban and putting their wild fishery at risk, says Paula Terrel, an Alaskan fisherman and fish-farming issues coordinator for the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

"Some of the same problems that exist for near-shore farming [potentially] exist for offshore farming: Pollution, use of chemicals, concerns about huge multi-national corporations taking over our oceans, the impact on coastal communities... the whole precautionary principle is: First do no harm." Terrel says. "If we supplant our wild fisheries with fish farming offshore, we've traded one flourishing industry for another."

But it's not just the environmental effects of offshore aquaculture that need to be considered. The social and economic impacts of coastal communities -- similar to those in B.C. that rely on a strong fish return for livelihood -- could be impacted.

Alaskan-born graduate student Becky Clausen is studying just that, and is touring coastal communities in the Broughton Archipelago to determine the impact of big industry aquaculture.

"Often the statistics of employment -- jobs being created or lost -- get recorded, but what gets left out is the actual change in the labour process," says the University of Oregon student.

For example, "is a job being an independent fisherman on a boat equivalent to a job at an aquaculture site or processing plant?"

The regulatory structure of U.S. fisheries is eerily similar to Canada's setup, where the agency responsible for protecting the ocean also oversees aquaculture.

And according to Terrel, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (DFO's American equivalent) is pushing the offshore aquaculture bill as one of their top priorities.

"If it were on a really fast track, they could pass it before this time next year," she says.

The first committee hearing happens in Washington, D.C. on July 12.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Checkbiotech.org ....................................[This story printer-friendly]
July 6, 2007

CALL FOR BAN ON GM TREES

[Rachel's introduction: World Rainforest Movement's Ana Filippini said, "Countries are dangerously ignoring the precautionary approach as research in genetically modified trees is currently being carried out in at least the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and U.S."]

New Zealand's experiments with GE [genetically engineered] trees are under international scrutiny as a threat to our trading-reputation as well as the environment.

Over 50 Indigenous Peoples Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations involved in meetings surrounding the Convention on Biological Diversity in Paris, have called for a ban on Genetically Modified trees and warn the current biofuels boom and the rush for so- called second generation biofuels will lead to dangerous experiments with these trees.

In an open letter to delegates at the conference, the groups called for compliance by all countries with the precautionary approach in regard to GM trees, as agreed upon at the CBD's 8th Conference of the Parties last year in Curitiba, Brazil.

New Zealand has already been widely criticised for supporting 'Terminator' technology which has been approved as part of the GE tree experiments here.

"It is vital to New Zealand's Brand image that we are not contaminated by GE trees and instead invest in sustainable forestry projects that can meet ethical and environmental standards," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and environment.

"We need to meet standards like those set by the Forest Stewardship Council, as away of ensuring New Zealand's forestry industry benefits from a move to sustainability," he says.

World Rainforest Movement's Ana Filippini said, "Countries are dangerously ignoring the precautionary approach as research in GM trees is currently being carried out in at least the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom & US."

"Last week in the U.S., APHIS (the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service), a subsidiary body of the US Department of Agriculture, approved a request by GM tree corporation ArborGen to allow their field trial of genetically modified eucalyptus trees in Alabama to flower and produce seeds," said Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project.

Trees are being engineered with unnatural traits such as the ability to kill insects, or have reduced lignin. Ironically, though GE trees threaten to worsen global warming by damaging the ability of natural forests to store carbon, companies propose to develop GE tree plantations as a source for biofuels.

Source: Scoop

Copyright Checkbiotech 2007

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette ......................[This story printer-friendly]
June 24, 2007

PARENTS LEAD FIGHT AGAINST POWER LINE

[Rachel's introduction: Because scientific studies relating power lines to leukemia are contradictory, Mr. Morgan has proposed a policy called "prudent avoidance," suggesting power companies limit exposure whenever possible through modest investments of money and effort.]

By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Plans for a high-voltage power line through Washington and Greene counties have met with heavy opposition from property owners, creating what has been estimated by local officials to be the loudest citizens outcry in a generation.

But one group of residents in particular has mobilized to fight the plan like no other. Parents.

