CSE has closely scrutinised the detailed project report of the interceptor plan prepared by the consultants appointed by the Delhi Jal Board and found this hardware plan to be a complete waste of money. The river will remain dead despite the massive investments planned during 2009-2012.
Related content
It was in response to the criticism over the failure of the efforts to clean the Yamuna including the Union ministry of environment and forest (MoEF) sponsored Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) that the DJB came up with the idea of interceptor sewers. So far Delhi government has spent over Rs 1,500 crore just to connect 50 per cent of Delhi’s population to its sewerage network. Delhi has the largest sewerage infrastructure—6,000 kilometres (km) sewers and 2330 million litres per day (mld) sewage treatment capacity. CSE in its report Sewage Canal: How to clean the Yamuna pointed out that a paradigm shift is needed in our approach to clean the river. An approach moving away from the standard hardware — sewer and STP — approach. It called for a plan understanding the linkages between water, sewage and pollution and most importantly the need for authentic data.
The Rs 2,500 crore interceptor project is projected by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) as a panacea to the pollution problems of the river Yamuna. An analysis of the detailed project report on this project shows that the project, as it is designed, will not result in a clean river. It will be more money down the drain. Clearly, we must discover solutions that will make a difference to the river and the people dependent on it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Nine Dangerous Chemicals Added To Global Banned List
Nine dangerous chemicals used in farming and industry will be added to a list of banned substances whose presence in the environment causes serious health risks, more than 160 government agreed on Saturday.The nine pesticides and industrial chemicals join 12 substances targeted for elimination under the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).Trade in some of the chemicals can amount to billions of dollars a year, but countries at the United Nations conference agreed they are so dangerous that alternatives must be found."Just five years after this convention came into force, we will have nine new chemicals added to the list of those that the world community agrees we need to control and ultimately get rid of," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which hosted the conference.Donald Cooper, executive secretary of the Stockholm Convention, set out why the banned substances were exceptionally dangerous: They cross boundaries and are found everywhere, from the Tropics to polar regions; they persist for long periods in the atmosphere, soil and water, and take years to degrade; they accumulate in bodies; they accumulate in food chains.The chemicals can damage reproduction, mental capacity and growth and cause cancer, he said."In most cases the question is not simply how do we control them, but how we eliminate them," he told a news briefing on Friday.QUESTION OF TIMINGThe conference had been scheduled to wrap up on Friday, but officials wrangled into Saturday over the details.Cooper said governments at various stages of economic development differed about how fast they should be phased out, especially when there are no alternatives.One of the newly proscribed chemicals is a pesticide called Lindane. It has been replaced in agriculture, but in some countries it is still used to tackle head lice and so will be phased out over five years instead of the standard one year.Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) appears in a wide range of products from electronics components to fire-fighting foam, and trade in it amounts to billions of dollars a year. With no alternatives to some of its applications, it will be restricted rather than eliminated immediately.Steiner said the challenge was to resolve two conflicting objectives -- harnessing the power of science and the chemicals industry and dealing with its negative impact.Sometimes the conflict is not obvious.The inventor of the pesticide DDT won a Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1948 because of its efficacy in killing mosquitoes that transmit malaria. DDT has since been found to be toxic and is banned as a pesticide for crops as one of the original "dirty dozen" under the Stockholm Convention -- but it is still widely used to fight malaria.On Wednesday, UNEP and the World Health Organisation announced a plan to rid the world of DDT by 2010 by developing environmentally friendly ways to fight malaria.In some cases banning the chemicals will have little economic impact as they are no longer used, and the question is of managing and disposing of them.But even where they are still widely traded, the bans will create business opportunities in the search for alternatives."This is not an economic disruption, it is rather an investment in public health with perfectly compatible economic opportunities, but we have to give the right incentives," he said.The meeting also agreed to coordinate its work more closely with two other environment conventions -- the Basel Convention on transporting hazardous waste and the Rotterdam Convention on trade in hazardous chemicals. A conference of all three will be held in February 2010.
Global warming is the biggest environmental threat of our lifetime.
Leading scientists around the world agree that man-made greenhouse gases from fossil fuels are causing global warming. Effects are already being seen worldwide. And long-term consequences are devastating, pointing to a darker future each day we fail to act.
But if each of us takes action — in our homes, in our communities, and in our nation — there is still time to reduce global warming pollution and help safeguard our environment for birds, wildlife, and our children.
Get the facts: Learn the basics on global warming, from impacts and results, to causes and solutions.
Impacts on Birds & Wildlife: Like canaries in the coal mine, birds are an important indicator of our planet's health. See how Global Warming is affecting bird species and other wildlife. Check out Audububon's Birds & Climate Change online as well for even more details.
Be Part of the Solution: Every individual action counts. Learn how you can make energy conservation part of your daily life — and how it will help.
Speak out: Become an advocate for sound energy policy- in INDIA, in your state and in your community.
Global Warming Quiz: Think you already know the facts from fiction? Take our quiz and find out!
Replacing ten 100W light bulbs with CFLs reduces the same amount of carbon dioxide that an SUV emits over a year over the course of the bulbs’ lifetime! Be sure to read the Global Warming factoid on each page to learn even more.
But if each of us takes action — in our homes, in our communities, and in our nation — there is still time to reduce global warming pollution and help safeguard our environment for birds, wildlife, and our children.
Get the facts: Learn the basics on global warming, from impacts and results, to causes and solutions.
Impacts on Birds & Wildlife: Like canaries in the coal mine, birds are an important indicator of our planet's health. See how Global Warming is affecting bird species and other wildlife. Check out Audububon's Birds & Climate Change online as well for even more details.
Be Part of the Solution: Every individual action counts. Learn how you can make energy conservation part of your daily life — and how it will help.
Speak out: Become an advocate for sound energy policy- in INDIA, in your state and in your community.
Global Warming Quiz: Think you already know the facts from fiction? Take our quiz and find out!
Replacing ten 100W light bulbs with CFLs reduces the same amount of carbon dioxide that an SUV emits over a year over the course of the bulbs’ lifetime! Be sure to read the Global Warming factoid on each page to learn even more.
What are the Health Effects of Airport Noise and Airport Pollution?
Researchers have known for years that exposure to excessively-loud noise can cause changes in blood pressure as well as changes in sleep and digestive patterns -- all signs of stress on the human body. The very word “noise” itself derives from the Latin word “noxia,” which means injury or hurt.
Airport Noise and Pollution Increases Risk for IllnessOn a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups--one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood--two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population -- or about 80 million people -- are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport Noise Affects ChildrenAirport noise can also have negative effects on children’s health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children’s health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles’ LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich’s International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Citizen Groups Concerned About Effects of Airport Noise and PollutionLiving near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago’s Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world’s busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O’Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
Airport Noise and Pollution Increases Risk for IllnessOn a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups--one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood--two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population -- or about 80 million people -- are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport Noise Affects ChildrenAirport noise can also have negative effects on children’s health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children’s health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles’ LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich’s International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Citizen Groups Concerned About Effects of Airport Noise and PollutionLiving near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago’s Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world’s busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O’Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted Places on Earth
More than 10 million people in eight different countries are at serious risk for cancer, respiratory diseases, and premature death because they live in the 10 most polluted places on Earth, according to a report by the Blacksmith Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to identify and solve specific environmental problems worldwide.
Top 10 Worst Polluted Places Remote but ToxicChernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident to date, is the best known place on the list. The other places are unknown to most people, and located far from major cities and populations centers, yet 10 million people either suffer or risk serious health effects because of environmental problems ranging from lead contamination to radiation.
“Living in a town with serious pollution is like living under a death sentence,” the report says. “If the damage does not come from immediate poisoning, then cancers, lung infections, mental retardation, are likely outcomes.”
“There are some towns where life expectancy approaches medieval rates, where birth defects are the norm not the exception,” the report continues. “In other places children's asthma rates are measured above 90 percent, or mental retardation is endemic. In these places, life expectancy may be half that of the richest nations. The great suffering of these communities compounds the tragedy of so few years on earth."
Top 10 Worst Polluted Sites Serve as Examples of Widespread ProblemsRussia leads the list of eight nations, with three of the 10 worst polluted sites. Other sites were chosen because they are examples of problems found in many places around the world. For example, Haina, Dominican Republic has severe lead contamination—a problem that is common in many poor countries. Linfen, China is just one of several Chinese cities choking on industrial air pollution. And Ranipet, India is a nasty example of serious groundwater pollution by heavy metals.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places in the world are:
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Haina, Dominican Republic
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
Norilsk, Russia
Ranipet, India
Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, RussiaChoosing the Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places were chosen by the Blacksmith Institute’s Technical Advisory Board from a list of 35 polluted places that had been narrowed from 300 polluted places identified by the Institute or nominated by people worldwide. The Technical Advisory Board includes experts from Johns Hopkins, Hunter College, Harvard University, IIT India, the University of Idaho, Mount Sinai Hospital, and leaders of major international environmental remediation companies.
