Friday, September 27, 2013

Daily Kos: Think your plastic is being recycled? Think again.

Daily Kos: Think your plastic is being recycled? Think again.:
Bales of crushed blue PET bottles and bales of various other plastics.
Think those plastic items you carefully separate from the rest of your trash are being responsibly recycled? Think again. U.S. recycling companies have largely stayed away from recycling plastic and most of it has been shipped to China where it can be processed cheaper. Not anymore. This year China announced a Green Fence Policy, prohibiting much of the plastic recycling they once imported:
For many environmentally conscious Americans, there’s a deep satisfaction to chucking anything and everything plasticky into the recycling bin—from shampoo bottles to butter tubs—the types of plastics in the plastic categories #3 through #7. Little do they know that, even if their local trash collector says it recycles that waste, they might as well be chucking those plastics in the trash bin.
“[Plastics] 3-7 are absolutely going to a landfill—[China's] not taking that any more… because of Green Fence,” David Kaplan, CEO of Maine Plastics, a post-industrial recycler, tells Quartz. “This will continue until we can do it in the United States economically.”
U.S. recyclers are scrambling to come up with a solution now that China is drastically cutting back on their top import from the U.S.:
China's demand for low-cost recycled raw materials has meant waste shipments from Europe, the US, Japan and Hong Kong have arrived thick and fast, with scrap becoming the top US export to China by value ($11.3bn) in 2011.
China controls a large portion of the recycling market, importing about 70% of the world's 500m tonnes of electronic waste and 12m tonnes of plastic waste each year. Sudden Chinese policy changes therefore have a significant impact on the global recycling trade, which puts pressure on western countries to reconsider their reliance on the cost-effective practice of exporting waste, a habit that's reinforced by a lack of domestic recycling infrastructure and a lower demand for secondary raw materials.
China's Green Fence policy just might spur the U.S. government and recyclers into much-needed innovation:
Historically, higher labor costs and environmental safety standards made processing scrap into raw materials much more expensive in the US than in China. So the US never developed much capacity or technology to sort and process harder-to-break down plastics like #3 through #7.
Green Fence might be a chance to change that, says Mike Biddle, CEO of California-based recycling company MBA Polymers. “China’s Green Fence offers a real opportunity to the US government and recycling industry to step up its efforts on recycling and catalyze a strong domestic recycling market in the US,” Biddle said at a recent webinar on Green Fence.
Some U.S. recycling companies are applauding the news:
The policy also has leveled the playing field by allowing large-scale companies that have invested additional money in pollution control and recycling services to operate at a more equal and fair-cost level, according to Kathy Xuan, CEO of full-service recycler Parc Corp. of Romeoville, Ill.
With China taking a harder look at the plastic waste it imports, U.S.-based recyclers are looking for opportunities in the changing global market.
Parc has doubled production in the last six months, Xuan said in a July 2 webinar hosted by the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. of Washington.
The opportunity for big change (and big profits) is there. Let's hope the U.S. government and recycling companies don't throw away the opportunity to lead the way.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO SCOUT FINCH ON WED SEP 18, 2013 AT 10:46 AM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY DK GREENROOTS.

Designer building blocks....... Or Lincoln Logs?

Google launches 'Constitute,' a new tool for designing governments | The Verge

Google launches 'Constitute,' a new tool for designing governments

Google 3D logo white stock 1020

The process of drafting a constitution is usually long, intricate and politically fraught — but with 160 different active constitutions to draw from, it's also uniquely amenable to data analysis. With that in mind, Google has partnered with the Comparative Constitutions Project to launch a new site called Constitute, devoted to comparing the world's constitutions. It examines nearly 350 constitutional themes, organized into topics like the duties of a citizen and the role of the executive. The result is a comprehensive view of how countries structure their governments, and a powerful tool for any would-be founders. As one co-founder put it, "If want to see what African constitutions have to say about the rights of women after 1945, you can do that in just a few clicks."

"Our aim is to arm drafters with a better tool for constitution design and writing," Google said in a post accompanying the launch. That's a niche audience, to put it mildly, but it's also an important one. In 2013 so far, Zimbabwe has already voted on a new constitution, and 2012 saw both Somalia and Syria adopt new founding documents, along with nearly half a dozen revisions from other countries. The hope is that, if Constitute can influence the next generation of constitutions and give citizens a greater sense of ownership over the documents, it could have a huge impact in years to come.



~A.

4MIN News September 27, 2013: They Blame You

Please watch and do the "homework"... We all depend on it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zq_fNfXgpS4&feature=em-uploademail&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dzq_fNfXgpS4%26feature%3Dem-uploademail


~A.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Honk if you're part of the 1%,,,,



GET BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS

Overturn Citizens United so that corporations can’t spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, and in return affect public policy and spending priorities.

1. DEMAND THAT CITIZEN’S UNITED BE OVERTURNED

Support Common Cause in getting Big Money out of politics. Learn more and add your name to the petition. 

2. THE STORY OF CITIZEN’S UNITED

Watch this video to learn more about Citizen’s United.

3. DEFEND THE FREEDOM TO VOTE

Voting rights are under attack. Get all of the resources you need to help defend everyone’s right to vote.

4. FOLLOW THE MONEY ON OPENSECRETS.ORG

Explore The Center for Responsive Politics website to track money in U.S. politics and how it effects elections and public policy.

5. STAMP MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. LITERALLY.

Join Shepard Fairey and 140 diverse organizations in The Stamp Stampede. It’s a concrete way for you to raise your voice and spread the word.   It provides a concrete way for people to take action that will have a lasting and growing impact.





Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Nuclear Crisis at Fukushima Could Spew Out More Than 15,000 Times as Much Radiation as Hiroshima Bombing

Nuclear Crisis at Fukushima Could Spew Out More Than 15,000 Times as Much Radiation as Hiroshima Bombing:
Monday, 23 September 2013 08:42

Nuclear Crisis at Fukushima Could Spew Out More Than 15,000 Times as Much Radiation as Hiroshima Bombing

Image of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on March 16, 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings.Image of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on March 16, 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings.We are now within two months of what may be humankind's most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There is no excuse for not acting. All the resources our species can muster must be focused on the fuel pool at Fukushima Unit 4.
Fukushima's owner, Tokyo Electric (Tepco), says that within as few as 60 days it may begin trying to remove more than 1300 spent fuel rods from a badly damaged pool perched 100 feet in the air. The pool rests on a badly damaged building that is tilting, sinking and could easily come down in the next earthquake, if not on its own.
Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.
The one thing certain about this crisis is that Tepco does not have the scientific, engineering or financial resources to handle it. Nor does the Japanese government. The situation demands a coordinated worldwide effort of the best scientists and engineers our species can muster.
Why is this so serious?
We already know that thousands of tons of heavily contaminated water are pouring through the Fukushima site, carrying a devil's brew of long-lived poisonous isotopes into the Pacific. Tuna irradiated with fallout traceable to Fukushima have already been caught off the coast of California. We can expect far worse.
Tepco continues to pour more water onto the proximate site of three melted reactor cores it must somehow keep cool.Steam plumes indicate fission may still be going on somewhere underground. But nobody knows exactly where those cores actually are.
Much of that irradiated water now sits in roughly a thousand huge but fragile tanks that have been quickly assembled and strewn around the site. Many are already leaking. All could shatter in the next earthquake, releasing thousands of tons of permanent poisons into the Pacific. Fresh reports show that Tepco has just dumped another thousand tons of contaminated liquids into the sea.
The water flowing through the site is also undermining the remnant structures at Fukushima, including the one supporting the fuel pool at Unit Four.
More than 6,000 fuel assemblies now sit in a common pool just 50 meters from Unit Four. Some contain plutonium. The pool has no containment over it. It's vulnerable to loss of coolant, the collapse of a nearby building, another earthquake, another tsunami and more.
Overall, more than 11,000 fuel assemblies are scattered around the Fukushima site. According to long-time expert and former Department of Energy official Robert Alvarez, there is more than 85 times as much lethal cesium on site as was released at Chernobyl.
Radioactive hot spots continue to be found around Japan. There are indications of heightened rates of thyroid damage among local children.
The immediate bottom line is that those fuel rods must somehow come safely out of the Unit Four fuel pool as soon as possible.
Just prior to the 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami that shattered the Fukushima site, the core of Unit Four was removed for routine maintenance and refueling. Like some two dozen reactors in the US and too many more around the world, the General Electric-designed pool into which that core now sits is 100 feet in the air.
Spent fuel must somehow be kept under water. It's clad in zirconium alloy which will spontaneously ignite when exposed to air. Long used in flash bulbs for cameras, zirconium burns with an extremely bright hot flame.
Each uncovered rod emits enough radiation to kill someone standing nearby in a matter of minutes. A conflagration could force all personnel to flee the site and render electronic machinery unworkable.
According to Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with forty years in an industry for which he once manufactured fuel rods, the ones in the Unit 4 core are bent, damaged and embrittled to the point of crumbling. Cameras have shown troubling quantities of debris in the fuel pool, which itself is damaged.
The engineering and scientific barriers to emptying the Unit Four fuel pool are unique and daunting, says Gundersen. But it must be done to 100% perfection.
Should the attempt fail, the rods could be exposed to air and catch fire, releasing horrific quantities of radiation into the atmosphere. The pool could come crashing to the ground, dumping the rods together into a pile that could fission and possibly explode. The resulting radioactive cloud would threaten the health and safety of all us.
Chernobyl's first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days. Fukushima's in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal radioactive poisons for centuries.
Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from Fukushima "would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival."
Neither Tokyo Electric nor the government of Japan can go this alone. There is no excuse for deploying anything less than a coordinated team of the planet's best scientists and engineers.
We have two months or less to act.
The clock is ticking. The hand of global nuclear disaster is painfully close to midnight.
Harvey Wasserman is Senior Editor of the Columbus Free Press and www.frepress.org, where this was originally published. He edits www.nukefree.org. where the petition for global intervention at Fukushima is linked.

Why Is The Food Industry Poisoning Us With Trillions of

Why Is The Food Industry Poisoning Us With Trillions of Nanoparticles?

The U.S. food industry is notorious for poisoning the very consumers who drive their multi-billion dollar enterprise, even spending millions against their right to informed consent (truthful GMO labeling). So, is it any wonder that this deregulated and increasingly deranged juggernaut is experimenting on its own customer base by exposing them to trillions of toxic nanoparticles?

A new study published in Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy titled, "Effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in human gastric epithelial cells in vitro," reveals for the first time that the nanoparticle form of the common "whitening" agent known as titanium dioxide is capable of inducing "tumor-like" changes in exposed human cells.[1]

Whereas previous cell research has established that titanium dioxide (TiO2) is cytotoxic (cell damaging),[2] this is the first study of its kind to find exposed cells undergo a 'phenotypal' transition from normal to cancerous cell traits, including an increased rate of cell proliferation and a decrease in programmed cell death – hallmark features of precancerous and/or cancerous cells associated with 'immortalization.'

Owing to the fact that the researchers tested human gastric epithelial cells, a type of stomach cell in direct content with material we eat, and considering the broad range of drug, personal care and food products nanoparticle TiO2 is commonly used within, the toxicological implications of these findings are deeply concerning.

We Are Already Eating Titanium Dioxide

TiO2 is a naturally occurring oxide of titanium, and has a wide range of industrial applications as a "whitening" pigment in plastics, ceramic glazes and paints. It is used in sunscreens as a UV absorbing "sun protection factor," due to its high refractive index.  Most of our risk of exposure comes from its use in toothpaste, drugs and excipient-heavy supplements as a pill coating, and food products, including even milk (to 'improve' appearance and texture).

Indeed, given that TiO2 is found in thousands of consumer products, the odds are that you are already being exposed to a significant quantity of them on a daily basis.  As reported by Everydayhealth.com, "You ingest around 100 trillion nanoparticles every day, researchers at Binghamton University and Cornell University say."

So, what are some common brands who use it? Nanotitanium is found in products produced by Jello, Nestlé, M&M's, Mother's, Mentos, Albertson's, Hostess and Kool Aid. 

Below is a table from the 2012 E Magazine article "Eating Nano" revealing its presence in common U.S. packaged goods.

Nanoparticles and Common Food Brands

Is Titanium Dioxide Regulated?

Much like present day radiobiological risk assessments for technologies like mammography were developed long before the discovery of DNA, making it impossible to comprehend their DNA-damaging properties at that time, present day biosafety regulations of TiO2 were determined long before the advent of nanotechnology.  In both cases, the true harms of these technologies were -- and still are -- greatly underestimated.

