Daily Archives: March 16, 2011

Panel spanks EPA stupidity; Boxer calls names (Nyah!); something about a Senate airstrike and Waxman certainly looks like he’s on the runway ready for takeoff

House panel rejects EPA’s greenhouse gas rules

With mostly GOP support, a U.S. House panel voted to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a central tenet of President Obama’s climate agenda.

By a vote of 34-19, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill Tuesday that would strip the EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from power plants, oil refineries and other sources. All Republicans voted in favor, along with three Democrats: Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike Ross of Arkansas. The vote follows a subcommittee’s approval last week.

Continue reading

Corporate beg for handouts, “alternative energy” isn’t, biomass emissions count after all and the EPA’s coal pogrom continues

Stoking the energy debate

Producers jostling for vanishing subsidies and favorable policy.

WASHINGTON — There’s a new power struggle on Capitol Hill, and this one isn’t between Republicans and Democrats.

Instead, it’s a battle among producers of all sorts of energy — from wind and solar to oil and gas — as they scramble to get a sliver of shrinking federal subsidies and to make sure they benefit from policies that could drive up demand.

Continue reading

Radiation from airport scanners

Topical with current radiation hysteria: TSA Admits Bungling of Airport Body-Scanner Radiation Tests

The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.

The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. (Wired)

So, even if the exposure was really as high as the dodgy test results (which gave the sum of 10 tests rather than mean), would you have been at risk? No. According to the Health Physics Society:

  • One year of naturally occurring background radiation: 300 millirem
  • Annual recommended limit to the public of radiation from man-made sources: 100 millirem
  • Chest X-ray: 10 millirem
  • Flight from New York to Los Angeles: 4 millirem
  • One day of natural background: approximately 1 millirem
  • One backscatter X-ray screening: approximately 0.005 millirem

One backscatter X-ray screening is about 1/200th of your normal natural background radiation or about the same as the cosmic radiation received from about a minute’s flying time. FAQ here or Health Physics Society slide presentation: “X-Ray Security Screening of People”.

Real Japanese nuclear fallout

First the reality check: Nuclear Disaster in Japan

Does it show a way forward for nuclear power?

Ronald Bailey | March 15, 2011

The crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants continues. Amazingly, a 40-year-old power plant built to withstand a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale shut down automatically as designed when the Earth began shaking. In fact, it stood up to an earthquake that released more than 40 times the amount of energy the plant was designed to survive. At the moment it appears that the 33-foot tsunami that knocked out its backup diesel generators for its coolant pumps was the plant’s undoing. (Reason)

Tsunami’s ripples could reach Nevada on renewable energy, Yucca Mountain fronts

As Japan reels from explosions and meltdowns at nuclear reactors damaged by last week’s tsunami, there’s talk in Washington about reining in the United States’ nuclear ambitions — discussions that will have an effect in Nevada.

Continue reading

Irrational nuke fear carries high price tag

Newspapers are having fun: Nuclear radiation fears sweep the Asia-Pacific region after Japan’s quake and tsunami

North Pacific Jet Stream, with rad-hazard symbol

Lurid image suggesting nuclear fallout in US

FEARS of a cross-border nuclear disaster swept across the Asia Pacific region yesterday as Japan’s nuclear crisis deepened, with experts and officials trying to calm fraying nerves in countries as far away as The Philippines and Canada.

As winds took the contaminated clouds from the battered Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant out into the Pacific Ocean towards Hawaii and the US west coast, Japan’s nearest Asian neighbours stepped up their monitoring of potential nuclear fallout, reported The Australian.

and politicians are pandering: ‘The Political Fallout from Fukushima Has Already Reached Germany’

Continue reading

Radiation nervousness, nonsense and reality

Japan radioactivity could enter food chain

Radioactive materials spewed into the air by Japan’s earthquake-crippled nuclear plant may contaminate food and water resources, with children and unborn babies most at risk of possibly developing cancer. (Reuters)

That would take some enormous exposure – following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

Teratogenic effects on foetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months. Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors’ children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation. (Source)

U.S. to review drug supply after Japan reactor breach

The Obama administration will study distribution policies for a drug to protect against the effects of radiation as part of a review of the implications of Japan’s ongoing nuclear disaster, a government spokeswoman said on Tuesday. (Reuters)

Radiation poses only slight risk to nervous Tokyo: U.S. experts

Dozens of workers battling to control radiation at Japan’s stricken reactors face a far greater risk of developing cancer than normal, but Tokyo residents are within the safe range for exposure, U.S. nuclear experts said. (Reuters)

And what is the risk of radiation induced cancer and leukemia death even in a deliberately nuked population?