Solving Global Pollution ProblemsAccording to the report, “there are potential remedies for these sites. Problems like this have been solved over the years in the developed world, and we have the capacity and the technology to spread our experience to our afflicted neighbors.”
“The most important thing is to achieve some practical progress in dealing with these polluted places,” says Dave Hanrahan, chief of global operations for the Blacksmith Institute. “There is a lot of good work being done in understanding the problems and in identifying possible approaches. Our goal is to instill a sense of urgency about tackling these priority sites.”
Top 10 Worst Polluted Places Remote but ToxicChernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident to date, is the best known place on the list. The other places are unknown to most people, and located far from major cities and populations centers, yet 10 million people either suffer or risk serious health effects because of environmental problems ranging from lead contamination to radiation.
“Living in a town with serious pollution is like living under a death sentence,” the report says. “If the damage does not come from immediate poisoning, then cancers, lung infections, mental retardation, are likely outcomes.”
“There are some towns where life expectancy approaches medieval rates, where birth defects are the norm not the exception,” the report continues. “In other places children's asthma rates are measured above 90 percent, or mental retardation is endemic. In these places, life expectancy may be half that of the richest nations. The great suffering of these communities compounds the tragedy of so few years on earth."
Top 10 Worst Polluted Sites Serve as Examples of Widespread ProblemsRussia leads the list of eight nations, with three of the 10 worst polluted sites. Other sites were chosen because they are examples of problems found in many places around the world. For example, Haina, Dominican Republic has severe lead contamination—a problem that is common in many poor countries. Linfen, China is just one of several Chinese cities choking on industrial air pollution. And Ranipet, India is a nasty example of serious groundwater pollution by heavy metals.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places in the world are:
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Haina, Dominican Republic
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
Norilsk, Russia
Ranipet, India
Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, RussiaChoosing the Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places were chosen by the Blacksmith Institute’s Technical Advisory Board from a list of 35 polluted places that had been narrowed from 300 polluted places identified by the Institute or nominated by people worldwide. The Technical Advisory Board includes experts from Johns Hopkins, Hunter College, Harvard University, IIT India, the University of Idaho, Mount Sinai Hospital, and leaders of major international environmental remediation companies.
Solving Global Pollution ProblemsAccording to the report, “there are potential remedies for these sites. Problems like this have been solved over the years in the developed world, and we have the capacity and the technology to spread our experience to our afflicted neighbors.”
“The most important thing is to achieve some practical progress in dealing with these polluted places,” says Dave Hanrahan, chief of global operations for the Blacksmith Institute. “There is a lot of good work being done in understanding the problems and in identifying possible approaches. Our goal is to instill a sense of urgency about tackling these priority sites.”
Toxic at Any Speed: Indoor Air Pollution Inside Your Car
“Indoor air pollution” in homes and offices has been studied extensively in recent years--with sometimes alarming conclusions that have led the building industry to rethink many aspects of design and choice of materials. But the health hazards lurking inside car interiors, where most Americans spend 90 minutes on average each day, have largely escaped scrutiny.
Heat and Ultraviolet Light Trigger Pollution Inside CarsHowever, on January 11, 2006, the Michigan-based Ecology Center released a report entitled: “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives.” In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs, often used as fire retardants) and phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics) are the primary culprits. Part of the seat cushions, armrests, floor coverings and plastic parts in most car interiors, these chemicals are easily inhaled or ingested through contact with dust by drivers and passengers. The risks are greatest in summer, when car interiors can get as hot as 192ยบ F.
How Can Drivers Reduce the Risks of Pollution Inside CarsMotorists can lessen their risks by rolling down car windows, parking in the shade and using interior sun reflectors. But the Ecology Center is urging carmakers to stop using such chemicals in the first place. “We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars,” says Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center’s Clean Car Campaign Director and co-author of the report. “Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
Volvo Shows Least Pollution Inside CarsIn preparing its report, the Ecology Center collected windshield film and dust from 2000 to 2005 models made by 11 leading manufacturers. Volvo was found to have the lowest phthalate levels and the second lowest PBDE levels, making it the industry leader in interior air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals. Other makers claim they have eliminated some but not all PBDEs and phthalates. Ford, for example, reports that it has eliminated PBDEs from “interior components that customers may come into contact with.” Honda reports it has eliminated most phthalate-containing PVC. Other carmakers tested were BMW, Chrysler, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Should the Government Ban Chemicals that Cause Indoor Pollution?With indoor air pollution already listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the top five environmental risks to public health, the Ecology Center is especially concerned that concentrations of PBDEs are five times higher inside cars than in homes and offices. The organization is calling on the U.S. government to ban the worst forms of PBDEs and phthalates from use in any indoor environments, and has enlisted the help of several concerned members of Congress to help write legislation to that effect.
Heat and Ultraviolet Light Trigger Pollution Inside CarsHowever, on January 11, 2006, the Michigan-based Ecology Center released a report entitled: “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives.” In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs, often used as fire retardants) and phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics) are the primary culprits. Part of the seat cushions, armrests, floor coverings and plastic parts in most car interiors, these chemicals are easily inhaled or ingested through contact with dust by drivers and passengers. The risks are greatest in summer, when car interiors can get as hot as 192ยบ F.
How Can Drivers Reduce the Risks of Pollution Inside CarsMotorists can lessen their risks by rolling down car windows, parking in the shade and using interior sun reflectors. But the Ecology Center is urging carmakers to stop using such chemicals in the first place. “We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars,” says Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center’s Clean Car Campaign Director and co-author of the report. “Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
Volvo Shows Least Pollution Inside CarsIn preparing its report, the Ecology Center collected windshield film and dust from 2000 to 2005 models made by 11 leading manufacturers. Volvo was found to have the lowest phthalate levels and the second lowest PBDE levels, making it the industry leader in interior air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals. Other makers claim they have eliminated some but not all PBDEs and phthalates. Ford, for example, reports that it has eliminated PBDEs from “interior components that customers may come into contact with.” Honda reports it has eliminated most phthalate-containing PVC. Other carmakers tested were BMW, Chrysler, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Should the Government Ban Chemicals that Cause Indoor Pollution?With indoor air pollution already listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the top five environmental risks to public health, the Ecology Center is especially concerned that concentrations of PBDEs are five times higher inside cars than in homes and offices. The organization is calling on the U.S. government to ban the worst forms of PBDEs and phthalates from use in any indoor environments, and has enlisted the help of several concerned members of Congress to help write legislation to that effect.
Light Pollution Raises Risks of Breast Cancer
The glow of city lights blotting out stars in the night sky has frustrated many a stargazer, but recent studies have shown that “light pollution”—defined as excess or obtrusive light at night—can actually have serious health effects. Researchers have found that exposure to bright nocturnal light can decrease the human body’s production of melatonin, a hormone secreted at night that regulates our sleep/wake cycles. And decreased melatonin production has in turn been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in women.
“Light at night is now clearly a risk factor for breast cancer,” says David Blask, a researcher at the Cooperstown, New York-based Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute. “Breast tumors are awake during the day, and melatonin puts them to sleep at night.”
Light Pollution Leads to More Breast Cancer in Industrialized CountriesEpidemiologist Richard Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory first discovered the link between breast cancer and light pollution in the late 1980s. Stevens found that breast cancer rates were significantly higher in industrialized countries, where nighttime lighting is prevalent, than in developing regions.
Night Shift Workers Run Higher Risk of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionLending credence to Stevens’ research are the findings of another researcher, William Hrushesky of the South Carolina-based Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who discovered that female night shift workers have a 50 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than other working women. He also found that blind women have high melatonin concentrations and unusually low rates of breast cancer.
How to Reduce Risks of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionTo reduce breast cancer risks from light pollution, Prevention magazine recommends nine hours of sleep nightly in a dark room devoid of both interior (computer screens) and exterior (street lamps) light sources. A study of 12,000 Finnish women found that those who slept nine hours nightly had less than one-third the risk of developing a breast tumor than those who slept only seven or eight hours. Even bright light from a trip to the bathroom can have an affect, so dim nightlights are recommended for night lighting.
How Light Pollution Affects Birds and AnimalsLight pollution causes other problems besides increased cancer risks. According to the Sierra Club, birds and animals can be confused by artificial lighting, leading them away from familiar foraging areas and disrupting their breeding cycles. And the photosynthetic cycles of deciduous trees (those that shed their leaves in the fall) have been shown to be disrupted due to the preponderance of artificial nighttime lights.