As a result of this information gap, TiO2 is currently classified as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS) by the FDA, regardless of format. Remarkably, the FDA still allows titanium dioxide in sunscreens "at concentrations of up to 25 percent alone and 2 to 25 percent in combination with any proposed Category I sunscreen active ingredient" without considering the toxicity differential of particle size.[3]Considering that concentrations as low as 0.001% by weight have been found to exhibit clear cytotoxicity within exposed cells,[4] the biosafety regulations governing TiO2  are as great as 5 orders of magnitude or higher less stringent than they should be to protect the consumer.

Nanoparticles are so small they are below the threshold of visibility. This is one reason why they are used for sun protection factor, as 100 nanometers or smaller particles will not leave the white pasty appearance on the skin associated with larger particles.  What you can't see, however, is still there – and in the case of nanotitanium, may slip through the surface layers of our skin into more sensitive tissues, as well as our blood stream. This is also why, if you use sunscreen, you should make sure the ingredients say "non-nanoparticle" when describing titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. And this rule applies to purportedly 'natural' brands as well.

Continue to Page 2



~A.

Fwd: House passes Monsanto Protection Act

VOTE in Senate THIS WEEK on The Monsanto Protection Act - Take Action Now!

Dear Adrienne,

Update: Last Friday, on Sept 20th, the House of Representatives once again betrayed the trust of America's farmers and everyday citizens when they passed the Continuing Resolution (H.J.RES.59) containing the Monsanto Protection Act. Rather than remove Section 735, House Republican leaders kept the language from the Monsanto Protection Act intact in the must pass spending bill, which members of the House passed 230 to 189. (See how your member voted below).

Right now we need to put on as much pressure on the Senate as possible to make sure they remove the Monsanto Protection Act from the current stop-gap spending bill as Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) promised earlier this summer. The language of the Monsanto Protection Act was set to expire on Sept 30, but could be extended until Dec 15th if the Senate does not act!

The vote is scheduled to take place this week and we need your help to make sure it doesn't pass again.

We've had an overwhelming response from Food Democracy Now! members making calls but we need to keep the pressure on! Please sign and Make a Call today!

1. Click here to tell Congress to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act! Help end Monsanto's takeover of our government. Every voice counts!

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/607?t=7&akid=981.769274.MLbMbi

Earlier this summer, Senator Debbie Stabenow promised to not extend the Monsanto Protection Act, while Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) actually apologized for allowing the rider in HR 933. It's time to remind them to keep their word and Repeal the Monsanto Protection Act for good!

2. Consider making a call to your members of Congress to tell them you're appalled that they passed the original Monsanto Protection Act and are outraged that they're considering it again!

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1023?t=10&akid=981.769274.MLbMbi

Please Keep Calling, You're Having an Impact!

3. We've confirmed that a bill to try to pre-empt state GMO labeling efforts will be introduced by Congressman Fred Upton's (R-MI), who is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If you support GMO labeling at the state level, please let his office know you disapprove of any bill that would steal state's rights to label GMOs - call (202) 225-3761.

Update on Upton: For the past 2 weeks, calls being made to Congressman Fred Upton's office (R-MI) have been met with claims that Congressman Upton is "not introducing" a bill to pre-empt state GMO labeling.

On Friday a Food Democracy Now! member reported what several sources in DC have already confirmed: the House is considering introducing a bill that would nullify state's rights to label genetically engineered foods.

Report from Food Democracy Now! member:

"I just called Congressman Upton's office and they claim he is not introducing any language into any bill about GMO's, but the committee he is on may be.  I told her that if GMO's were so great why wouldn't the people who agree with them want them on the label.  She said, 'good point'."

We need you to keep calling your members of Congress to make sure this does not happen! We've already won GMO labeling bills in Maine and Connecticut this year and Washington State could pass this fall.

Background on the Monsanto Protection Act

Called the "Farmer Assurance Provision" by biotech lobbyists and Congress, the Monsanto Protection Act was slipped into the previous spending bill in a backroom deal between a handful of Senators and Representatives and Monsanto in an effort to circumvent successful legal challenges to the corrupt regulatory process at the USDA.

In the past 6 months alone, two separate contamination events of GMO wheat in an Oregon farmer's field and earlier this month of GMO alfalfa in Washington state prove how harmful the corporate handout of the Monsanto Protection Act is to America's family farmers.

Right now is the critical window where we need to stand together to stop Monsanto and these corrupt corporations from trying to betray our basic democratic rights once again.

Please stand with us to help stop Monsanto, DuPont and the biotech seed and chemical companies from corrupting our laws and democratic process.

Remember, democracy is like a muscle, either you use it or you lose it!

Thanks for participating in food democracy,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team

Source:

Find out how your Representative Voted on the Continuing Resolution that Contains the Monsanto Protection Act.

1. "H.J.Res. 59: Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014", Govtrack.us, September 20, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1025?t=13&akid=981.769274.MLbMbi

The Future of Offshore Wind in the U.S. – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service

The Future of Offshore Wind in the U.S.  September 23, 2013

Yale Environment 360

By Dave Levitan

In June, after years of offshore wind power projects being thwarted in the U.S., the first offshore wind turbine began spinning off the U.S. coast. The turbine was not a multi-megawatt, 400-foot behemoth off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Texas—all places where projects had long been proposed. Rather, the turbine was installed in Castine Harbor, ME, rising only 60 feet in the air and featuring a 20-kilowatt capacity—enough to power only a few homes.

offshorehome

Offshore wind farm in the Baltic Sea off Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

But it was a turbine—finally. Offshore wind power in the U.S. has struggled mightily to rise from the waves, even as other renewable energy industries have steadily grown. The country now has more than 60,000 megawatts of onshore wind, but still just the lone offshore turbine, a pilot project run in part by researchers at the University of Maine. Meanwhile, Europe has left the U.S. far behind, installing its first offshore turbine in 1991 and growing rapidly in the past decade. To date, the countries of the European Union have built 1,939 offshore turbines with 6,040 megawatts of capacity.

Is the U.S. offshore wind industry finally about to get off the ground? Offshore wind carries impressive electricity-generating potential, and several projects seem poised to get underway. But energy analysts say the industry still faces daunting hurdles, most notably the higher cost of building offshore wind farms, the expense of connecting them to the onshore grid and the lack of the comprehensive government incentives and renewable energy targets that have been crucial in fostering the growth of Europe's offshore wind energy sector.