April Ricci, of Jefferson, Greene County, is determined to stop plans by Allegheny Power to construct a 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line near the home she shares with husband, Albert Ricci III, and their three children, ages 11, 8 and 5. The line would also pass within 1.5 miles of the Jefferson-Morgan Elementary School.

Ms. Ricci has distributed petitions door-to-door, attended numerous meetings and gatherings, and organized opposition forces.

Although the line will not run through her property, Ms. Ricci's resistance is perhaps fiercer than that of her neighbors due to the death of her infant daughter 13 years ago.

The couple's first daughter, Sarah, was born with a rare tumor in her heart and lived only one day. Doctors were baffled, Ms. Ricci said, telling her that the odds of such a mass were about 10 million to one. They could not determine the cause, and ran tests to rule out genetic abnormalities.

She granted doctors' requests to keep her daughter's heart for further testing.

"When I was pregnant, I never drank, smoked, or even took a Tylenol," she remembers.

Living in Georgia at the time, the couple, who were from southwestern Pennsylvania, returned home confused and heartbroken.

"I just thought, 'Why did this happen to me? I'm being punished for something.' "

The couple went on to have three healthy children at their home in Greene County with memories of little Sarah and still no clue what killed her.

It wasn't until Allegheny Power began unveiling its plans for the power line that would be strung on 120-foot to 140-foot towers, that the Riccis began thinking about the possible correlation between Sarah's death and similar towers near their home in Georgia.

The couple lived and worked near high-voltage towers, and Ms. Ricci said she recalled a time when she was pregnant when she and her husband and some friends rode all-terrain vehicles beneath the power lines.

"I heard them crackling," she said of the overhead lines. "It literally gives me the chills now. I think, 'Oh my God, I was so stupid,' I knew nothing."

Protecting their children

The loud crackling and humming of power lines makes property owner Juliann Cernuska wary. She said a sympathetic power company field technician she encountered in the local post office warned her that she "wouldn't believe how loud," the power line would be.

"He said he'd never experienced anything like it," she said.

Allegheny Power purchased an easement in 1976 on the 24-acre property that Ms. Cernuska and her husband Steve bought and built a home on 10 years ago. She estimates the power line right of way will be about a football field away from her home, which fronts on Route 188 in Jefferson.

The Cernuskas are considering moving if the project is approved. Their son Cameron, who turned 7 on Wednesday, suffers from asthma, and Ms. Cernuska questions her parenting abilities if she stays. She has seen health studies and reports that indicate a possible link between childhood leukemia and power lines.

"Do you knowingly drink water that's poisoned? Do you knowingly live in a house with asbestos?" she said. "How can I stay and be a good parent?"

Those feelings of guilt and concern have racked parents all along the power line route, from North Strabane in Washington County, where a new power station is planned, to Dunkard in southern Greene County, where the power line is expected to connect with a junction and continue east 240 miles into Virginia.

The Pennsylvania portion of the line is meant to serve growing energy needs in northern Washington County, according to the power company, while the eastward line will supply northern Virginia, which is in critical need of new energy.

The state Public Utility Commission is expected to take up Allegheny Power's application for the Pennsylvania line this summer with several public hearings.

The U.S. Department of Energy held a hearing earlier this month to gather input on a plan to designate much of the northeastern U.S. as a national interest electric transmission corridor -- or NIETC -- which would give the federal government authority to overrule state decisions involving electric transmission lines under certain conditions.

Ms. Ricci spoke at the hearing, recounting Sarah's story for two DOE panelists and passing out her daughter's photo in the hope of influencing their decision.

If a state denies a permit, makes no decision within one year, or places too many conditions on a power company permit, the Energy Act of 2005 gives the federal government backstop authority to grant construction permits, superseding state and local regulations.

Health risks questioned

Organized opposition, in the form of local officials and a citizens group, Stop The Towers, has discouraged residents from harping on health and safety issues because effects can't be proven and won't be taken under consideration by state or federal authorities.

Despite years of testing and studies, there still isn't enough science to determine the health effects of power lines, according to M. Granger Morgan, an electricity expert who has studied the issue for about a decade.

People are routinely exposed to electromagnetic energy through household appliances, but "because power lines are big and highly visible, they tend to get more attention," said Mr. Morgan, head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy and professor of electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.