Light Pollution and Wasted EnergyAnother environmental impact of excessive use of artificial light is, of course, energy waste. The International Dark-Sky Association computes that unnecessary nighttime lighting wastes upwards of $1.5 billion in electricity costs around the world each year while accounting for the release of more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Individuals can do their part by keeping lights dim or turned off at home at night—and convincing their employers and local government offices to do the same.
“Light at night is now clearly a risk factor for breast cancer,” says David Blask, a researcher at the Cooperstown, New York-based Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute. “Breast tumors are awake during the day, and melatonin puts them to sleep at night.”
Light Pollution Leads to More Breast Cancer in Industrialized CountriesEpidemiologist Richard Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory first discovered the link between breast cancer and light pollution in the late 1980s. Stevens found that breast cancer rates were significantly higher in industrialized countries, where nighttime lighting is prevalent, than in developing regions.
Night Shift Workers Run Higher Risk of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionLending credence to Stevens’ research are the findings of another researcher, William Hrushesky of the South Carolina-based Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who discovered that female night shift workers have a 50 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than other working women. He also found that blind women have high melatonin concentrations and unusually low rates of breast cancer.
How to Reduce Risks of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionTo reduce breast cancer risks from light pollution, Prevention magazine recommends nine hours of sleep nightly in a dark room devoid of both interior (computer screens) and exterior (street lamps) light sources. A study of 12,000 Finnish women found that those who slept nine hours nightly had less than one-third the risk of developing a breast tumor than those who slept only seven or eight hours. Even bright light from a trip to the bathroom can have an affect, so dim nightlights are recommended for night lighting.
How Light Pollution Affects Birds and AnimalsLight pollution causes other problems besides increased cancer risks. According to the Sierra Club, birds and animals can be confused by artificial lighting, leading them away from familiar foraging areas and disrupting their breeding cycles. And the photosynthetic cycles of deciduous trees (those that shed their leaves in the fall) have been shown to be disrupted due to the preponderance of artificial nighttime lights.
Light Pollution and Wasted EnergyAnother environmental impact of excessive use of artificial light is, of course, energy waste. The International Dark-Sky Association computes that unnecessary nighttime lighting wastes upwards of $1.5 billion in electricity costs around the world each year while accounting for the release of more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Individuals can do their part by keeping lights dim or turned off at home at night—and convincing their employers and local government offices to do the same.
Rs 1,400 crore to clean city canals
Chennai, June 10: While World Environment Day was observed in the city last week, the fate of Adyar river that criss-crosses south Chennai continues to be under serious threat as a result of spiralling urbanisation and industrialisation. This situation has risen despite huge investments by governments in cleaning the Adyar and its estuary.
The recent project that proved to be a failure was the Chennai City River Conservation Project completed in 2005 at an estimated cost of Rs 491 crore. The end result being that the river has now become a sewage canal and its survival is at stake.
According to Prof S. Ramachandran, vice-chancellor, Madras University, who is also an expert in fresh and marine water ecology, the Adyar was the lifeline of Chennai till the ’60s. Now, it is severely deprived of dissolved oxygen and its floral and faunal resources have eroded.
According to him, de-silting and assuring free flow of water would bring immediate respite to the river. The mouth of the Adyar has to be widened to allow the mingling of marine and fresh water, he added.
When contacted, Chennai mayor M. Subramanian said that the river had lost its sheen and glory. The city corporation has proposed a Rs 1,400 crore macro and micro drain project to cleanse 16 canals that are maintained by it. The civic body will also coordinate with the public works department to ensure that the Adyar is rejuvenated. The mayor also exuded confidence in the corporation’s macro drain project which will help improve the quality of Adyar’s water.
According to government statistics, there are more than 35,000 slum families encroaching upon the banks of the Adyar, Cooum and Buckingham Canal. And under the CCRCP project, resettlement of families has to be implemented by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, which is pending since 2005.
World's Fastest And Most Sensitive Astronomical Camera
The next generation of instruments for ground-based telescopes took a leap forward with the development of a new ultra-fast camera that can take 1500 finely exposed images per second even when observing extremely faint objects.
The first 240x240 pixel images with the world's fastest high precision faint light camera were obtained through a collaborative effort between ESO and three French laboratories from the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers (CNRS/INSU). Cameras such as this are key components of the next generation of adaptive optics instruments of Europe's ground-based astronomy flagship facility, the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT).
“The performance of this breakthrough camera is without an equivalent anywhere in the world. The camera will enable great leaps forward in many areas of the study of the Universe,” says Norbert Hubin, head of the Adaptive Optics department at ESO. OCam will be part of the second-generation VLT instrument SPHERE. To be installed in 2011, SPHERE will take images of giant exoplanets orbiting nearby stars.
A fast camera such as this is needed as an essential component for the modern adaptive optics instruments used on the largest ground-based telescopes. Telescopes on the ground suffer from the blurring effect induced by atmospheric turbulence. This turbulence causes the stars to twinkle in a way that delights poets, but frustrates astronomers, since it blurs the finest details of the images.
Adaptive optics techniques overcome this major drawback, so that ground-based telescopes can produce images that are as sharp as if taken from space. Adaptive optics is based on real-time corrections computed from images obtained by a special camera working at very high speeds. Nowadays, this means many hundreds of times each second. The new generation instruments require these corrections to be done at an even higher rate, more than one thousand times a second, and this is where OCam is essential.
“The quality of the adaptive optics correction strongly depends on the speed of the camera and on its sensitivity,” says Philippe Feautrier from the LAOG, France, who coordinated the whole project. “But these are a priori contradictory requirements, as in general the faster a camera is, the less sensitive it is.” This is why cameras normally used for very high frame-rate movies require extremely powerful illumination, which is of course not an option for astronomical cameras.
OCam and its CCD220 detector, developed by the British manufacturer e2v technologies, solve this dilemma, by being not only the fastest available, but also very sensitive, making a significant jump in performance for such cameras. Because of imperfect operation of any physical electronic devices, a CCD camera suffers from so-called readout noise. OCam has a readout noise ten times smaller than the detectors currently used on the VLT, making it much more sensitive and able to take pictures of the faintest of sources.
“Thanks to this technology, all the new generation instruments of ESO’s Very Large Telescope will be able to produce the best possible images, with an unequalled sharpness,” declares Jean-Luc Gach, from the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, France, who led the team that built the camera.
“Plans are now underway to develop the adaptive optics detectors required for ESO’s planned 42-metre European Extremely Large Telescope, together with our research partners and the industry,” says Hubin.
Using sensitive detectors developed in the UK, with a control system developed in France, with German and Spanish participation, OCam is truly an outcome of a European collaboration that will be widely used and commercially produced.
OCam and the CCD220 are the result of five years work, financed by the European commission, ESO and CNRS-INSU, within the OPTICON project of the 6th Research and Development Framework Programme of the European Union
The first 240x240 pixel images with the world's fastest high precision faint light camera were obtained through a collaborative effort between ESO and three French laboratories from the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers (CNRS/INSU). Cameras such as this are key components of the next generation of adaptive optics instruments of Europe's ground-based astronomy flagship facility, the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT).
“The performance of this breakthrough camera is without an equivalent anywhere in the world. The camera will enable great leaps forward in many areas of the study of the Universe,” says Norbert Hubin, head of the Adaptive Optics department at ESO. OCam will be part of the second-generation VLT instrument SPHERE. To be installed in 2011, SPHERE will take images of giant exoplanets orbiting nearby stars.
A fast camera such as this is needed as an essential component for the modern adaptive optics instruments used on the largest ground-based telescopes. Telescopes on the ground suffer from the blurring effect induced by atmospheric turbulence. This turbulence causes the stars to twinkle in a way that delights poets, but frustrates astronomers, since it blurs the finest details of the images.
Adaptive optics techniques overcome this major drawback, so that ground-based telescopes can produce images that are as sharp as if taken from space. Adaptive optics is based on real-time corrections computed from images obtained by a special camera working at very high speeds. Nowadays, this means many hundreds of times each second. The new generation instruments require these corrections to be done at an even higher rate, more than one thousand times a second, and this is where OCam is essential.
“The quality of the adaptive optics correction strongly depends on the speed of the camera and on its sensitivity,” says Philippe Feautrier from the LAOG, France, who coordinated the whole project. “But these are a priori contradictory requirements, as in general the faster a camera is, the less sensitive it is.” This is why cameras normally used for very high frame-rate movies require extremely powerful illumination, which is of course not an option for astronomical cameras.
OCam and its CCD220 detector, developed by the British manufacturer e2v technologies, solve this dilemma, by being not only the fastest available, but also very sensitive, making a significant jump in performance for such cameras. Because of imperfect operation of any physical electronic devices, a CCD camera suffers from so-called readout noise. OCam has a readout noise ten times smaller than the detectors currently used on the VLT, making it much more sensitive and able to take pictures of the faintest of sources.