On the positive side, the infamous Cape Wind project, mired in legal battles for more than a decade, hopes to start construction next year. With plans to construct 130 turbines in the shoals between Nantucket and Cape Cod, Cape Wind has faced enormous legal struggles because of opposition from local residents concerned that the turbines would mar the region's beauty and harm seabird populations. But its legal battles are now largely behind it, and Cape Wind has power-purchase agreements in place. The wind farm's developer, Jim Gordon, says the project will eventually be capable of supplying about 75 percent of the electricity needs of Cape Cod, which has a year-round population of 215,000.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior have been aggressively moving to streamline permitting processes for offshore wind farms, and this summer completed the first two auctions for large offshore parcels for wind development off the East Coast. Rhode Island-based Deepwater Wind—owned in part by investment firm D.E. Shaw and by First Wind, a Boston-based developer—won the first-ever offshore wind auction held by a division of the Interior Department known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). With its winning $3.8 million bid, Deepwater Wind now holds the wind power rights to 165,000 acres off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

"We believe that site is the single best site for offshore wind in the U.S.," says Deepwater CEO Jeffrey Grybowski, citing the powerful and consistent winds and access to markets in four states—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Though the exact number will depend on how much power it can sell to utilities, Deepwater Wind hopes to install roughly 200 turbines that could generate more than 1,000 megawatts, enough to power about 400,000 homes.

A second BOEM auction took place in early September for a 112,799-acre parcel off the coast of Virginia, this time won by Virginia Electric and Power Company. The planned wind farm could grow as big as 2,000 megawatts. Auctions for sites off of Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts are expected to be held in the next year.

"The more projects we get in the water, the more that will accelerate the development of the industry," says Chris Long, the manager of offshore wind and siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association. "You need to build projects in order to continue innovations, to drive down costs, to achieve scale and achieve experience. Getting this first round of projects in the water will certainly help to accelerate the development of the industry."

At this point, it appears that the first commercial offshore wind installation to begin operating in the U.S. will be Block Island Wind Farm, being developed by Deepwater Wind. Sited about three miles from Block Island—itself about 15 miles off the coast of Rhode Island—the wind farm will feature five mammoth turbines, each capable of generating six megawatts. The proposed Block Island installation has the advantage of sitting in state rather than federal waters, easing permitting issues. Grybowski, says permitting is all but finished for that project and construction should start next year.

Despite these developments, many analysts are skeptical about the near-term future of offshore wind, especially considering the uncertainty surrounding federal financial support.

uswind

A single wind turbine in Castine Harbor, off the coast of Maine, is the only offshore wind turbine installed in U.S. Photo credit: University of Maine/ DeepCWind Consortium

"Some kind of policy incentive is needed in order to promote offshore wind, since its cost is still far above the market price of electricity," says Bruce Hamilton, director of energy practice at the consulting firm Navigant.

Right now, the offshore wind investment tax credit is the only federal incentive, and it is set to expire at the end of 2013 after a one-year extension. It allows developers to take a tax credit on 30 percent of capital expenditures related to a wind project, but construction would have to start this year. Several U.S. senators earlier this year introduced the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act, which would attempt to stabilize the year-to-year policy, but that legislation is likely to die in committee.

"We will [likely] continue to have a stop-start policy at the federal level, since that is what we have experienced for the last couple of decades," Hamilton says.

The uncertainty of federal funding has taken a toll on the proposed Atlantic City Wind Farm off the coast of New Jersey, which would feature five turbines totaling 25 megawatts of capacity. The company behind the project, Fisherman's Energy, was founded by commercial fishermen intent on both developing wind energy and maintaining a strong fishing industry in the region. But the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission is balking at a potential multi-million dollar taxpayer hit if federal funding for the project disappears.

A major problem at this point is the high cost of offshore wind. Because of the difficulty of building wind turbines offshore and connecting them to the power grid, the price of electricity generated offshore along the U.S. East Coast is expected to be more than 15 cents per kilowatt hour, or several times the cost of producing electricity with coal or natural gas, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Those costs are expected to fall as more offshore wind farms are built and connected by an offshore grid. Another U.S. report says that a reasonable goal for offshore wind prices would be 10 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020 and seven cents per kilowatt hour by 2030.

A major project, backed by Google, is planned to link offshore wind farms along the U.S. East Coast to power consumers onshore. The Atlantic Wind Connection is a transmission "backbone" designed to let multiple offshore wind projects essentially plug in to undersea cables as they come online. The first phase, a cable that will stretch the length of the New Jersey coast and be capable of carrying 3,000 megawatts of electricity, is scheduled to begin construction in 2016. The rest of the "backbone" would extend down the coast past Delaware and Maryland, stretching to the coast of Virginia. Along with Google, the project is funded by such companies as Bregal Energy, Marubeni Corporation, and a Belgian transmission company, Elia.

Long, of the American Wind Energy Association, and others are confident that the initial phase of offshore projects will illustrate to policy makers the attraction of offshore wind power. Onshore wind, after all, is often plagued by siting issues, with nearby residents complaining about the sight and sound of large turbines. Most U.S. offshore projects are now proposed far enough off the coast that they will be essentially invisible—a lesson learned from the "viewshed" controversy surrounding Cape Wind.

Proponents hope that the start of several offshore projects will encourage more federal and state support and will serve as a reminder that there is a lot of energy just a few miles off the beach.

"The East Coast is the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind, because there is enough energy there to provide the entire U.S. with electricity if it was fully developed," says Matt Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist and offshore wind expert with the non-profit group Oceana. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the Department of Energy, puts the onshore and offshore U.S. wind energy potential at 4,150 gigawatts, around four times the entire electricity requirements of the U.S. The Northeast and mid-Atlantic coasts in particular are windy spots with water depths that make development feasible.

The U.S. has no national renewable energy target, but 29 states and Washington, DC, have adopted their own. Northeastern states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been aggressively pursuing renewables, and there is now legislation in New Jersey and Maryland specifically targeting offshore wind development.

Kevin Jones, deputy director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the University of Vermont Law School, says he is optimistic about the development of offshore wind, especially in the Northeast, in part because there are so few other options for renewables in the region and the opposition to onshore wind continues to grow.

"If natural gas prices remain low I think the offshore industry is going to need public policy support rather than federal subsidy, but it can happen if the Northeastern states work together to achieve economies of scale," says Jones. That collaboration could include states collectively mandating that utility companies purchase a set amount of electricity from offshore wind farms.