Mr. Morgan serves as chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, the Electric Power Research Institute Advisory Council and the Scientific and Technical Council for the International Risk Governance Council of Geneva, Switzerland. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute for Electric and Electrical Engineers, and the Society for Risk Analysis.

Exposure to electromagnetic fields -- or EMF -- drops off rapidly with distance in the vicinity of high-voltage power lines, Mr. Morgan said.

There are studies that have indicated a possible link between EMF, childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer. Because childhood leukemia is fairly rare, affecting about one in 14,000 children, according to Mr. Morgan, it has been difficult to study, and there is not a clear connection with EMF.

Still, specific findings involving power lines have included biological changes in animals, such as effects on melatonin and other hormone levels, and changes in molecules and cells in the body.

Prudent avoidance

Because of the findings and lack of concrete evidence so far, Mr. Morgan has proposed a policy called "prudent avoidance," suggesting power companies limit exposure whenever possible through modest investments of money and effort. Meant to be a common sense approach, it argues against drastic action or inaction until science provides a clearer picture of risk.

Some property owners have complained about the size of the 200-foot right of ways used for the towers, but the company says cutting such a large swath not only protects against falling lines, it lessens the effects of EMF as well.

"If you're standing at the edge of our right of way, you're not getting any more exposure than if you were standing in front of an appliance in your home," said company spokesman David Neurohr.

"Common sense is why you have a right of way and a buffer zone," he said.

April Ricci and other parents have said they want to see power companies further study the effects of EMF and power lines. They are also promoting the possibility that power lines near Jefferson-Morgan Elementary be buried, perhaps in the abundant mining shafts that have been abandoned over the years.

Unless they can prove it's not technologically feasible, electric utilities in Connecticut now are required to bury power lines near schools, playgrounds, and day care facilities, thanks to a law that was designed to be a precautionary measure against possible EMF exposure. The cost to bury utility lines is significantly higher than above-ground construction.

"Why would they pass a law if there was nothing to it?" said Ms. Ricci. "How much money can you put on a person's life? How many people have to die?"

(Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156.)

Copyright 1997-2007 PG Publishing Co., Inc.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Durhamregion.com ...................................[This story printer-friendly]
July 2, 2007

RESIDENTS PUSH FOR MORE WASTE INFORMATION

[Rachel's introduction: Burning garbage destroys resources that must be replaced, and produces an astonishing array of toxic byproducts that escape from the smoke stack or are buried in the ground somewhere in the form of toxic ash. However, an incinerator can move hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds into private pockets, funds that later can get kicked back into political campaigns. So this expensive, resource-destroying technology keeps resurfacing.]

By Erin Hatfield

DURHAM -- People pouring out to public meetings continue to push for details on energy-from-waste (EFW) and the impact it will have on health and the environment.

At the most recent round of EFW public information sessions, held between June 18 and 28, consultants contracted by the Region of Durham insisted all the details residents are after will only be known after the technology and site are selected.

"A detailed, site-specific assessment must be done before any facility could open," said Dr. Chris Ollson, a consultant with Jacques Whitford, at the session held on June 28 in Newcastle. Meetings were also held in Courtice and Bowmanville.

The final meeting, attended by approximately 60 residents, presented the consultant's conclusions from the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study.

Using a theoretical facility, Jacques Whitford consultants investigated the omission of chemicals and the impact on people's health and the environment. They estimated exhaust stack air emissions based largely on values obtained from stack testing of a facility in Brampton and concluded an EFW facility presents an acceptable risk.

The findings, consultants said, do represent the worst-case scenario. Consultant Dave Merriman said all vendors that would qualify to build and operate an EFW facility would be better than the theoretical facility used in the study.

But, Wendy Bracken, a Newcastle resident who has been vocal in her opposition to incineration, said dioxins and furans are created in the stacks of EFW facilities and no level is acceptable.

"The risk assessment was based almost entirely on Ontario Regulations," she said. "Many, including doctorates, say these regulations have not served us well."

She cited increasing rates of cancer and asked that a precautionary approach be taken.

"There are other technologies available; there are other things we can do," Ms. Bracken said. "The precautionary principal to me means avoid it if you know it is toxic."