“Thanks to this technology, all the new generation instruments of ESO’s Very Large Telescope will be able to produce the best possible images, with an unequalled sharpness,” declares Jean-Luc Gach, from the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, France, who led the team that built the camera.
“Plans are now underway to develop the adaptive optics detectors required for ESO’s planned 42-metre European Extremely Large Telescope, together with our research partners and the industry,” says Hubin.
Using sensitive detectors developed in the UK, with a control system developed in France, with German and Spanish participation, OCam is truly an outcome of a European collaboration that will be widely used and commercially produced.
OCam and the CCD220 are the result of five years work, financed by the European commission, ESO and CNRS-INSU, within the OPTICON project of the 6th Research and Development Framework Programme of the European Union
'Chemical Nose' May Sniff Out Cancer Earlier
Using a “chemical nose” array of nanoparticles and polymers, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have developed a fundamentally new, more effective way to differentiate not only between healthy and cancerous cells but also between metastatic and non-metastatic cancer cells. It’s a tool that could revolutionize cancer detection and treatment, according to chemist Vincent Rotello and cancer specialist Joseph Jerry.
An article describing Rotello and colleagues’ new chemical nose method of cancer detection appears in the June 23 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online.
Currently, detecting cancer via cell surface biomarkers has taken what’s known as the “lock and key” approach. Drawbacks of this method include that foreknowledge of the biomarker is required. Also, as Rotello explains, a cancer cell has the same biomarkers on its surface as a healthy cell, but in different concentrations, a maddeningly small difference that can be very difficult to detect. “You often don’t get a big signal for the presence of cancer,” he notes. “It’s a subtle thing.”
He adds, “Our new method uses an array of sensors to recognize not only known cancer types, but it signals that abnormal cells are present. That is, the chemical nose can simply tell us something isn’t right, like a ‘check engine light,’ though it may never have encountered that type before.” Further, the chemical nose can be designed to alert doctors of the most invasive cancer types, those for which early treatment is crucial.
In blinded experiments in four human cancer cell lines (cervical, liver, testis and breast), as well as in three metastatic breast cell lines, and in normal cells, the new detection technique correctly indicated not only the presence of cancer cells in a sample but also identified primary cancer vs. metastatic disease.
In further experiments to rule out the possibility that the chemical nose had simply detected individual differences in cells from different donors, the researchers repeated the experiments in skin cells from three groups of cloned BALB /c mice: healthy animals, those with primary cancer and those with metastatic disease. Once again, it worked. “This result is key,” says Rotello. “It shows that we can differentiate between the the three cell types in a single individual using the chemical nose approach.”
Rotello’s research team, with colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology, designed the new detection system by combining three gold nanoparticles that have special affinity for the surface of chemically abnormal cells, plus a polymer known as PPE, or para-phenyleneethynylene. As the ‘check engine light,’ PPE fluoresces or glows when displaced from the nanoparticle surface.
By adding PPE bound with gold nanoparticles to human cells incubating in wells on a culture plate, the researchers induce a response called “competitive binding.” Cell surfaces bind the nanoparticles, displacing the PPE from the surface. This turns on PPE’s fluorescent switch. Cells are then identified from the patterns generated by different particle-PPE systems.
Rotello says the chemical nose approach is so named because it works like a human nose, which is arrayed with hundreds of very selective chemical receptors. These bind with thousands of different chemicals in the air, some more strongly than others, in the endless combination we encounter. The receptors report instantly to the brain, which recognizes patterns such as, for example, “French fries,” or it creates a new smell pattern.
Chemical receptors in the nose plus the brain’s pattern recognition skills together are incredibly sensitive at detecting subtly different combinations, Rotello notes. We routinely detect the presence of tiny numbers of bacteria in meat that’s going bad, for instance. Like a human nose, the chemical version being developed for use in cancer also remembers patterns experienced, even if only once, and creates a new one when needed.
For the future, Rotello says further studies will be undertaken in an animal model to see if the chemical nose approach can identify cell status in real tissue. Also, more work is required to learn how to train the chemical nose’s sensors to give more precise information to physicians who will be making judgment calls about patients’ cancer treatment. But the future is promising, he adds. “We’re getting complete identification now, and this can be improved by adding more and different nanoparticles. So far we’ve experimented with only three, and there are hundreds more we can make.”
An article describing Rotello and colleagues’ new chemical nose method of cancer detection appears in the June 23 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online.
Currently, detecting cancer via cell surface biomarkers has taken what’s known as the “lock and key” approach. Drawbacks of this method include that foreknowledge of the biomarker is required. Also, as Rotello explains, a cancer cell has the same biomarkers on its surface as a healthy cell, but in different concentrations, a maddeningly small difference that can be very difficult to detect. “You often don’t get a big signal for the presence of cancer,” he notes. “It’s a subtle thing.”
He adds, “Our new method uses an array of sensors to recognize not only known cancer types, but it signals that abnormal cells are present. That is, the chemical nose can simply tell us something isn’t right, like a ‘check engine light,’ though it may never have encountered that type before.” Further, the chemical nose can be designed to alert doctors of the most invasive cancer types, those for which early treatment is crucial.
In blinded experiments in four human cancer cell lines (cervical, liver, testis and breast), as well as in three metastatic breast cell lines, and in normal cells, the new detection technique correctly indicated not only the presence of cancer cells in a sample but also identified primary cancer vs. metastatic disease.
In further experiments to rule out the possibility that the chemical nose had simply detected individual differences in cells from different donors, the researchers repeated the experiments in skin cells from three groups of cloned BALB /c mice: healthy animals, those with primary cancer and those with metastatic disease. Once again, it worked. “This result is key,” says Rotello. “It shows that we can differentiate between the the three cell types in a single individual using the chemical nose approach.”
Rotello’s research team, with colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology, designed the new detection system by combining three gold nanoparticles that have special affinity for the surface of chemically abnormal cells, plus a polymer known as PPE, or para-phenyleneethynylene. As the ‘check engine light,’ PPE fluoresces or glows when displaced from the nanoparticle surface.
By adding PPE bound with gold nanoparticles to human cells incubating in wells on a culture plate, the researchers induce a response called “competitive binding.” Cell surfaces bind the nanoparticles, displacing the PPE from the surface. This turns on PPE’s fluorescent switch. Cells are then identified from the patterns generated by different particle-PPE systems.
Rotello says the chemical nose approach is so named because it works like a human nose, which is arrayed with hundreds of very selective chemical receptors. These bind with thousands of different chemicals in the air, some more strongly than others, in the endless combination we encounter. The receptors report instantly to the brain, which recognizes patterns such as, for example, “French fries,” or it creates a new smell pattern.
Chemical receptors in the nose plus the brain’s pattern recognition skills together are incredibly sensitive at detecting subtly different combinations, Rotello notes. We routinely detect the presence of tiny numbers of bacteria in meat that’s going bad, for instance. Like a human nose, the chemical version being developed for use in cancer also remembers patterns experienced, even if only once, and creates a new one when needed.
For the future, Rotello says further studies will be undertaken in an animal model to see if the chemical nose approach can identify cell status in real tissue. Also, more work is required to learn how to train the chemical nose’s sensors to give more precise information to physicians who will be making judgment calls about patients’ cancer treatment. But the future is promising, he adds. “We’re getting complete identification now, and this can be improved by adding more and different nanoparticles. So far we’ve experimented with only three, and there are hundreds more we can make.”
Feeling Stressed? Take a Break to Recharge With Victory Breath
Do you ever want to just pull your hair out midafternoon? If stress from work, family, and a faulty economy aren’t enough, it can be maddening just to look out your sunny window midday while you’re stuck in the office. A simple breathing technique can help you calm down and communicate from nature—even from the confines of your cubicle. Last weekend I was lucky enough to be teaching yoga at Oakley’s Learn to Ride celebrity surf trip in Santa Barbara, Calif. Spending time teaching yoga so close to the water’s edge reminded me that I’m always trying to teach my students that their breath should sound like the ocean.
This type of breath is called ujjayi, or Victory Breath. The idea is that it gives you strength and power—and a sense of victory. It’s a little challenging on the lungs, but that is the point; it is almost like weight lifting on the lungs, challenging them to work harder than they usually do. You can perform Victory Breath anywhere—in your car, in line at the grocery store, on an airplane. Simply sit or stand comfortably to start. Begin with your mouth open and make a “ha” sound almost like you were a snake ready to strike. This is a “ha” that happens in the back of your throat. It’s a throaty “ha,” not a gentle exhale. Try this a couple of times to really get the hang of it and the placement in the back of the throat
Now, close your mouth, but try to get the same “ha” sound from the back of your throat. You won’t be able to—this time the breath is coming out of your nose since your mouth is closed—but the effect is the same. Instead of an open, free breath sound, the sound is slightly constricted. It’s a soft hollow sound in the back of the throat. Keep the constriction in the back of your throat as you continue inhaling and exhaling. Your breath should sound hollow like the ocean (or some people think it even sounds like Darth Vader).