Still, the progress in Europe is a clear reminder of how far the U.S. has to go, a gap that Huelsenbeck attributes to "a failure of our federal government to really back clean energy over the last few decades in a very powerful and consistent way."

The European Union is on target to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and targets as high as 40 percent are being considered for 2030. In 2014 alone, close to two gigawatts of offshore wind—enough to power more than a million households—are likely to be installed in the EU, with the United Kingdom and Denmark leading the way.

Visit EcoWatch's RENEWABLES page for more related news on this topic.



~A.

The Tyee – The Prefab Home Is Suddenly Fab

The Prefab Home Is Suddenly Fab

Thirteen percent of US prefabricated homeowners listen to classical music while only eight percent attend monster truck shows. More than half of them find their living conditions very satisfactory thank you very much. More than half plan on living in their prefabs forever and very few of them will actually move their mobile homes.

This type of dwelling long associated with shifty rednecks has become a very hot trend among the economically mobile.

And a lot of the homes they find prefabulous are built here in BC.

Architects all over North America are dabbling in prefabricated housing, designing and manufacturing innovative dwellings out of the standard 16 x 45 foot box, a measurement designed for road capacity.

A mind-boggling array of stylish modernist prefabs are now available, including designs delivered complete to the site via trailer or tugboat, flat-packed house kits and even collapsible studios that can be moved via SUV and portable penthouses built to be flown from city rooftop to the country via helicopter. Weehouse, It House, Up! House, Bachkit, Smallhouse, Swellhouse, Corpod and Smartshax are just a few of the designer prefabs available.

Sizes and prices range from about $33,000USD for an LV-Home kit by Missouri-based Rocio Romero to as much as a million bucks.

Made in BC

"The units are like Lego blocks so you can built anything out of them and even stack them," says Tom Faliszewski, the Housing Division manager of Britco Factory Built Buildings. Aggasiz-based Britco has been manufacturing all sorts of factory-built structures since 1977, from McDonald's restaurants to schools to motels to those PNE "showhomes" with the banister porches.

You're probably more familiar with Britco's orange striped construction site offices, but 80 percent of their business is in manufactured housing. And they're now building some of the most trendy modern architect-designed prefabs, like the Glidehouse, by San Francisco-based architect Michelle Kaufmann, who worked for Frank Gehry before going solo. That first Glidehouse was built at Britco in 24 days, wrapped up and shipped by trailer to California for a Sunset Magazine PR event. After a few days it was packed up again and sent north to its home plot on Lake Chelan, Washington; a third bedroom shipped from Britco joined the other units to make a 1,568 square foot 3 bedroom, 3 bathroom bungalow with tons of glass, an open-plan interior and sloped roof.

Glidehouse looks like a custom-built west coast modernist home from the 1960s. But prefabs have to withstand travel and go through "150 quality control checkpoints during building," according to Faliszewski. "It has to be 100 percent perfect and flush because you can't adjust like you can on a custom built. And they have super high energy efficiency and there's no chance for moisture to get in" since the units are made under a factory roof.

Earth friendly features

These prefabs are also eco-friendly and use low viscosity paints, a foamed-in insulation system that doesn't mould, heat recovery systems and hepa-filters. On-site construction waste is greatly minimalized as well and most prefabs include optional "green" touches like bamboo flooring, solar or hybrid power systems and recycled materials. All of these features are appealing to mid-to-upper-class modernist types who shudder at the thought of living in a cookie-cutter in the 'burbs, but can't find affordable modernist architect-designed dwellings. "We lived in a 60s modern in Colorado," says Peter Johnson, a Colorado native who's designed a 3,600 square foot prefab for his land on Salt Spring Island which will be built at Britco. "I was a huge fan of modern, but, man, once I lived in it, this is way too hard. There was too much glass and it was so stark. We wanted something warm and inviting."

So Johnson started looking into prefab and decided to design his own west coast modern dream-house. Called BC House, it's made from eight prefab units with a "site-built pie in the middle. It's a prototype custom design so the price comes in at around $185 per square foot."

But the price tag hasn't scared Johnson off prefab and he's now collaborating with other BC companies in the construction industry "to promote BC to the forefront of modular housing. We will develop design materials and production efficiencies for future volume building with a goal of delivering at between $125 and $175 per square foot. Marketing and promotions will be leveraged via our strategic partnerships and eventually our proprietary process that will serve to simplify the design/build process and redefine modular building as a sensible option."

Sensible for affluent people with plots of land hanging around maybe, but it does conjure a picture of pristine landscapes eaten up by occasionally occupied sleek glass houses. Imagine the Gulf Islands -- already experiencing sky-high land prices and sky-high rents so that middle-to-lower income families, trades people and retirees who grew up on the islands can't afford to live there -- overrun with stylized double-wides.

The two Glidehouses purchased by Vancouver clients will be shipped to plots in Point Roberts and the Sunshine Coast. Sure, they tend to disturb the land less, leave a smaller footprint and cut down on construction waste, but they also make second homes more attainable to a wider audience and since the price tag is lower, could spur clients into building bigger.

Potential for the poor

Some architects are designing for dense urban settings, like Piercy Conner's 340 square foot "Micro Flats" being built in London or the stackable Corpod prototype designs by Chicago architect Douglas Garofalo. But prefabs aren't generally being smacked down where they're needed most: cities and suburbs. Well-designed prefabs are too expensive for families who would benefit most from this cheaper, energy-efficient type of housing.

"Social planning in architecture has been dead since the Reagan-Thatcher era," says Sandy Hirshen, an architect with Henriquez Partners and retired director of The UBC School of Architecture. "I've been working on prefab since 1965. My focus has always been the rural poor," says Hirshen who designed and built dozens of dwellings for seniors, migrant farm workers and aboriginals using everything from folded paper 'Plydomes' to shipping containers (which he got cheap from military surpluses after the Vietnam war) to insulated fridge panels.

"Most of my ideas died on the vine," Hirshen continues. "Prefab never took off in the States mostly because unions and banks traditionally didn't want to link themselves to housing not attached to the ground. Developers don't make much money from building the structures -- they make it by densifying land and getting low interest rates. They don't like to pay for design so cookie-cutters are the way."