To the 103 000 deaths from the blast or acute radiation exposure at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have since been added those due to radiation induced cancers and leukaemia, which amounted to some 400 within 30 years, and which may ultimately reach about 550. (Some 93 000 exposed survivors are still being monitored.) (Source)

Editorial: A Meltdown Of Fearmongers

Posted 03/15/2011 07:07 PM ET

Energy: If we drop oil exploration after Deepwater Horizon, coal mining after Chile and nuclear power after Fukushima, what’s left? A world without nuclear power would not be risk-free or cleaner.

When Navy crewmen returned from disaster-relief missions in Japan to the deck of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, it was breathlessly reported that they’d been contaminated with radioactive particles from the damaged nuclear reactors at Fukushima.

A scene from the end-of-the-world epic “On The Beach” this was not. They were treated with good old-fashioned soap and water, and their clothes were discarded. According to the Navy, the exposure received “was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil and the sun.”

What the reports missed was that these sailors were aboard a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a warship designed to sail into combat. These and sailors aboard other ships sail for months on end relatively close to nuclear reactors.

For more than half a century, the Navy has operated for more than 5,800 reactor years and steamed over 136 million miles without accident or radioactive release. (Investors.com)

Art Horn on EPA’s Chief of Air Programs and Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Disturbing Admission at EPA Hearings
By Art Horn
Posted on Mar. 15, 2011

On Tuesday March 1st The House of Representatives was holding a hearing dealing with EPA’s sweeping nationwide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA is set to regulate (read tax) the largest “polluters” to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the air. You know that pollutant that makes all trees, plants and crops grow. This tax will result in higher costs of doing business for the nation’s power generating facilities and most manufacturing plants. It will increase the cost of doing business across the board for many other smaller businesses and will likely inhibit companies from hiring new employees. Back in February Republican Fred Upton said “Needless to say the Chinese government and other competitors have no intention of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way E.P.A. plans to do here in America. Our goal should be to export goods, not jobs.” Without a doubt this will not only push up everyone’s utility bills but will also stoke the inflationary fires that are already burning.

During the hearing Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) was questioning EPA’s Chief of Air Programs and Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Gina McCarthy. He asked her “Do you know what the level of CO2 right now is generally speaking in the atmosphere?” Her answer was “Well actually I don’t have that figure.” The Chief of the EPA’s Air Programs and Greenhouse Gas Regulations doesn’t know how much carbon dioxide is in the air. Upon hearing this answer I wondered if my hearing was going bad. One would assume that the Chief of EPA’s Air Programs would have that figure right off the top of her head. The response to the question made me wonder what else does the EPA not know about carbon dioxide? One thing is for sure, EPA thinks carbon dioxide is pollution. Don’t tell that to the owners of real greenhouses. They might not know that elevating the levels of CO2 to 1,000 parts per million to increase growth might kill their plants, at least according to the EPA’s way of seeing the world.

No Art, not your hearing mate – here’s the video:

Another media release about possibly, maybe, uh… don’t know

Social class makes no difference to water contamination risk

Wealthy, well educated people who choose to drink bottled water rather than water from public supplies may be no less exposed to potentially cancer-causing water contaminants, according to new research published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Environmental Health.

Okay… so what’s the risk?

As part of the EPICURO national bladder cancer study, researchers from all over Spain quizzed 1,270 individuals about their water use and consumption in an effort to discover whether social class has any bearing on exposure to common water disinfection byproducts. High levels of trihalomethanes (THM), chemicals formed in chlorinated water, have been implicated as a possible risk factor for cancer and can be ingested through public drinking water supplies, or absorbed through the skin in baths, showers, and public swimming pools.

No really, what’s the risk?

The CREAL (Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology) research team found that richer people with higher levels of schooling consumed more bottled water than those less educated. Dr Gemma Castaño-Vinyals, who led the investigation, said, “People with more money and more education may think that they’re reducing their risk of exposure to water contaminants by drinking bottled water. However, despite being apparently cleaner and taking more exercise – a result of taking more frequent and longer baths, and using swimming pools more often – they are actually increasing their risk of THM exposure.

So, they haven’t reduced potential exposure, WHAT’S THE RISK ALREADY?

“It must be said that, the risk of these contaminants causing bladder cancer is small, and findings from this research may help us to understand water use patterns in the context of cancer prevention.”

Oh… right.

Not pro-planet, just anti-people

David Suzuki’s fish story

The war on farmed salmon wields defective studies

By Vivian Krause

Canada has the largest coastline in the world and we’re right next door to the world’s largest seafood market: the United States. If there’s one industry that Canada should be developing, it’s aquaculture. Northern B.C. and Nova Scotia, the places where fish farming could provide hundreds of jobs, are some of the poorest parts of Canada.