Learning this breath is tricky, so email me at maharaja47@gmail.com, any questions or see a local yoga teacher to make sure you’re doing it correctly. Everything worthwhile takes practice, so just close your eyes, pretend you’re sitting by the ocean—not your office, connect to the flowing waves, and breathe along with them.
This type of breath is called ujjayi, or Victory Breath. The idea is that it gives you strength and power—and a sense of victory. It’s a little challenging on the lungs, but that is the point; it is almost like weight lifting on the lungs, challenging them to work harder than they usually do. You can perform Victory Breath anywhere—in your car, in line at the grocery store, on an airplane. Simply sit or stand comfortably to start. Begin with your mouth open and make a “ha” sound almost like you were a snake ready to strike. This is a “ha” that happens in the back of your throat. It’s a throaty “ha,” not a gentle exhale. Try this a couple of times to really get the hang of it and the placement in the back of the throat
Now, close your mouth, but try to get the same “ha” sound from the back of your throat. You won’t be able to—this time the breath is coming out of your nose since your mouth is closed—but the effect is the same. Instead of an open, free breath sound, the sound is slightly constricted. It’s a soft hollow sound in the back of the throat. Keep the constriction in the back of your throat as you continue inhaling and exhaling. Your breath should sound hollow like the ocean (or some people think it even sounds like Darth Vader).
Learning this breath is tricky, so email me at maharaja47@gmail.com, any questions or see a local yoga teacher to make sure you’re doing it correctly. Everything worthwhile takes practice, so just close your eyes, pretend you’re sitting by the ocean—not your office, connect to the flowing waves, and breathe along with them.
Obama Signs Tough New Anti-Smoking Law
President Barack Obama signed into law Monday the nation’s toughest anti-smoking law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration unprecedented powers to regulate tobacco products.
Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA will be able to ban labels on cigarettes such as “low tar” and “light,” outlaw candy flavorings, and order companies to reduce nicotine in tobacco products. The law also requires large graphic warnings on cartons of cigarettes, the Associated Press reported.
The FDA can now regulate what goes into tobacco products, make those ingredients public, and prohibit marketing campaigns, particularly those that target children.
“The decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of smoking has finally emerged victorious,” Obama said during the signing ceremony at the White House.
Obama has often talked about his own struggles to quit smoking, and did so again Monday, while criticizing the tobacco industry for marketing its products to children and young adults, the AP reported.
“I know — I was one of these teenagers,” he said. “I know how difficult it is to break this habit.”
After the House of Representative approved the bill earlier this month, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said the agency “welcomes the authority given to us by Congress to regulate tobacco products.”
In a prepared statement, she added, “Because smoking and chewing tobacco cause serious public health problems, we view our new responsibilities as a logical extension of our public health mission to protect and to advance the health of Americans.”
Numerous health agencies joined the chorus of approval after the Senate vote earlier this month; the law has been a decade in the making.
The legislation “will finally put an end to Big Tobacco’s despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products,” said John R. Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
“Senate passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has the potential to reduce the scourge of tobacco products, which kill more than 400,000 Americans every year,” he added.
Speaking for the American Heart Association, CEO Nancy Brown said, “The U.S. Senate has taken a bold and courageous step to ensure a healthier future for our children.…The legislation will allow us to protect them from a dirty business that has infiltrated school grounds and homes for many generations.”
“Too many graveyards are marked by the consequences of the industry’s actions,” she added. “With each puff of a cigarette, smokers increase their risk for heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases, and Big Tobacco’s irresponsible marketing campaigns have made it increasingly difficult to break the cycle of addiction and save lives
Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA will be able to ban labels on cigarettes such as “low tar” and “light,” outlaw candy flavorings, and order companies to reduce nicotine in tobacco products. The law also requires large graphic warnings on cartons of cigarettes, the Associated Press reported.
The FDA can now regulate what goes into tobacco products, make those ingredients public, and prohibit marketing campaigns, particularly those that target children.
“The decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of smoking has finally emerged victorious,” Obama said during the signing ceremony at the White House.
Obama has often talked about his own struggles to quit smoking, and did so again Monday, while criticizing the tobacco industry for marketing its products to children and young adults, the AP reported.
“I know — I was one of these teenagers,” he said. “I know how difficult it is to break this habit.”
After the House of Representative approved the bill earlier this month, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said the agency “welcomes the authority given to us by Congress to regulate tobacco products.”
In a prepared statement, she added, “Because smoking and chewing tobacco cause serious public health problems, we view our new responsibilities as a logical extension of our public health mission to protect and to advance the health of Americans.”
Numerous health agencies joined the chorus of approval after the Senate vote earlier this month; the law has been a decade in the making.
The legislation “will finally put an end to Big Tobacco’s despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products,” said John R. Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
“Senate passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has the potential to reduce the scourge of tobacco products, which kill more than 400,000 Americans every year,” he added.
Speaking for the American Heart Association, CEO Nancy Brown said, “The U.S. Senate has taken a bold and courageous step to ensure a healthier future for our children.…The legislation will allow us to protect them from a dirty business that has infiltrated school grounds and homes for many generations.”
“Too many graveyards are marked by the consequences of the industry’s actions,” she added. “With each puff of a cigarette, smokers increase their risk for heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases, and Big Tobacco’s irresponsible marketing campaigns have made it increasingly difficult to break the cycle of addiction and save lives
BHEL Commissions Two Solar Power Plants
The company has commissioned a total of eleven Solar Power Plants in the Lakshadweep islands
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited has commissioned two Grid-Interactive Solar Power Plants of 100 KWp each in Lakshadweep. With this, the company has commissioned a total of eleven Solar Power Plants in the Lakshadweep islands, adding over 1 MW of Solar Power to the power generating capacity of the coral islands in the Arabian Sea. The plants have been set up at Chetlat and Amini islands of Lakshadweep. BHEL has earlier commissioned Solar Power Plants of various ratings up to 150 KWp at the islands of Agatti, Andrott, Bangaram, Bitra, Kadmat, Kalpeni, Kavaratti, Kiltan and Minicoy. BHEL’s Solar Power Plants cater to about 15 per cent of the Union Territory’s energy demand and Lakshadweep boasts of having the country’s largest solar power-based island electrification project. The Lakshadweep islands were wholly powered by DG sets using diesel transported from the mainland (Kochi), reports IndiaInfoline. Transportation of diesel is a cumbersome and costly process, largely depending on sea conditions. Continuous running of the diesel generators was also leading to noise and air pollution. Besides, contamination of the ground water by the stored diesel was another concern which prompted the Lakshadweep Administration to opt for environment-friendly Solar Power. The projects will greatly reduce the problems faced in transportation and storage of diesel, besides safeguarding the fragile ecology of the coral islands hitherto threatened by the use of diesel. The Solar Power Plants supply energy to the main Diesel Generator (DG) grid which in turn powers the entire island including Tourist Cottages, Residential Houses, Cottage Industries etc. The Photovoltaic (PV) modules convert sunlight to electricity directly and using state-of-the-art Power Conditioning Units (PCUs), the DC power is converted to AC and synchronised with the diesel grid. The SPV modules are manufactured at its ultra-modern manufacturing facility located at Bangalore. Starting from small applications like Solar Powered Street Light, Rural Water Pumping System, Railway Signaling, Offshore Drilling Platforms, BHEL has supplied and commissioned large size Stand-alone as well as Grid Inter-active Solar Power Plants in a number of major cities and remote areas of the country. The Solar cells and modules manufactured are also exported to various countries like Germany, Australia and Italy. The company’s PV modules are certified to international standards by JRC, Ispra, Italy.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited has commissioned two Grid-Interactive Solar Power Plants of 100 KWp each in Lakshadweep. With this, the company has commissioned a total of eleven Solar Power Plants in the Lakshadweep islands, adding over 1 MW of Solar Power to the power generating capacity of the coral islands in the Arabian Sea. The plants have been set up at Chetlat and Amini islands of Lakshadweep. BHEL has earlier commissioned Solar Power Plants of various ratings up to 150 KWp at the islands of Agatti, Andrott, Bangaram, Bitra, Kadmat, Kalpeni, Kavaratti, Kiltan and Minicoy. BHEL’s Solar Power Plants cater to about 15 per cent of the Union Territory’s energy demand and Lakshadweep boasts of having the country’s largest solar power-based island electrification project. The Lakshadweep islands were wholly powered by DG sets using diesel transported from the mainland (Kochi), reports IndiaInfoline. Transportation of diesel is a cumbersome and costly process, largely depending on sea conditions. Continuous running of the diesel generators was also leading to noise and air pollution. Besides, contamination of the ground water by the stored diesel was another concern which prompted the Lakshadweep Administration to opt for environment-friendly Solar Power. The projects will greatly reduce the problems faced in transportation and storage of diesel, besides safeguarding the fragile ecology of the coral islands hitherto threatened by the use of diesel. The Solar Power Plants supply energy to the main Diesel Generator (DG) grid which in turn powers the entire island including Tourist Cottages, Residential Houses, Cottage Industries etc. The Photovoltaic (PV) modules convert sunlight to electricity directly and using state-of-the-art Power Conditioning Units (PCUs), the DC power is converted to AC and synchronised with the diesel grid. The SPV modules are manufactured at its ultra-modern manufacturing facility located at Bangalore. Starting from small applications like Solar Powered Street Light, Rural Water Pumping System, Railway Signaling, Offshore Drilling Platforms, BHEL has supplied and commissioned large size Stand-alone as well as Grid Inter-active Solar Power Plants in a number of major cities and remote areas of the country. The Solar cells and modules manufactured are also exported to various countries like Germany, Australia and Italy. The company’s PV modules are certified to international standards by JRC, Ispra, Italy.
