self inflicted wounds


But food poisoning is pretty common. Just think of the energy use on the farm. Huge machines powered by diesel gasoline, and huge energy consumption in fertilizers. We then transport the food huge distances. We sell them in huge stores oh keep the lights on at the local utility companies. Finally those of us in the first world drive it home in our and put it in our always on refrigerator.  So the fact that we let this thing called food sicken us but also kills us is just inexcusable. This on top of what some of us throw away. Well here is a site thate has on the facts. Unfortunately it is done mostly in photographs and this blog has problems with pictures so go there and look.

http://www.health-science-degree.com/food-poisioning/

Health-Science-Degree.com

The need to feed billions of people efficiently (and make billions of dollars off it) has given rise to large-scale animal farming operations. But are these mega-operations helping feed us or making us all sick?

The Rise of the Factory Farm

Factory farms, more accurately called concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs), are large-scale industrial agricultural facilities that raise animals (usually at high density and kept in confined spaces) for human consumption.
5%
Proportion of CAFOs among all U.S. animal farming operations
50%
Food animals that come from CAFOs
Due in part to these massive factory farms, since 1960 …
… milk production has doubled
… meat production has tripled
… egg production has quadrupled
Such operations also have introduced means to make animals grow heavier more quickly; chickens, for instance, grow twice as large in about half the time:
Decade Growth time Weight
1920 16 weeks 2.2 pounds
2013 7 weeks 5 pounds

The Filthy Truth

In addition to the moral and ethical problems with keeping animals in tiny pens where their natural behaviors are stunted, there’s the very real problem of what to do with all the waste they produce.
These operations can house upwards of …
1,000+ beef cows
10,000+ chickens
10,000+ hogs
That adds up to tons and tons of — well, poop.
300 million tons
Annual manure production of animals from CAFOs; that’s 65% of the waste from all animal operations in the U.S. And it’s more than double the amount of waste produced by the entire U.S. human population.
This manure contains a variety of potential contaminants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coli, growth hormone, antibiotics, animal blood, copper sulfate and more. These contaminants find their way to the groundwater and even pollute the air.
In addition to the manure concern is the possibility that keeping animals in such close quarters encourages infections that are then passed to consumers.

The Risks of Factory Meat

CAFOs are susceptible primarily to three pathogens that also make people sick.
E. coli
Introduction of a grain-based diet, rather than a grass-based diet, has raised E. coli rates among cows. While E. coli is always present in cows’ stomachs, grain-based diets have given rise to more harmful strains, such as O157:H7, which has found its way into water, produce and meat in recent years.
16%
Percentage of foodborne illnesses caused by strains of E. coli
MRSA
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus can be spread by human and animal carriers and has become abundant in our environment. European studies have shown a link between MRSA and factory pig farms.
80,000
Annual MRSA infections in humans, though many cases occur in hospital settings
Campylobacter and salmonella
Campylobacter and salmonella are most commonly found in eggs and poultry, and both pathogens have recently shown signs of drug resistance.
Positive tests for salmonella
Farms with caged hens 23.4%
Organic flocks 4.4%
Free-range flocks 6.5%
62%
Chicken sold in supermarkets contaminated with campylobacter

The Environmental Effects

Potential damage to the environment from mismanagement of the tons of waste produced by these massive operations extends to both the air and water.

  • Excess nitrogen and phosphorus in water
  • Fish kills
  • Toxic algal blooms
  • Waste and pathogens in drinking water
  • Respiratory problems from dust and odors

Factory-Farms-FB

SOURCES:
http://www.ucsusa.org
http://www.cdc.gov
http://www.organicconsumers.org
http://news.yahoo.com
http://www.epa.gov

 

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

OK ok. So I meant that they invaded them financially. This actually very important because it means several things. The sanctions used against Russia will not work because Putin is committed to maintain Russia’s position of Gas Pump to the World. And there are many willing partners that unlike America think much farther ahead to their commodity futures. This shift east so to speak will force Europe to shift hard west. I am unclear whether Russia is preparing to cut lose Iran and Syria. I think not because they really value there deep water port, but it may be forced upon them.

 

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-24/news/48523911_1_sechin-rosneft-magadan

Russia offers India crude oil supplies, stakes in blocks

PTIMar 24, 2014, 09.41PM IST

NEW DELHI: As the US and Europe try to isolate Moscow over its action in Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s trusted lieutenant Igor Sechin today courted top Indian officials, offering to ship its vast crude oil reserves and stakes in oil and gas acreages.