Aquaculture avoids the worst risks of commercial fishing, such as over-fishing and by-catch. Yet, ironically, the biggest obstacle facing the aquaculture industry is opposition from environmentalists. In British Columbia, a “war on fish farmers” has been declared. More than 20,000 people signed a petition to close salmon farms.

Read More » (Financial Post)

Attempted Dole pesticide extortion suit finally over

Dole Pesticide Suit Doomed By Attorney Fraud

By Ian Thoms

Law360, New York (March 15, 2011) — A California court on Friday dismissed a suit against Dole Food Co., determining that purported Nicaraguan banana farmers who sued the company lied at the behest of their attorneys about being affected by pesticides the company used in the 1970s.

Judge Victoria Chaney, an appellate judge sitting for the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, had already vacated a $2.3 million jury award against Dole last summer. With Friday’s order, she laid out her findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissed the case with prejudice.

“The court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that the … judgment was the product of fraud committed by plaintiffs and fostered by a convergence of social, political and legal factors in Nicaragua that turned the nation into fertile ground for fraudulent claims,” Judge Chaney said. (Law360)

Fantasy coal plays or “How not to invest”

These guys think wasting 30-50% of your resource is a profit-maker: When Clean Coal is King

By Damon van der Linde – Exclusive to Coal Investing News

Although there have been calls to ban coal as a source of energy because of the amount of pollutants released by power plants that are harmful to people living nearby—as well as being a major source of anthropogenic climate change—the world’s largest emerging economies have no plans to phase out this fuel as energy needs continue to grow. Instead of phasing out the use of coal, analysts see the trend leaning more towards the development of “clean” coal technologies.

“With all the concerns about climate change, pollution, etc., the logical conclusion is that “clean” coal carbon capture and storage technologies will be the technologies of the future because they allow coal to be reconciled with the environment,” said Emmanuel Fages, Head of CO2, Gas, Coal and Power Research for Orbeo, an international emission trading company.

Continue reading

Slowly beating back EPA overreach

Federal Court Rules for Alabama Power in Long-Running Clean Air Case

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., March 15, 2011 – A federal judge in Birmingham on Monday dismissed a long-running clean air lawsuit brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency against Alabama Power. The case related to maintenance work conducted at the company’s coal-fired power plants.
Alabama Power maintained from the start that its activities were always in full compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Hopkins rejected EPA’s accusations and methods for determining whether power plant maintenance projects trigger an obligation to get a new clean air permit. It also supports the position that electric utilities can do routine maintenance and repairs on their coal-fired generating units without running afoul of EPA’s “New Source Review” regulations. (PRNewswire)

EPA loses again, this time over permits for “might happen”

NPPC Scores CAFO Suit Victory Over EPA

by Randall – March 15th, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 15, 2011 – In a unanimous decision issued today, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot require livestock operations to obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) permits unless they are discharging manure into a waterway of the United States. The decision is a major victory for pork producers, said the National Pork Producers Council.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans said that EPA exceeded its statutory authority in requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that propose or that might discharge to apply for CWA permits.

NPPC, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the United Egg Producers and several other agricultural groups sued EPA over its so-called CAFO rule, which was issued in 2008 after EPA’s core provision in the initial 2003 regulation was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City. In that 2005 decision, the court ruled that the CWA requires permits only for producers who actually discharge. EPA had sought to require permits even for operations that had a “potential” to discharge. (Southeast AgNet)

New energy giant in the Middle East?

How Israel could revolutionize the global energy sector

By DORE GOLD

New data suggests Israel may not only have much larger gas resources than believed, but also the 3rd largest deposit of oil shale in the world. (Jerusalem Post)

 

No good comes from turning food into fuel

Oil, food groups file second round of E15 lawsuits

The American Petroleum Institute, along with nine food and livestock groups, filed a lawsuit with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 11, challenging the U.S. EPA’s expanded approval for E15 use in vehicle models 2001 through 2006. The lawsuit is the second filed by the groups in response to the EPA’s E15 waiver approval. They also filed a lawsuit in November challenging the EPA’s initial approval of E15 for use in vehicles 2007 and newer.

“EPA’s second E15 waiver was based on just as shaky—if not shakier—legal and technical grounds than the first waiver decision,” said Bob Greco, director of downstream operations at API. “EPA’s waiver decisions are premature, lack statutory authority and put consumers at risk.” (Ethanol Producer)