Shifts in Earth's Magnetic Field Driven by Oceans?
The flow of seawater across Earth's surface could be responsible for small fluctuations in the planet's magnetic field, a controversial new study says.
If so, the research would challenge the widely accepted theory that Earth's magnetic field is generated by a churning molten core, or dynamo, in the planets interior.If I am correct, then the dynamo theory is in bad shape, and all kinds of things about core dynamics also fall apart," said study author Gregory Ryskin, an associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois.
Ryskin's study has attracted fierce criticism from other geophysicists, with some experts dismissing the idea as "junk" science.
"I strongly believe the new hypothesis is just nonsense," said geophysicist Robert Parker of the University of California, San Diego.
Such reactions were not entirely unexpected.
"This article is controversial and will no doubt cause vigorous debate, and possibly strong opposition, from some parts of the geomagnetism community," Tim Smith, senior publisher of the New Journal of Physics, which published Ryskin's findings, said in a statement.
Earth's Dynamo
Earth's magnetic field extends thousands of miles into space and shields surface life from the solar wind—a potentially harmful stream of charged particles emanating from the sun.
(Read "Magnetic-Shield Cracks Found; Big Solar Storms Expected.")
According to the well-known dynamo theory, Earth has a solid inner core that spins inside an outer core of molten iron. The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field.
Unlike the static field around a bar magnet, Earth's magnetic field is constantly shifting direction. As navigators discovered centuries ago, the direction of North on a compass varies slightly depending on location. tn the planet's interior.
If so, the research would challenge the widely accepted theory that Earth's magnetic field is generated by a churning molten core, or dynamo, in the planets interior.If I am correct, then the dynamo theory is in bad shape, and all kinds of things about core dynamics also fall apart," said study author Gregory Ryskin, an associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois.
Ryskin's study has attracted fierce criticism from other geophysicists, with some experts dismissing the idea as "junk" science.
"I strongly believe the new hypothesis is just nonsense," said geophysicist Robert Parker of the University of California, San Diego.
Such reactions were not entirely unexpected.
"This article is controversial and will no doubt cause vigorous debate, and possibly strong opposition, from some parts of the geomagnetism community," Tim Smith, senior publisher of the New Journal of Physics, which published Ryskin's findings, said in a statement.
Earth's Dynamo
Earth's magnetic field extends thousands of miles into space and shields surface life from the solar wind—a potentially harmful stream of charged particles emanating from the sun.
(Read "Magnetic-Shield Cracks Found; Big Solar Storms Expected.")
According to the well-known dynamo theory, Earth has a solid inner core that spins inside an outer core of molten iron. The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field.
Unlike the static field around a bar magnet, Earth's magnetic field is constantly shifting direction. As navigators discovered centuries ago, the direction of North on a compass varies slightly depending on location. tn the planet's interior.
House Democrats reach deal on Climate Bill
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said they had reached a deal on difficult agriculture issues in a climate change bill, clearing the way for a vote and probable passage in the chamber this week.
"We have an agreement finally," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, whose support had been widely sought by House Democratic leaders. Peterson declared he is now prepared to vote for the controversial bill.Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent for legislation to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide associated with global warming, told reporters: "I think we will have the majority to pass the bill."
Waxman also predicted environmental groups will remain supportive, despite new provisions to help farm states that some feared would weaken the bill.
The breakthrough came just hours after President Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, embraced the Democrats' bill and urged the House to move quickly on it.
It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet," Obama said.In announcing the deal after briefing a group of moderate Democrats, Waxman said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, would be put in charge of overseeing certain steps to be taken by farmers to reduce carbon emissions.
Known as "offsets," the program would allow farmers to claim achievements in reducing carbon pollution by planting trees or taking other environmental actions. But the agriculture community objected to EPA overseeing the program and insisted that the more sympathetic USDA do the job.
"We have an agreement finally," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, whose support had been widely sought by House Democratic leaders. Peterson declared he is now prepared to vote for the controversial bill.Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent for legislation to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide associated with global warming, told reporters: "I think we will have the majority to pass the bill."
Waxman also predicted environmental groups will remain supportive, despite new provisions to help farm states that some feared would weaken the bill.
The breakthrough came just hours after President Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, embraced the Democrats' bill and urged the House to move quickly on it.
It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet," Obama said.In announcing the deal after briefing a group of moderate Democrats, Waxman said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, would be put in charge of overseeing certain steps to be taken by farmers to reduce carbon emissions.
Known as "offsets," the program would allow farmers to claim achievements in reducing carbon pollution by planting trees or taking other environmental actions. But the agriculture community objected to EPA overseeing the program and insisted that the more sympathetic USDA do the job.
Global warming and India
IF FILMS and publications can warm up a public issue, global warming is a clear frontrunner. First came Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, then a book with the same title early last year. The U.K. Government's Stern Report arrived in September, the Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came in February 2007, and its latest report on April 6.
The film and the reports are unequivocal in their message that a warming-induced apocalypse is well on the way and that humans are responsible for as much as 90 per cent of the observed warming of 0.6 degree Celsius over 150 years. The release of carbon dioxide by the burning of coal and oil for power generation, transportation, and other purposes, and of methane from paddy fields, large water storages, and enteric fermentation of cattle, have been identified as the main contributing factors. If business goes on as usual then global temperatures may rise by 3 to 5 degrees this century. This will result in the sea-level rise inundating large coastal tracts, erratic precipitation, water stress, poor crop yields, and a rise in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
If the anticipated consequences are so dire, then one should expect those responsible for the damage caused (read developed countries) to act with appropriate urgency and seriousness of purpose to atone for it. In fact, they should have done so since June 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The adjunct to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, was hammered out in December 1997, setting individual targets for these countries to reduce yearly emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a minimum of 5 per cent below their 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. Thirty-five industrialised countries and the members of the European Union (EU) were thus covered by mandatory cuts. Developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil were exempted, though they bore a "common but differentiated responsibility" to take steps to mitigate global warming.
An assessment of the GHG reductions made by those who were given targets to do so makes poor reading and holds out little promise of their being able to live up to expectations. According to the UNFCCC secretariat (October 31, 2006) the overall emissions of the parties with targets dropped by only 3.3 per cent from 1990 to 2004. And even this reduction was rendered possible by a 36.8 per cent decrease in the Economies in Transition (EITs), namely the countries of eastern and central Europe, which were under the socialist fold earlier. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic), after its reunification with the Federal Republic of Germany, saw the closure of its carbon dioxide-spewing lignite-fired power stations, enabling the unified Germany to record a massive fall in GHG emissions. But the EITs have seen a reversal of the trend from 2000 to 2004: during this period their emissions went up by 4.1 per cent. The U.K., aided greatly since the 1970s by North Sea gas, saw significant reductions by 1995, a good two years before Kyoto.
The original 15 members of the EU, who have to cut their collective emissions by 8 per cent by 2008-2012, recorded a poor progress of 0.9 per cent by 2004. Despite this, the EU is sanguine about achieving the target for the community as a whole by 2010. This has to be viewed against the backdrop of seven member-states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain — expressing their inability to meet the targets.
Outside the EU, Canada has made public its inability to meet its stipulated 6 per cent GHG reduction. Canada's emissions have risen by 29 per cent over 1990 levels. It is unwilling to pass up the prospect of its Alberta tar sands yielding oil commercially. The opposition of the biggest emitter of GHGs, the U.S., to become a party to the UNFCCC and Kyoto is well known. Australia, blessed with huge coal reserves that form the backbone of its exports, is undeterred by its forest fires to subscribe to the Convention or the Protocol.