Sechin, who heads Rosneft, Russia’s biggest oil company, led a delegation of about two-dozen officials to meet Oil Secretary Saurabh Chandra seeking to expand ties with New Delhi

“India is a very important country for Russia. We have a very efficiently run project with ONGC…now we want to expand our cooperation,” Sechin told PTI after the meeting.

The Russian state oil major offered Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) a stake in nine offshore oil and gas blocks in the Barents Sea and one in the Black Sea.

“We are (also) looking at supplying crude oil to Indian refineries,” he said, adding that Rosneft produces 200 million tons of crude oil a year.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

I asked the question last week about how these recent river pollutions reflect on the environment be damned attitude that you find in much of the South East. I mean really everyone in the world knows that America is one of the great violaters of the environment worldwide. But hell, it is not like the other major countries care. Russia and China are nothing but open sources on the Earths skin and they have been at it longer than we have. Still, when you have the interface between a major polluter and local government like North Carolina then bad things are bound to happen.

 

Ash decisions: North Carolina helped river-ruining Duke Energy duck pollution complaints

 

Ash decisions: North Carolina helped river-ruining Duke Energy duck pollution complaints

coal-ash-river-north-carolina
Duke Energy

Last year, North Carolina’s top environmental regulators thwarted three separate Clean Water Act lawsuits aimed at forcing Duke Energy, the largest electricity company in the country, to clean up its toxic coal ash pits in the state. That June, the state went even further, saying it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s 31 coal ash storage ponds in the state — an act that protected the company from further federal lawsuits. Last week, one of those coal ash storage ponds ruptured, belching more than 80,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River.

Now, environmental groups and former regulators are charging that North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who worked for Duke for 30 years, has created an atmosphere where the penalties for polluting the environment are low.

The Associated Press reports that McCrory’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources blocked three federal Clean Water Act suits in 2013 by stepping in with its own enforcement authority “at the last minute.” This protected Duke from the kinds of stiff fines and penalties that can result from federal lawsuits. Instead, state regulators arranged settlements that carried miniscule financial penalties and did not require Duke to change how it stores the toxic byproducts of its coal-fired power plants. After blocking the first three suits, which were brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the state filed notices saying that it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s remaining North Carolina coal ash storage sites, protecting the company from Clean Water Act lawsuits linked to its coal waste once and for all.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

This is a sad video. But this is the current situation without the fracking. Stuff is gonna be gushing everywhere once they start. Now you know how bad I am with videos, so you may have to follow the links to see it, but I will try. It is worth seeing. It is only 10 minutes long.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110808212122AAiL2CT

Greenpeace Releases Video of Contaminated Water in Southern Illinois

The international environmental watchdog, Greenpeace, a several decades old nonviolent direct action organization, is now shining a light on our southern Illinois fracking issue. On Tuesday, January 28th, Mitch Wenkus, a Greenpeace filmmaker, just released Fracking in The Land of Lincoln. The short 10:53 minute video features a former oil worker, whose water became contaminated by local southern Illinois oil production. Now the man is a whistleblower on malfunctioning oil wells in our southern Illinois region.  The former oil worker is very concerned about the new threat of fracking and the safety of our water supply. While watching the video, you will note that residents around Crossville, IL must buy water because their well water is polluted with toxic chemicals. Crossville currently buys water from Carmi, IL, which is in White County that may soon be fracked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Jf9OBo_1w

http://youtu.be/K3Jf9OBo_1w

OK, so I tried and the video did not show up. So please go to Youtube and watch it. It is recorded by Green Peace.

:}

Go there and see more. More next week.

:}

No Frackers will go to jail if they violate WHAT LAWS? IDNR might as well give away the state of Illinois to being totally trashed. Where will the Fracking start? In our State Parks?

Day 49   1/2/13

Topic:  Fines penalties, suspensions and revocations

For regulations to work, levied fines must exceed the financial benefit a company gains by violating the rules. None of the rulemaking sanctions meet this criterion. This results in the other 150 pages of rules being essentially meaningless because they will be ignored.   The draft rule sanctions place the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act (HFRA)  on the road to failure before the first permit is issued.