Bowmanville resident John Traill agreed that energy from waste should be taken off the table.

"If this process is such a wonderful one then why doesn't every community have one and why doesn't every community want one," Mr. Trail said. "I propose we start by burning the garbage we heard in the first hour and a half (from consultants). This was a totally one-sided snow job."

Durham and York began work on an environmental assessment (EA) of energy from waste after identifying thermal technology as the preferred method of dealing with garbage. The findings of this latest study will be used to assist in the preferred site selection.

As the Region continues down the EA road there are more site studies and more public meetings to come.

"We are able to do a very detailed site evaluation, so if you live near these areas you will probably see people out in the next couple of weeks," said consultant Jim McKay.

There are four potential sites remaining on the Region's short list. One site in East Gwillimbury and three are in Clarington, located at Courtice Road and Osbourne Road, south of Hwy. 401 between Bennett Road and South Service Road and south of Hwy. 401 between Courtice Road and Osbourne Road.

The preferred site, as identified by consultants, will be announced in September, after which site-specific studies are planned. Upon provincial approval of the EA, Durham senior staff say they could start building a facility in 2009 and have it operational by the time Michigan, where Durham's trash is currently shipped, closes its border to Ontario trash in 2010.

Residents will also have to wait until a vendor is selected to find out an estimate of the tax impact of an EFW facility.

Copyright 1995-2007 Metroland Media Group Ltd.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Emfacts.com .........................................[This story printer-friendly]
July 9, 2007

REPORT WARNS OF HEALTH RISKS OF GOOGLE/EARTHLINK WIFI NETWORK

[Rachel's introduction: Some studies show that radio waves and other electromagnetic fields are linked to leukemia and other diseases. Other studies have failed to find an association. Citizens in San Francisco are urging the city to take a precautionary approach to the deployment of wi-fi technology city-wide.]

A report filed by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors warns of potential adverse health and environmental impacts that could result from a proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network.

Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, prepared the scientific analysis of the project, which SNAFU submitted in support of its appeal challenging Mayor Gavin Newsom's citywide WiFi proposal. The Board of Supervisors will hear SNAFU's appeal on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.

"SNAFU is requesting that the proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network undergo environmental review before it is approved due to our concern about adverse health and environmental impacts," said Doug Loranger, a SNAFU spokesperson.

Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe.

Havas' report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures characteristic of a citywide WiFi network.

A study prepared by certified engineer Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research also submitted with SNAFU's appeal calculates the potential RFR exposure levels of the WiFi antennas proposed by Google/Earthlink. Maifeld prepared calculations based on exposures to residents living in close proximity to the antennas, which would be mounted on light and utility poles in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. According to Havas, these calculations reveal that residents may be exposed to radiation levels high enough to potentially induce adverse health effects.

In scientific terms, the Google/Earthlink antennas could expose residents to RFR levels more than 50 times higher than levels associated with a significant increase in headaches, sleep disturbances and dizziness detected in a study conducted in Spain. According to Maifeld's calculations, wireless laptop users could expect exposure levels from a combination of antennas and laptop more than 350 times greater than the levels in the aforementioned Spanish study.

Havas' findings reveal a major lapse in public health protection offered by the FCC RFR exposure guidelines. Her report shows that health effects in the scientific literature appear at levels almost 10,000 times lower than those permitted by the FCC. Havas' opinions are shared by scientists worldwide who have signed the Benevento Resolution, which recommends "proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. WiFi or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure." (See www.icems.eu)

"Because the City and County of San Francisco is acting as a proprietor and party to a contract with Google/Earthlink and not in its regulatory capacity, it is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from fully considering the health issues as it is when cell phone carriers seek to place antennas in the City," Loranger added.

Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, said, "We are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to apply the Precautionary Principle, which is a City ordinance, in addressing our concerns by conducting an environmental study before any decisions are made."

Copies of the Havas and Maifeld reports, along with SNAFU's appeal, may be found at the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts (CWTI) website at www.energyfields.org.