Hirshen is sceptical about the new craze for prefab, citing three divergent goals for prefab enthusiasts: "housing the poor well; co-housing [a group of individuals buy land and build to suit their collective needs]; housing the super rich who want a house in a hurry in some ski area." Hirshen's never been interested in building for the super-rich and has only done about 12 custom homes in 40 years, finding these experiences were "fraught with land mines and interpersonal problems."

He's interested in co-housing as a counter to "hopeless suburban sprawl" but Hirshen continues to hold hope that prefab becomes viable for lower-incomes since "every week something like a million people need housing and you can't fill that need with conventional housing." He's been talking with the Vancouver chapter of Habitat for Humanity about adapting his prefab "Flexible Hybrid Home" to their Burnaby project. He also does university lecture tours about socially conscious architecture and believes emerging architects are now less likely to fall for "the stranglehold of high architecture by media heroes."

'Soft housing'

Two architects of the sort Hirshen is rooting for work in Vancouver: Todd MacAllen and Stephanie Forsythe. "I'm not into custom-building for upper middle class people. I don't know if that's really helpful to anyone else," says MacAllen. He and Forsythe have been focusing their talents on a cultural centre in Aomori, Japan and recently won a competition to co-design a former flophouse in New York using inventive space-saving concepts like their "Soft Housing": light-weight, moveable paper-based accordion-like walls for use in small places, particularly for shared living spaces and shelters for the homeless.

They've also designed a 675 square foot prefab called Maison Mini. "We started looking at prefab because our first experiences in architecture were with building custom houses." The two architects literally built their designs themselves, camping out on-site. "With one-offs you realize toiling day after day in mud and rain; construction is a really sloppy business. If you could do a lot of that in a dry clean space, things could be more precise, economical and efficient."

A key priority for MacAllen and Forsythe is in keeping their prefab small. "North Americans still want everything big," says MacAllen. "We're so used to spreading our stuff around. The dream is to live in a big house and 2,000 square feet is not that big. Our small-scale housing in BC is pretty abysmal, terribly designed for small space living. It seems like they're modeled after a real estate criteria from 25 years ago; you have to say you've got 3 bathrooms, I don't know why they need all these toilets."

Other prefabricators are less likely to question why their clients need so many toilets and seem to be drifting into larger and larger prefabs. Like Resolution: 4 Architecture, the firm that won a 2003 Dwell Magazine prefab competition. The rules were to build a prefab for approximately $175,000 with a strong "aesthetic, environmental, economic and technologic" design. When the "Dwell Home" was finished it weighed in at 2042 square feet, had three-bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms and cost more than $200,000 even with donated labour and materials.

Modernist retro

The prefab industry has been riding highs and lows as far back as the early 1900s when various companies, including Sears Roebuck, offered catalogued-based home kits.

Britco has managed to keep on by offering a diverse portfolio of high-quality housing and offices to countries all over the world. In terms of architect-designed prefab, they are a bit of an exception among manufacturers, at least partly because Faliszewski is an architect by trade and appreciates modernist sensibilities.

No doubt about it, the sleek lines of mid-21st century modernism are a large part of prefabs' current appeal. "I think that there is a true interest in reviving modernism," says MacAllen. "But at the same time so much of it is just a look, an aesthetic. The true heart of modernism isn't there. Even the most respected trade magazines show houses with 2,500 square feet or more. I don't think that's modernism, that's a real estate agent's dream."

MacAllen notes that famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright championed smaller scale living in the suburbs, with a little garden and shared facilities. "His Usonian Homes were small practical modern homes with a lot of prefabrication." Similarly today in Japan, says MacAllen, "there's a whole whack of young architects building small architecturally designed houses with prefabrication. It's not fancy, doesn't try to look beautiful but utilitarian with shared continuous spaces that share a visual connection. I think that's where modernism is sitting right now."

The Japanese have been forced to go smaller and prefab because of high land and construction costs but MacAllen believes "we could learn from that now. Why wait?"

Prefab, Ikea style

Prefab housing has been used in Japan and Europe since the post-WW II re-building era. Japan has fully-automated home factories including Toyota's prefab Housing Corporation and four other large housing conglomerates specializing in prefab steel and panel homes. Interestingly, even with all their high-tech bells and whistles, the Japanese import as much as 40 percent of their prefab housing from Canadian manufacturers like Britco, which does use assembly-line methods but with traditional construction with wood, hammer and nails.

Robotics-infatuated Japan could also provide us with a good cautionary tale about rushing into high-tech home-building. Since the bubble economy burst in the 90s, the prefab industry has been particularly hard-hit. It peaked in 1992 when 17.8 percent of housing starts were prefab; sales steadily declined until 2003 when the drop in prefab housing starts was more dramatic than the decline in general housing starts.

Japanese prefab homeowners have also expressed dissatisfaction with their prefabs, including problems with concrete cracks and effluorescence.

In Eastern Europe and the UK, low quality and poorly planned housing developments gave prefab a bad name, but a variety of more successful prefab housing schemes have cropped up recently.

In Spain and France, less than five percent of housing is prefab but in Sweden it's a whopping 90 percent. No wonder Ikea got into the prefab market by not only designing "flatpack" one and two-bedroom homes but also entire communities with modernist prefab houses and apartments. Imagine the size of that Allen wrench!

There are now 45 BoKlok (Live Smart) prefab communities in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland and UK Ikeas plan to start selling them there soon. BoKlok's are designed with Ikea's Scandinavian minimalist ethos but they're geared towards lower income families, particularly single-parent and so-called "micro-families." Communities are designed with shared gardens, patterned for maximizing neighbourly contact and are resident-governed, much like Canadian co-ops. So, naturally, problems crop up and BoKlok residents have been denied use of satellite dishes and backyard walls which detract from the minimalist master plan.

Sticker shock

It's hard to imagine a BoKlok type of housing development flying in Surrey or Mississauga where people buy their furniture at the Brick and are occasionally tempted to stick a little plastic dwarf on their lawn. Even a lot of strict minimalists prefer living downtown and, like many urban planners, believe in building upwards and releasing more land for communal parks and green spaces.

Then there's the fact that mod prefabs tend to be too expensive even for the young, idealistic architects designing them. "Frank Gehry told our grad class that the problem with the younger generation is that no-one is interested in making monuments and that's true," says architect Jennifer Siegal of LA-based Office of Mobile Design. "I made a conscious decision not to be a hero working with large objects and I started re-thinking the trailer as that kind of architecture. Portable housing is a very different kind of thinking than how you're trained in school. But architects can be involved in mass production and people can live in designer houses for half the cost."