Softening up offensive
Realising that Kyoto will end in a whimper lest the U.S. and the growing economies of China and India are brought on board to accept mandatory cuts, the chief proponents of Kyoto have begun a softening up offensive. Urgency is lent by the fact that evidence of some of the adverse effects of global warming such as longer and hotter summers, shorter autumns, warmer winters, and early arrival of spring is visible in Europe.
First, the G8 club has been inviting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico to its summit meetings to evolve G8+5 strategies to mitigate global warming. Secondly, delegates from G8+5 and the U.S. Congress met on Capitol Hill in February 2007 to discuss future climate policy. According to New Scientist, they agreed to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to "somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million compared to the present level of 379 parts per million," in order to frame emission targets "according to historical responsibility and development needs," establish a "carbon market, linking the European emissions trading scheme with others emerging across the globe" and give "a focus on research and development, energy efficiency, and means of adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change."
The G8 summit scheduled for June will "arrive at a blueprint of the post-Kyoto framework which would serve as the background paper for global negotiations to begin under U.N. auspices in December 2007 and to conclude by 2009."
What is in store for India? What are the options available to it to limit its GHG emissions? Should India emphasise mitigation measures, or adaptation strategies, or both? And most important, how is it to guard the growth of the Indian economy from the adverse impact of GHG reductions — which boils down to less energy generation and consumption? Such questions will confront the expert advisory committee to be set up by the Government of India on global warming. The proposal to set up such a committee was announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
Baseline information on India's GHG emissions was gathered during an exercise undertaken in the mid-1990s to make an inventory of sources of emissions and their volumes, for submission to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. India's predominantly coal-based power industry, its oil-intensive transportation systems, large areas under paddy cultivation, and 440-million cattle population are its principal sources.
The implications of GHG reductions on energy generation and hence on the economy can be gauged from the report of the Integrated Energy Policy Committee released by the Planning Commission in December 2005. The report said: "To deliver a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would, in the very least, need to grow its primary energy supply by three to four times and electricity supply by five to seven times of today's consumption."
Currently, coal accounts for over 50 per cent of the country's commercial energy consumption and almost 60 per cent of its electricity generation. Even in the most optimistic scenario of maximising the development of all clean energy sources, coal will account for 42 per cent of the fuel-mix by 2031-32. Under the least optimistic projections, coal will account for 65 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions will go up from the present one billion tonnes a year to 4.1 or 5.9 billion tonnes, depending on the fuel-mix option that may prevail then.
Can India afford binding commitments, then? The answer is an emphatic `no.' What India can do in the interests of mitigating global warming and climate change and in the interests of its energy security is to manage its energy supply and demand based on economic pricing of energy, remove wasteful subsidies, reduce transmission and distribution losses, promote mass transit and freight movement by rail in preference to road, and promote energy conservation in buildings and energy efficiency in industry and agriculture. Vigorous promotion of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy — the latter somewhat looked down upon by some members of the EU — can lend greenness to the Indian energy scene. Adaptation to climate change is an equally worthwhile end to pursue and may make more sense than mitigation. India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do.
The film and the reports are unequivocal in their message that a warming-induced apocalypse is well on the way and that humans are responsible for as much as 90 per cent of the observed warming of 0.6 degree Celsius over 150 years. The release of carbon dioxide by the burning of coal and oil for power generation, transportation, and other purposes, and of methane from paddy fields, large water storages, and enteric fermentation of cattle, have been identified as the main contributing factors. If business goes on as usual then global temperatures may rise by 3 to 5 degrees this century. This will result in the sea-level rise inundating large coastal tracts, erratic precipitation, water stress, poor crop yields, and a rise in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
If the anticipated consequences are so dire, then one should expect those responsible for the damage caused (read developed countries) to act with appropriate urgency and seriousness of purpose to atone for it. In fact, they should have done so since June 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The adjunct to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, was hammered out in December 1997, setting individual targets for these countries to reduce yearly emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a minimum of 5 per cent below their 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. Thirty-five industrialised countries and the members of the European Union (EU) were thus covered by mandatory cuts. Developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil were exempted, though they bore a "common but differentiated responsibility" to take steps to mitigate global warming.
An assessment of the GHG reductions made by those who were given targets to do so makes poor reading and holds out little promise of their being able to live up to expectations. According to the UNFCCC secretariat (October 31, 2006) the overall emissions of the parties with targets dropped by only 3.3 per cent from 1990 to 2004. And even this reduction was rendered possible by a 36.8 per cent decrease in the Economies in Transition (EITs), namely the countries of eastern and central Europe, which were under the socialist fold earlier. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic), after its reunification with the Federal Republic of Germany, saw the closure of its carbon dioxide-spewing lignite-fired power stations, enabling the unified Germany to record a massive fall in GHG emissions. But the EITs have seen a reversal of the trend from 2000 to 2004: during this period their emissions went up by 4.1 per cent. The U.K., aided greatly since the 1970s by North Sea gas, saw significant reductions by 1995, a good two years before Kyoto.
The original 15 members of the EU, who have to cut their collective emissions by 8 per cent by 2008-2012, recorded a poor progress of 0.9 per cent by 2004. Despite this, the EU is sanguine about achieving the target for the community as a whole by 2010. This has to be viewed against the backdrop of seven member-states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain — expressing their inability to meet the targets.
Outside the EU, Canada has made public its inability to meet its stipulated 6 per cent GHG reduction. Canada's emissions have risen by 29 per cent over 1990 levels. It is unwilling to pass up the prospect of its Alberta tar sands yielding oil commercially. The opposition of the biggest emitter of GHGs, the U.S., to become a party to the UNFCCC and Kyoto is well known. Australia, blessed with huge coal reserves that form the backbone of its exports, is undeterred by its forest fires to subscribe to the Convention or the Protocol.
Softening up offensive
Realising that Kyoto will end in a whimper lest the U.S. and the growing economies of China and India are brought on board to accept mandatory cuts, the chief proponents of Kyoto have begun a softening up offensive. Urgency is lent by the fact that evidence of some of the adverse effects of global warming such as longer and hotter summers, shorter autumns, warmer winters, and early arrival of spring is visible in Europe.
First, the G8 club has been inviting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico to its summit meetings to evolve G8+5 strategies to mitigate global warming. Secondly, delegates from G8+5 and the U.S. Congress met on Capitol Hill in February 2007 to discuss future climate policy. According to New Scientist, they agreed to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to "somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million compared to the present level of 379 parts per million," in order to frame emission targets "according to historical responsibility and development needs," establish a "carbon market, linking the European emissions trading scheme with others emerging across the globe" and give "a focus on research and development, energy efficiency, and means of adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change."
The G8 summit scheduled for June will "arrive at a blueprint of the post-Kyoto framework which would serve as the background paper for global negotiations to begin under U.N. auspices in December 2007 and to conclude by 2009."
What is in store for India? What are the options available to it to limit its GHG emissions? Should India emphasise mitigation measures, or adaptation strategies, or both? And most important, how is it to guard the growth of the Indian economy from the adverse impact of GHG reductions — which boils down to less energy generation and consumption? Such questions will confront the expert advisory committee to be set up by the Government of India on global warming. The proposal to set up such a committee was announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
Baseline information on India's GHG emissions was gathered during an exercise undertaken in the mid-1990s to make an inventory of sources of emissions and their volumes, for submission to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. India's predominantly coal-based power industry, its oil-intensive transportation systems, large areas under paddy cultivation, and 440-million cattle population are its principal sources.
The implications of GHG reductions on energy generation and hence on the economy can be gauged from the report of the Integrated Energy Policy Committee released by the Planning Commission in December 2005. The report said: "To deliver a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would, in the very least, need to grow its primary energy supply by three to four times and electricity supply by five to seven times of today's consumption."
Currently, coal accounts for over 50 per cent of the country's commercial energy consumption and almost 60 per cent of its electricity generation. Even in the most optimistic scenario of maximising the development of all clean energy sources, coal will account for 42 per cent of the fuel-mix by 2031-32. Under the least optimistic projections, coal will account for 65 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions will go up from the present one billion tonnes a year to 4.1 or 5.9 billion tonnes, depending on the fuel-mix option that may prevail then.
Can India afford binding commitments, then? The answer is an emphatic `no.' What India can do in the interests of mitigating global warming and climate change and in the interests of its energy security is to manage its energy supply and demand based on economic pricing of energy, remove wasteful subsidies, reduce transmission and distribution losses, promote mass transit and freight movement by rail in preference to road, and promote energy conservation in buildings and energy efficiency in industry and agriculture. Vigorous promotion of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy — the latter somewhat looked down upon by some members of the EU — can lend greenness to the Indian energy scene. Adaptation to climate change is an equally worthwhile end to pursue and may make more sense than mitigation. India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do.
INTERVIEW - Global warming is a security threat - Kofi Annan
Global warming must be seen as an economic and security threat, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday, calling on poorer countries to speak louder about their climate change needs.