Examples:

  1. Section 1-100(b) of the law specifies misdemeanor and felony criminal charges for a number of violations of the law.  Yet there are NO criminal charges in the rules
  2. In Section 1-60(a)1-6 of the law, there are six (6) grounds for suspension or revocation of a permit.  These are re-listed with a 7th in section 245.1100 of the rules.  But the very next  section of the Rules–245.1110–reduces the grounds for an immediate permit suspension to one: “an emergency condition posing a significant hazard to the public health, aquatic life, wildlife or the environment.” This is the most stringent requirement of the seven grounds listed in section 245.1100.  Why bother to list seven possible grounds for permit suspension or revocation in section 245.1100 if you then require the Department to identify the most stringent criteria for an immediate suspension.
  3. Section 1-60(b) of the law requires a much lower standard of proof to suspend, revoke or deny a permit than the rules (245.1110).  Under the law, the Department need only serve notice of its action (to suspend, revoke or deny), including a statement of the reasons for the action.
  4. In the law, if a well operator’s permit has been suspended, the burden of proof is on well operator to prove that the identified problem is “no significant threat to public health, aquatic life, wildlife, or the environment” [Section 1-60(d)].  In the rules, this phrase becomes something IDNR must prove before ordering a permit suspension [Rule Section 245.1100(b)3A].
  5. Sections 1-100 and 1-101 of the law have some stiff penalties that accrue on a daily basis until the reason for the fine is corrected.  These fines can go as high as $50,000 per violation and up to $10,000 per day.  These are replaced by fines so trivial ($50-$2500) that it will cost the IDNR more to impose and collect a fine than the dollar value of the fine itself.

Revisions Needed:  Return to the standards of the law with regard to fines, penalties and revocations.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}
Go there and comment. We are done with this.
:}

But these are important technical comments. So get to it.

Day 41, 12/25/13  Merry Christmas!  Yes, we’re hoping you’ll take just a minute from your festivities to comment on the fact that IDNR violated it’s own rules with regard to the 5 hearings it held around the state. 

Topic – DEFICIENT NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
This comment is in response to the paragraphs of the published notices setting the dates for the public hearings on the Proposed Amendments to the Rules under the Oil and Gas Act and on the Proposed Rules under the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.  37 Illinois Register 18081, 18081-82 (November 15, 2013); 37 Illinois Register 18097, 18099 (November 15, 2013); 37 Illinois Register 19746 (December 6, 2013); 37 Illinois Register 19747 (December 6, 2013).
Comment:
DNR did not provide the required public notice for any of the public hearings, because in each case the notice for the hearing was not published in the Illinois Register at least 20 days before the hearing.  Although the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act allows DNR to hold a public hearing, in response to a request for a hearing, less than 20 days after public notice in the Illinois Register if the notice of hearing is published in the notice of proposed rulemaking (5 ILCS 100/5-40), DNR has chosen by rule to require a minimum of 20 days’ notice.  DNR’s adopted rule for scheduling public hearings states as follows:
“The Hearing Officer shall set a time and place for hearing and shall give notice as follows, at least 20 days prior to the date of the hearing;
a) to the proponent, by mail;
b) to members of the general public, by means of a general news release and notice in the Illinois Register.”  2 Ill. Admin. Code 825.140.
The first notice of public hearings–for Chicago and Ina–was published in the Illinois Register on November 15, 2013.  But the Chicago hearing took place on November 26, 2013, and the Ina hearing took place on December 3, 2013.  Each of those hearings was held on less than 20 days’ notice.
The second notice of public hearings–for Effingham, Decatur, and Carbondale–was published in the Illinois Register on December 6, 2013.  But the Effingham hearing took place on December 16, 2013, the Decatur hearing took place on December 17, 2013, and the Carbondale hearing took place on December 19, 2013.  Each of those hearings was held on less than 20 days’ notice.
Thus, DNR’s public hearings were held in violation of its own administrative rules.  These violations deprived the citizens of a  meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The remedy for this violation is either additional hearings in these areas, each with the required minimum 20 days’ notice, or alternatively, a new First Notice with the opportunity for new public hearings and a new public comment period.
Illinois People’s Action
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
BloomingtonIL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Invariably it is to hide things that hurt people or hurt the planet. Usually both.

 

Day 38   12/22/13    

Today’s Topic:  Determining if water pollution has occurred

Comment:

Section 1-80 of the Act governing Water Quality Monitoring provides a list of indicator chemicals that would suggest water contamination has occurred but doesn’t limit what may be tested for.  In fact, this section of the law states that “Sampling shall, at a minimum, be consistent with the work plan and allow for a determination of whether any hydraulic fracturing additive or other contaminant has caused pollution or diminution for purposes of Sections 1-83 and 1-85 of this Act.”

Section 1-85 of the Act governing the presumption of pollution or diminution does not limit the sources of sampling data that may be used to prove the pollution or diminution has occurred.