For additional information, visit SNAFU's website at www.antennafreeunion.org.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New York Times Magazine ............................[This story printer-friendly]
July 8, 2007

MORE HEAT THAN LIGHT

[Rachel's introduction: Here is a recent attack on the precautionary principle that appeared in the New York Times. The author says applying the precautionary principle to global warming might result in a reduced rate of economic growth. Therefore, he says, instead of taxing carbon to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we might be better off spending our money designing new crops that can withstand hotter temperatures, and creating "new water supplies," though he does not say where "new water supplies" might come from.]

By Gary Rosen

If you happened to be in suburban New Jersey this past Jan. 6, you may recall that it was hot -- 72 degrees, to be exact, a record-breaking high. I remember that winter Saturday because, amazingly, I got to spend it in shorts and a T-shirt, playing a sweaty game of Wiffle ball with my sons in our backyard. A more recent Saturday, June 23, was also unusual, but for its unseasonable coolness, not its heat. The temperature that night dropped into the mid-50s, leaving us to shiver under our cotton blankets.

But the big difference between these two weather events wasn't the direction the thermometer jumped. It was how people reacted to them. In my corner of blue-state America, that balmy day in January elicited lots of muttering about evil Republicans and their indifference to greenhouse gases. In June, by contrast, I didn't hear a word about the evidentiary significance of our cold spell. Didn't goose bumps in summer mean that Al Gore is wrong? Well, no; but why the different standard for unexpected heat in January?

I have to confess to a serious case of global-warming fatigue. I know that the planet is heating up and that fossil fuels are the likely culprit. But I'm tired of the sanctimony and the alarmism that surround the subject. Every temperature spike is not a portent of the apocalypse, and the need to see it that way keeps us from dealing rationally with the problem itself. The issue is climate change, after all, not weather change. What scientists worry about isn't the occasional winter scorcher but the long-term shift in average temperatures.

Actual global warming over the past century amounts to just over 1 degree Fahrenheit. The United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the continued buildup of atmospheric CO2 could make the Earth 3.5 to 8 degrees warmer by 2100, with potentially severe consequences for agriculture, water supplies and sea levels. The trouble is, there is virtually no chance that we'll reverse that trajectory. Even the most ambitious proposals for carbon taxes and "cap and trade" emission limits would only slow the rate of increase. And they won't alter the basic fact that, for the foreseeable future, modern economies will still depend overwhelmingly on fossil fuels.

Such realities may sound like defeatism, or apologetics for Big Oil, but should they fill us with despair? It all depends on how you frame the issue. If your starting point is what environmentalists call the "precautionary principle" -- the idea that we must act to avert ecological disaster even when we lack scientific certainty about the extent of the threat -- then our prospects are dim. A radical shift to clean energy, with the aim of ending greenhouse gas emissions, isn't on any government's agenda.

And that may help to explain our peculiar anxieties about the problem. Though we often speak of global warming in terms of crisis, when it comes to policy choices we tend to hedge, as if not quite believing our own rhetoric. One reason for this cognitive dissonance is that distant threats are easy to discount. More fundamentally, I suspect, we are simply not ready to sacrifice the many benefits we derive from our profligate energy habits. As Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago argues in his book "Laws of Fear," a critique of the precautionary principle, a single-minded focus on particular environmental dangers excludes too much. "A better approach," he writes, "would acknowledge that a wide variety of adverse effects may come from inaction, regulation and everything between."

If "precaution" is to make sense, it must be tempered by the logic of cost-benefit analysis, with its trade-offs and estimates of relative risk. Taxing carbon consumption is a fine idea -- it would create incentives for new energy technologies -- but if pushed too far it could depress economic growth. Resources might be better invested in adaptation -- that is, in developing new crops and water supplies for a hotter world. Nor can we let climate change divert attention from more pressing human needs. The social scientist Bjorn Lomborg persuasively argues that the Third World suffers more from malnutrition and H.I.V./AIDS than it is likely to suffer from global warming.

Such a balance sheet will not satisfy those who see the campaign against global warming as an evangelical cause, a way to atone for central air conditioning, S.U.V.'s and other sins against nature. But the current debate would benefit from less emotion and more calculation. Maybe we can still manage to enjoy a perfect 72-degree day, even when it arrives in January.

Gary Rosen is the managing editor of Commentary.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::