Siegal might be able to afford the prefab Portable House she designed and sells (an $80,000USD 480 square foot sleek corrugated metal structure) but she actually lives in a string of second-hand trailers. She's influenced by everything from "nomadic enterprises," to high-tech plastics to Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes and is particularly enchanted with the concept of a mod trailer park.

Besides selling her Portable House and Dwellhouse prefabs, she's also working on a school and the development of a prefab artist community and a low-income housing co-op, both in downtown LA. She also is in the planning stages for a 400,000 square foot fully-automated prefab factory that will mass-customize designs by herself along with ten other "world-renowned architects," including Zaha Hadid and Shigeru Ban. Siegal's hope is to "change the face of architecture and make housing more like the auto industry."

Given the many unattractive aspects of the auto industry, particularly in America where SUVs dominate and there's been a recent nostalgia for 50s style cars, is this a good thing? Will mass-customized housing create landfills packed with last year's model home? With more automation, more construction labourers will be jobless and what if these housing factories succumb to the temptation of profit-driven relocation?

New products for maquiladoras?

Some 15,000 Canadian auto industry workers have lost jobs since the 1990s, thanks largely to factories moving to Mexico. Now these maquiladoras are contemplating moves to South America to exploit even cheaper labour.

Teddy Cruz, a San Diego architect provides a sobering message at the current Design Innovations in Manufactured Housing exhibition in Chicago.

The show features all sorts of innovative designs for everything from single-family homes to stackable apartment prototypes. But the exhibition organizers concede that at this point, these expensive prototypes are geared to the affluent looking for new toys. Co-curator Roberta Feldman pointed out that the costs could only drop with mass-production and she wonders why we don't crank out housing in factories modeled after… you guessed it, the auto industry.

Cruz takes us across the border to Mexico, where the auto industry is the largest employer and pays workers between $3 and $4 per hour. Workers can't afford housing and like over 800 million people in the world (and a quarter of the Latin American population) they're squatters. Cruz looks at the shantytowns of Tijuana where squatters build makeshift housing out of refuse they cart from San Diego: fridge doors, factory pallets, tarps, whatever they can get their hands on. He proposes to hook San Diegan non-profits up with the Mexican government so that pre-assembled housing kits can be made available to the maquiladora industry "to give back to the communities it exploits."

Doing it right

Gigantic US petrochemical conglomerate 3DM Worldwide recently signed a licensing agreement with Chicago-based Silkwood Financial Group to build modular housing, using various plastics technologies, in Mexico. They've also started on a development of "modular housing for workers in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Somalia and Namibia." There's a terrible irony in these schemes, considering that so much of Africa has been devastated by the petrochemical industry which is one of the top environmental polluters in the world.

Let's hope that the mod prefab architects think long and hard about whether it's possible to "mass-customize" ethically and with as much environmental and social consciousness as possible. Consider the implications to other cultures, not just the affluent local target-market.

And while we're on the subject of targeting, last November, Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" bombed an American prefab housing factory in the 'burbs of Baghdad. Apparently the US military uses prefab extensively in their encampments.

Danielle Egan is a freelance writer living in Vancouver.  [Tyee]



~A.

Has GMO Alfalfa Already Contaminated Non-Alfalfa Fields?

Exclusive: Has GMO Alfalfa Already Contaminated Non-Alfalfa Fields?

By Dr. Mercola

Despite a strong and vocal opposition, genetically engineered (GE) Roundup-resistant alfalfa was approved in late 2011. At the time, many environmental- and organic experts spoke out against it, warning that its approval could be devastating not just for the environment in general, but also for conventional alfalfa growers, and organic farmers in particular.

This includes organic animal products, as dried alfalfa is a common addition to the hay they're fed during winter months.

Phil Bereano, a co-founder of AGRA watch, argued that by deregulating the planting of GE alfalfa, the USDA was in direct contravention to its obligations under law and court decisions.

A 2007 trial judge had already found that alfalfa farmers had established a reasonable probability that their conventional alfalfa crops would be contaminated with the engineered Roundup Ready gene if deregulation occurred.

Toxicology and plant pathology expert Dr. Don Huber also pointed out that once you insert  new genes into a perennial insect-pollinated plant like alfalfa, there's no way to prevent cross-fertilization and contamination, and it cannot be eliminated once it's distributed throughout an area.  

Of course, the possibility of cross-contamination between GE alfalfa and non-GE crops was downplayed as insignificant. But it didn't even take two years for this possibility to rear its ugly head.

Washington State Testing Alfalfa Crops for GMO Contamination

On September 11, the Baltimore Sun broke the news that Washington State agriculture officials are now testing alfalfa for GMO contamination after a farmer's hay was rejected for export. His hay tested positive for GE alfalfa...

Alfalfa is the fourth-largest crop in the US and a staple feed for livestock—including organically-raised livestock—so contamination is not to be taken lightly. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), more than 17 million acres of alfalfa were grown last year, worth about $8 billion. A total of $1.25 billion-worth of hay, including alfalfa, was exported.  

As reported by the featured article:

"If it is confirmed that the alfalfa in question was genetically modified, it could have broad ramifications, said Hector Castro, spokesman at the Washington State Department of Agriculture.  "It's a sensitive issue," Castro said.

Biotech alfalfa is approved for commercial production in the United States. But many foreign and domestic buyers require that supplies not be genetically modified, and the possible presence of GMO modified alfalfa in export supplies could result in lost sales for US farmers.

... ACX Pacific - a major exporter of alfalfa and other grass hay off the Pacific Northwest to countries that include Japan, Korea, China and parts of the Middle East - will not accept any GMO because so many foreign buyers are so opposed to it.

And domestic organic dairy farmers have said that any contamination of the hay they feed their animals could hurt their sales. "This is terribly serious," said Washington state senator Maralyn Chase, a Democrat who fears alfalfa exports could be lost if it is proven that GMO alfalfa has mixed in with conventional supplies."

As of September 11, it still was not clear whether the farmer had purchased mislabeled GM seed, or if his field had been cross-pollinated or contaminated in some other way. Castro also told the Baltimore Sun that the state's testing had so far not revealed any contamination.

Washington State Readies for GMO Labeling Vote

The news of potential contamination couldn't come at a more crucial time as Washington State readies to vote on GMO labeling in November. The people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients.

