Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
US Senate defeats bid to gut climate efforts
 |
| The dome of the US Capitol is pictured in Washington © AFP/File Jewel Samad |
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Senate on Wednesday rejected a bid to strip President Barack Obama of his power to regulate greenhouse gases, a move that could have thrown US efforts against climate change into chaos.
The Senate, where Obama's Democratic Party holds a majority, voted 50-50 on a bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from setting standards on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for the world's rising temperatures.
The measure required 60 votes for passage. Four Democrats broke ranks to support the measure, while a sole Republican backed the efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Under Obama, the EPA has started a process of setting standards for emissions from fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, the source of nearly 40 percent of US greenhouse gasses.
The White House said it was "encouraged" by the Senate vote and praised the role of the EPA, a federal agency, in protecting public health.
The Senate "rejected an approach that would have increased the nation's dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming and jeopardized America's ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement.
The rival Republican Party and business interests have been livid at the move, accusing Obama of overstepping his authority after Congress rejected efforts on climate change.
A bill to create a so-called "cap-and-trade" plan -- in which businesses would face restrictions on carbon emissions but be able to trade credits -- died last year in the Senate even when it had a larger Democratic majority.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the top Republican in the chamber, said that the votes showed clear discontent with EPA regulations.
"We in the Senate will continue to fight for legislation that will give the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at the EPA is going to make efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has," he said.
The Republicans say that carbon restrictions would drive up gas prices and costs for businesses, while many Democrats and environmentalists counter that climate efforts would open up a new green economy creating well-paid jobs.
The House of Representatives, where the Republicans won control in November, was debating its own bill Wednesday to disempower the Environmental Protection Agency. But it cannot go into law with the Senate and the White House opposed.
The four Democrats who voted with the Republicans represent states that lean conservative or have major industries in fossil fuels -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Democrat Jay Rockefeller, the other senator from West Virginia, had offered an amendment to wait two years before allowing greenhouse gas regulation but his proposal was rejected by both sides.
The only Republican to take the side of the EPA was Susan Collins of Maine.
© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
America and EU Agree: Raise Radiation Levels for Food
Activist Post
On March 28, 2011, I wrote an article entitled EPA to Help Mainstream Media Obscure The Truth About Radiation Exposure to Americans, in which I discussed the changes to the PAGs (Protective Action Guides) being proposed by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that would raise the acceptable levels of radiation allowed in the environment, food, and even the general public themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency.
Interestingly enough, an article was published on April 3, 2011, by Alexander Higgins citing Kopp Online and Xander News, stating that a similar rule change was occurring in the European Union.
PAGs are policies and guidelines established by the EPA that guide the agency’s response in the event of a radioactive emergency. Specifically, PAGs deal with how the EPA should enforce laws such as the Clean Air and Water Act in relation to the disaster. Although PAGs had already been established by the EPA in 1992, the agency now plans to amend these guidelines to much higher levels of acceptable radiation.
No congressional approval is legally needed to makes such changes, because the EPA is a regulatory agency that sets “policy” and, although these types of agencies can be directed by congress or the president, they often form their own policies. All that is required when agencies such as the EPA wish to change their policy is that they first publish the proposed changes in the Federal Register for a designated period of “public comment.”
However, since public opinion is worth virtually nothing, once a proposed change is published in the Federal Register, it is well on its way to becoming new policy. This is unfortunate considering the fact that, according to PEER(Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63” in drinking water.
Which brings us to the new EU mirror of EPA policy. Actually set as far back as 1989 (by amending standards set in 1987) for the purpose of responding to a nuclear or radiological emergency, the EU ordinance 297/2011 was implemented on March 25, 2011, which finally enacted the standards that were set back in 1989.
EU ordinance 297/2011 raises the Maximum Levels of radiation and radioactive isotopes for food and feed to rather serious levels. In some cases, such as the case of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137, the levels are actually twice the amount of previously acceptable levels. Many of these increases are allowed in products such as infant formula and baby foods.
It should be noted that the new EU changes only apply to food imported from Japan. The justification behind this is that in the event of a nuclear emergency the traditional levels of acceptable radiation should be ignored so as not to cause a food shortage as a result of legal constraints.