And yet, the IDNR Rules in Section 245.620 have narrowed the statutory basis for the presumption, treating Section 1-80’s list of “indicator chemicals” as a comprehensive list of what should be tested for.  The 1-80 parameters are intended to be INDICATORS of the presence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing, not an exclusive list of the possible contaminating constituents.  There are over 700 chemicals used in fracking.  1-80 lists only a handful of them.  A reasonable person would conclude that if a chemical other than those on the list of indicator chemicals was found and that chemical was part of the list of chemicals in the fracking operator’s work plan, then the operator would be presumed to be responsible for that contamination.

Revisions Needed:  Section 245.620 must reflect the intent of the law that the operator will be responsible for any pollution or diminution caused by fracking.  This responsibility will not be limited to a list of indicator chemicals but will include all chemicals used in the fracturing process.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More later.

:}

Please spare the people of Illinois of having the burden of Fracking disasters placed on their shoulders.

 

 

There was a full house–over 200– at the Carbondale IDNR hearing last night.  That makes over 1000 concerned Illinoisans have attended IDNR hearings against the weak IDNR fracking rules–many of them providing testimony.  IDNR and JCAR, are you listening?

Today (Friday) 12/20/13) is Day 36 of the comment period.

Today’s Topic: Starting the clock over when deficiencies are identified at, or as a result of, the hearing.

Comment:

Subsection 245.270(n), allows the applicant to attempt to correct deficiencies identified at the hearing, but places no time limit on such correction.  It also doesn’t require the Department to provide public notice of such correction. As such, applicants could, in principle, provide information to the Department on Day 59 of the 60-day permit issuance period, and the public would not find out about it until long after the permit had been issued.

Revisions Needed: This provision should specify a time window for applicants to provide corrections. It should also provide that the post- hearing public comment period must remain open for a sufficient number of days after that time window in order to provide the public adequate time to meaningfully review and comment on those corrections. It would not be unreasonable for deficiencies to be viewed as an incomplete application requiring that the 60-day clock start over.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow.

:}

Thanks IDNR for placing the burden of proof on the people of Illinois. Maybe they should rename these regulations as the Rape and Pillage of Illinois.

 

Day 35   12/19/13   

Topic:  Burden and Standard of Proof should be on applicant not persons requesting a public hearing.

Comment:

245.270.i states that parties requesting the public hearing and, if applicable, petitioning to participate in the public hearing shall have the burden of establishing the validity of their objections and concerns through the introduction of credible evidence. The standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence.

The provision concerning burden of proof in this subsection does not make sense in context.  In fact, it reverses the burden that otherwise applies to permit applicants; it is the permit applicant who must demonstrate that they are entitled to a permit. It should not be the hearing requestor’s burden to prove that the issues they raise are worthy of consideration.  To the extent that the person or persons requesting the hearing raise legitimate questions as to whether a permit should be issued—or issued with particular conditions—it must be the applicant’s responsibility to address those questions to the satisfaction of the Department.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Nobody would ever think that Wild Catters are crooks. No way!

 

Day 32   12/16/13

Today’s Topic:  Hearings should be held in the counties that will be affected

  • Go to: http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx
  • Click the button: Subpart B: Registration and Permitting Procedures
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click: 245.270 Public Hearings
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Section 245.270(b)(2) of the Rules gives the Department broad latitude regarding where to hold a hearing, including holding hearings outside the affected counties. It is imperative that the hearings be held IN the county where a well will be located. A location outside the affected county will not serve the public interest.  It could create an enormous barrier to participation by ordinary citizens, who may not have the resources, time or child care options for out-of-town travel.  Furthermore, out-of-county hearings limit the ability of ordinary citizens to call local witnesses, who may have critical information but be unable or unwilling to come to Springfield.  Finally, out of county hearings impede the practicalityfor interested neighbors to attend and observe the hearing, defeating the purpose of ensuring transparency in the permitting process.

It should not be difficult to identify locations where hearings can be held in affected counties. Courthouses, schools, and in some cases county board offices or town halls generally have space that could accommodate a hearing. Furthermore, with the availability and low cost of web-based technology, the Department should be able to appear remotely at a hearing being held in the affected county even if travel there is logistically impossible. But we posit that if it is too expensive or inconvenient for the Department to travel to hearings in counties that will be affected, then it is unfeasible to expect ordinary citizens to bear that burden by traveling to off-site counties to testify in hearings.

Solution:  Hold all hearings in the county in which a well is to be located.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More soon.

:}

Next Page »