As in last year's California Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign, the opposition from industry is fierce. According to the Public Disclosure Commission, the "No On 522" campaign has already raised more than $11 million.  Monsanto leads the charge, having donated close to $4.8 million to the anti-labeling campaign, followed by Dupont and The Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Again, the success of this ballot initiative is dependent on public donations, so please, help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

GE Glyphosate-Resistant Food Crops Promote Human Disease

One of the primary concerns about GE crops has to do with its resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. About 85 percent of all our genetically engineered plants are herbicide-tolerant—designed to tolerate very high levels of herbicides, glyphosate in particular. These are the so-called Roundup Ready crops, alfalfa included.

As a side note—but an important one—glyphosate-resistant alfalfa was approved even though more than 93 percent of the alfalfa crop at the time was NOT being treated with herbicides. There really was no need to make it Roundup resistant in the first place.

The Oregoneans for Farm & Food Rights estimates that Roundup Ready alfalfa results in the application of another 200,000 pounds of Roundup annually by American farmers. Monsanto is truly the only winner in this scheme, boosting sales of Roundup and selling GE alfalfa seeds for twice the price as other proprietary seed varieties. The decision was also a "perfect" one if the intent is to eventually decimate organics, as contamination is inevitable—both of organic alfalfa crops and organic livestock.

The decision to promote the use of Roundup on what was basically an herbicide-free crop to begin with matters a great deal when it comes to human health.

Research reveals that glyphosate is unlike other conventional herbicides. Like many other herbicides it's a mineral chelator. This means it immobilizes nutrients, making them physiologically unavailable for your body, or the body of an animal, in the case of livestock feed. But glyphosate is alsopatented as an antibiotic—and a very effective one at that—against a large number of organisms, and this is where it veers away from other agricultural chemicals. Like all antibiotics, it kills indiscriminately, so it also decimates critically beneficial soil bacteria, as well as animal- and human gut bacteria.

In fact, groundbreaking research by Dr. Seneff and Samsel reveals that your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate's mechanism of harm, as the microbes in your gut have the same pathway used by glyphosate to kill weeds and are decimated by the glyphosate!  So please recognize that virtually every GM food you eat will harm your precious gut bacteria.

Glyphosate was patented and introduced as an herbicide by Monsanto in 1974. Twelve years later, in 1996, genetically modified Roundup Ready crops hit the market. Since then, there's been a steep and steady uptick in the usage of Roundup, because you can apply it multiple times without damaging your crop. Making matters worse, they're now also using glyphosate as a ripening agent—even for non-GMO crops. And, as just mentioned, they made alfalfa glyphosate-resistant even though the vast majority of alfalfa growers didn't have the need for such a product in the first place.

Now, groundbreaking research suggests that glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we've ever encountered, and may be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become so prevalent in Westernized societies. Dr. Seneff and Samsel's research shows that two of the key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet are:

  1. Nutritional deficiencies, and
  2. Systemic toxicity

Glyphosate—Destroyer of Human Health and Biodiversity

Another important paper titled: Glyphosate: Destructor of Human Health and Biodiversity, compiled by Rosemary Mason, MB, ChB, contains information from a global network of independent scientists, toxicologists, beekeepers, environmentalists, governments and more. In it, she presents evidence showing that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants, animals and humans, and that glyphosate residues have in fact been found in all three.

"Glyphosate is an endocrine-disruptor (as are many herbicides) it damages DNA and it is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer," the paper states. "We present graphs from the US which correlate glyphosate application and the percentage of GE soy and corn crops to the incidence and prevalence of various diseases in those on a Western diet.

The Pearson's correlation coefficients are very strong and highly significant for obesity, diabetes, autism, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, deaths from Parkinson's, Senile Dementia and Alzheimer's, inflammatory bowel disease and acute kidney failure. We present Cancer Research UK graphs of upward trends in cancer incidences between 1975 and 2009, which are in line with the US graphs. Other consequences are gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, depression, infertility, birth defect s and other cancers."

Statistics Expose Health Hazards of Glyphosate

Then there's the papers published by former US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson. She has a Ph.D. in physics, holds five US patents and has authored more than 30 scientific papers and two books on women in science. Ten years ago, she became seriously ill, and in her journey to regain her health she turned to organic foods. Not surprisingly (for those in the know) her symptoms dramatically improved. This prompted her to start investigating genetically engineered foods.

She too has meticulously collected statistics on glyphosate usage and various diseases and conditions. The graph below illustrates the perfect match-up between the rise in glyphosate usage and incidence of autism for example. To access her published articles and reports, please visit Sustainable Pulse, a European website dedicated to exposing the hazards of genetically engineered foods.

According to Dr. Swanson:

 "Prevalence and incidence data show correlations between diseases of the organs and the increase in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, along with the increase in glyphosate-based herbicide applications. More and more studies have revealed carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of Roundup at lower doses than those authorized for residues found in Genetically Modified Organisms."

"The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, and sexual development. Fetuses, infants and children are especially susceptible because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes. For optimal growth and development, it is crucial that their hormonal system is functioning properly.

The endocrine disrupting properties also lead to neurological disorders (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly."

The Case Against Coexistence of GMO and Non-GMO

In 2011, when the approval of genetically engineered alfalfa was still under discussion, there was quite a bit of talk about whether or not GMO crops could coexist with non-GMO crops. In the end, the White House directly intervened with the USDA and told them in no uncertain terms that they didn't want any restrictions on Monsanto's alfalfa, which made the notion of coexistence is a moot point.

Anyone with any kind of understanding of how it works fully expected, and still expects, cross-pollination to occur as a matter of course. Honey bees can transfer pollen several miles. Birds can carry seed even farther... As plant pathologist Dr. Huber recently told me:

"We know how to get these genes in; we don't know how to remove them. I don't see any opportunity for coexistence with the current technology that we have because of that promiscuous nature of the genes. If you have a gene that is spread by pollen, like Roundup Ready alfalfa, it's just a matter of time before those bees or the wind will transfer that particular pollen to every alfalfa crop that you're going to grow. There's a high enough probability that you're going to see that genetic component in it."

So what's the answer? For starters, Americans need foods to be labeled, indicating whether or not a food contains genetically engineered ingredients. At that point, the market place will likely help shift farmers away from GE crops as more people will opt for non-GMO fare. But to get there, we need your help.

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.



~A.