However, in this context, making such changes is a completely ridiculous decision. Although it is true that the radiation cloud from Fukushima has almost spread across the entire globe, food imported from Japan itself only makes up a small percentage of the EU food supply. As Thilo Bode and Christina Hacker stated, “These rules now to bring into force is absurd, because in Europe there are no nuclear emergency, and certainly no shortage of food.”[sic] Indeed, it seems the best course of action would be to ban imports of Japanese food or, at the very least, to ban the importation of contaminated Japanese food.
Nevertheless, it all seems a bit too coincidental that both the American EPA and the European Union EC have decided to change their standards at the same time. It is almost enough to make one wonder if there is not a hidden agenda at work amidst this ordeal. Could it be that there is a coordinated effort to increase the levels of radiation the public is subjected to, while at the same time reduce the amount of alarm being expressed (to the extent that it is) over the potential health concerns?
Only time will tell whether or not there is an ulterior motive in regards to the new changes implemented by the EU and those proposed by the EPA. However, it is always good practice to assume that when you see different countries implementing the same policies at the same time, there is much more to the story than meets the eye.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom and his latest book 7 Real Conspiracies.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
EPA to Help Mainstream Media Obscure The Truth About Radiation Exposure to Americans
 |
| Dees Illustration |
As Americans focus on March Madness and Dancing With the Stars instead of the radioactive plume spreading all across the country, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is attempting to make the mainstream media cover up of the Fukushima cloud a bit easier.
The agency now notorious for itsinfamous claim that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11 is now seeking toraise the PAGs (Protective Action Guides) to levels vastly higher than those at which they are currently set allowing for more radioactive contamination of the environment and the general public in the event of a radioactive disaster.
PAGs are policies established by the EPA that guide the agency in enforcing the various environmental laws such as the Clean Air and Water Act in the invent of a radioactive emergency such as a nuclear/dirty bomb or factory meltdown like that occurring in Japan.
The EPA had already established PAGs in this area in 1992. They can be found here. However, the agency now plans to amend and revise these standards this year. Because regulatory agencies form their own policies (although they can be directed by either the President or the Congress), there is no requirement to seek Congressional approval for these changes. All that is required is that the agency place the proposed changes in the Federal Register for public comment before it finalizes its draft into legal policy.
According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63” in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.
In addition to raising the level of permissible radiation in the environment, PEER suggests that thestandards of cleanup after a radioactive emergency will actually be reduced. As a result, radioactive cleanup thresholds will be vastly lowered and, by default, permissible levels of radiation will be vastly increased in this manner as well.
As Michael Kane writes for Collapsenet, the current EPA numbers, as well as those generally agreed upon in the international radiation assessment community, all point to the fact that these increases in permissible levels would create a level of radiation where approximately 1 in 4 people would contract cancer from exposure to them.
The changes to the 1992 PAGs are not a new attempt by the EPA. The agency attempted similar changes in 2009 but the revisions were stopped largely by a barrage of FOIA requests and a lawsuitfiled by PEER. However, in 2009 there was no massive radiation disaster the EPA needed to cover up as there is at the current time. In 2009, the EPA could afford to back off, regroup, and try again at a later date. Unfortunately, it is not likely to react the same way this time around.
As of the time of this writing, a toxic cloud of radiation has not only reached the US West Coast, but has spread all the way across the country to states like South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Massachussetts. Both the US government and the mainstream media have largely denied any risk associated with the radiation and have actively engaged in covering up the extent to which it has spread across the country.
In the event of any real journalism, the revelation of the danger and scale of the Japanese radiation cloud could be disastrous for those who hide the truth from the people who are sure to suffer the consequences. Indeed, the revelation that a toxic cloud of cancer-causing particles is littering the United States (especially in real time) might even be too much for the average television- and sports-obsessed American to handle.
However, the lowering of safety standards for radiation contamination would be a major victory for those wishing to cover it up. After all, the talking heads would then be able to claim that the radiation levels are within the safety range set by the EPA.
No cause for worry.
Regardless of the motivation behind these new changes, they must be actively opposed. We cannot allow the veil to be pulled even further over the eyes of the American people. At the very least, we cannot allow an agency charged with protecting both the environment and the people who live in it to set standards alleviating itself of that responsibility.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom
Friday, March 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