In an interview, Annan said he chose to focus his retirement energies on environmental risks because he believes that left unchecked, they could destabilise both rich and poor countries.
"We do have economic bases for conflict, and tensions, that we sometimes ignore," he told Reuters in Geneva on the opening day of his Global Humanitarian Forum's two-day meeting on the human impact of climate change.
"When we talk in terms of security and safety, we tend to focus on political conflicts, military conflicts, when some of the sources can be fights over scarcity and resources," he said.
Politicians focused on salvaging the troubled global economy should not forget the risks their populations face from global warming, Annan said. "They need to pay attention because there will be tensions over scarce resources."
The six-year-old conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, which the United Nations estimates has killed 300,000 people, is an example where environmental pressures morphed into war, and the drylands of East Africa and the Middle East are also vulnerable to added stresses from global warming, he said.
Low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives also face the risk of disruption and panic if sea levels rise as scientists predict in response to a build-up of heat-trapping emissions from cars and factories, the former U.N. chief said.
"For these people there is nothing abstract about climate change," Annan said, while underlining the risks are not limited to poor, small, and island states.
New York City will need to ensure its bridges and tunnels are passable during a major storm or tsunami, and other cities worldwide need contingency plans for emergencies, Annan said.
"It does require planning and creativity. This is something that we should think about not only for the poorer countries," he said. "We are all in this together. We are all affected."
Earlier on Tuesday, Annan told his group's meeting that he was optimistic the world could agree on a climate change accord with the support of the U.S. administration of Barack Obama.
"Every year we delay, the greater the damage, the more extensive the human misery," he said in remarks to the conference attended by senior U.N. and government officials.
Annan, 71, said he hoped their discussions on "the greatest environmental and humanitarian concern of our age" would set the stage for a deal in Copenhagen in December on a successor to the Kyoto accord, which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases.
"A new president and new administration in the United States have demonstrated their seriousness about combating climate change. Given that the U.S. is the greatest source of emissions, this raises optimism for Copenhagen and beyond," he said.
Annan said it was "too early to tell" whether poor countries would get fair treatment under a successor deal, saying: "there are still quite a bit of negotiations and discussions to go."
Climate experts have warned pledges by industrialised nations to cut emissions by 2020 fall far short of the deep cuts widely advocated to avert climate change.
Overall emissions cuts promised by industrialised nations in the run-up to December's meeting now average between 10 and 14 percent below 1990 levels, according to Reuters calculations. U.N. climate experts say cuts must be in the 25-40 percent range below 1990 levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
In an interview, Annan said he chose to focus his retirement energies on environmental risks because he believes that left unchecked, they could destabilise both rich and poor countries.
"We do have economic bases for conflict, and tensions, that we sometimes ignore," he told Reuters in Geneva on the opening day of his Global Humanitarian Forum's two-day meeting on the human impact of climate change.
"When we talk in terms of security and safety, we tend to focus on political conflicts, military conflicts, when some of the sources can be fights over scarcity and resources," he said.
Politicians focused on salvaging the troubled global economy should not forget the risks their populations face from global warming, Annan said. "They need to pay attention because there will be tensions over scarce resources."
The six-year-old conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, which the United Nations estimates has killed 300,000 people, is an example where environmental pressures morphed into war, and the drylands of East Africa and the Middle East are also vulnerable to added stresses from global warming, he said.
Low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives also face the risk of disruption and panic if sea levels rise as scientists predict in response to a build-up of heat-trapping emissions from cars and factories, the former U.N. chief said.
"For these people there is nothing abstract about climate change," Annan said, while underlining the risks are not limited to poor, small, and island states.
New York City will need to ensure its bridges and tunnels are passable during a major storm or tsunami, and other cities worldwide need contingency plans for emergencies, Annan said.
"It does require planning and creativity. This is something that we should think about not only for the poorer countries," he said. "We are all in this together. We are all affected."
Earlier on Tuesday, Annan told his group's meeting that he was optimistic the world could agree on a climate change accord with the support of the U.S. administration of Barack Obama.
"Every year we delay, the greater the damage, the more extensive the human misery," he said in remarks to the conference attended by senior U.N. and government officials.
Annan, 71, said he hoped their discussions on "the greatest environmental and humanitarian concern of our age" would set the stage for a deal in Copenhagen in December on a successor to the Kyoto accord, which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases.
"A new president and new administration in the United States have demonstrated their seriousness about combating climate change. Given that the U.S. is the greatest source of emissions, this raises optimism for Copenhagen and beyond," he said.
Annan said it was "too early to tell" whether poor countries would get fair treatment under a successor deal, saying: "there are still quite a bit of negotiations and discussions to go."
Climate experts have warned pledges by industrialised nations to cut emissions by 2020 fall far short of the deep cuts widely advocated to avert climate change.
Overall emissions cuts promised by industrialised nations in the run-up to December's meeting now average between 10 and 14 percent below 1990 levels, according to Reuters calculations. U.N. climate experts say cuts must be in the 25-40 percent range below 1990 levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
World''s corals face danger as global warming whips up powerful storms
A new scientific study has found that as global warming whips up more powerful and frequent hurricanes and storms, the world''s coral reefs face increased disruption to their ability to breed and recover from damage.
"We have found clear evidence that coral recruitment - the regrowth of young corals - drops sharply in the wake of a major bleaching event or a hurricane," said lead study author Dr Jennie Mallela of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Australian National University.
Using the island of Tobago in the Caribbean as their laboratory, Dr Mallela and colleague Professor James Crabbe of the University of Bedfordshire, UK, backtracked to 1980 to see what had happened to the corals in the wake of nine hurricanes, tropical storms and bleaching events.
"In every case, there was a sharp drop in coral recruitment following the event - often by as much as two thirds to three quarters. Not only were fewer new coral colonies formed, but also far fewer of the major reef building coral species recruited successfully," Jennie said.
"This finding mirrors our modelling studies on the fringing reefs of Jamaica, and on the Meso-American Barrier reef off the coast of Belize," said Professor Crabbe.
Tobago lies outside the main Caribbean hurricane belt and therefore is more typical of the circumstances of most coral reefs around the world.
Nevertheless, its corals are disrupted by a major storm or bleaching every three or four years - and the frequency of this may be growing.
"Climate researchers are seeing increasing evidence for a direct relationship between global warming and rising hurricane intensity as well as frequency," Jennie explained.
"Global warming produces significant increases in the frequency of high sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and hurricane winds are strengthened by warm surface waters," she said.
The high temperatures cause bleaching, while the storms inflict physical destruction on the corals as well as eroding the rocky platforms they need to grow on, or burying them in sand.
"Maintaining coral reef populations in the face of large-scale degradation depends critically on recruitment - the ability of the corals to breed successfully and settle on the reef to form new colonies. Our research suggests this process is severely disrupted after one of these major events," said Jennie.
According to Jennie, the concern is that if major storms and bleaching become more frequent as the climate warms, the ability of individual reefs to renew themselves may break down completely
"We have found clear evidence that coral recruitment - the regrowth of young corals - drops sharply in the wake of a major bleaching event or a hurricane," said lead study author Dr Jennie Mallela of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Australian National University.
Using the island of Tobago in the Caribbean as their laboratory, Dr Mallela and colleague Professor James Crabbe of the University of Bedfordshire, UK, backtracked to 1980 to see what had happened to the corals in the wake of nine hurricanes, tropical storms and bleaching events.
"In every case, there was a sharp drop in coral recruitment following the event - often by as much as two thirds to three quarters. Not only were fewer new coral colonies formed, but also far fewer of the major reef building coral species recruited successfully," Jennie said.
"This finding mirrors our modelling studies on the fringing reefs of Jamaica, and on the Meso-American Barrier reef off the coast of Belize," said Professor Crabbe.
Tobago lies outside the main Caribbean hurricane belt and therefore is more typical of the circumstances of most coral reefs around the world.
Nevertheless, its corals are disrupted by a major storm or bleaching every three or four years - and the frequency of this may be growing.
"Climate researchers are seeing increasing evidence for a direct relationship between global warming and rising hurricane intensity as well as frequency," Jennie explained.
"Global warming produces significant increases in the frequency of high sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and hurricane winds are strengthened by warm surface waters," she said.
The high temperatures cause bleaching, while the storms inflict physical destruction on the corals as well as eroding the rocky platforms they need to grow on, or burying them in sand.
"Maintaining coral reef populations in the face of large-scale degradation depends critically on recruitment - the ability of the corals to breed successfully and settle on the reef to form new colonies. Our research suggests this process is severely disrupted after one of these major events," said Jennie.
According to Jennie, the concern is that if major storms and bleaching become more frequent as the climate warms, the ability of individual reefs to renew themselves may break down completely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)