There are two million high-level radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization wrestles with the mandate of finding a community to host a central storage facility for the waste for perhaps tens of thousands of years.
Throw in the fact that the cost of storing this nuclear waste could be up to $24 billion — a figure that will likely rise — and environmental groups are dead set against a central facility, and it shapes up to be a challenge of colossal proportions.
The process of finding a site to bury the high-level spent fuel has dragged on for decades as reactors keep churning out more spent bundles.
In 1998, after almost 10 years of study, a federal environmental assessment rejected the storage option. People involved at the time with the Seaborn Panel, as it was called, were convinced that the science was good but the central storage option did not have public support, as people feared accidents and contamination.
The 1998 decision will end up costing Canadians billions more as the cost of a storage facilty rises, pushed by inflation and unfavourable economic conditions.
The waste storage issue languished and lacked direction until the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was mandated by the federal government in 2002 to find a site and build a permanent, underground storage facility for the waste.
The NWMO, made up of utilities that create and store nuclear spent fuel waste (each bundle is about the size of a fire log, weighs 24 kilograms, and is radioactive and dangerous to people), has been touring the country recently to gauge the response to a central facility in communities where waste is temporarily stored near reactors.
The group is moving ahead again with a target of 2035 for a central site.
In June 2009, the NWMO travelled to New Brunswick, site of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, which has been operating a Candu reactor since 1983. Like the nuclear sites in Ontario, Quebec and AECL's nuclear research facility in Manitoba, New Brunswick is storing spent waste (121,000 bundles) in temporary quarters at its site near the Bay of Fundy until a central site is built.
There have been detractors, but people in the province have generally accepted nuclear power and the presence of the plant in Point Lepreau, and there has been serious consideration given to adding an additional reactor.
In what could turn out to be one of the biggest construction projects in Canadian history, the NWMO said the host community for the central storage site will have hundreds of skilled workers on site during the construction phase, and that "wealth creation" in the form of personal income and business profits during the construction phase will be in the billions of dollars.
As well, during the first 30 years of operation, when the spent fuel is being transported for storage, NWMO estimates spending will be in the range of $200 million each year - again benefiting the host community.
But despite those big economic numbers consider the New Brunswick government's reaction when it was suggested by NWMO that any of the four Canadian provinces involved in the nuclear industry could be home to the central storage facility. (The group has yet to even approve the process by which a site is selected for "deep geological repository," as it is called).
"I don't care. I mean I don't care. Have they done research on New Brunswick for nuclear waste? I would suggest they haven't," said the province's Energy Minister Jack Keir.
NWMO clearly has work to do in certain areas.
The money trail
The NWMO estimates it will cost somewhere in the range of $16 billion to $24 billion to site, build and maintain a central storage facility big enough and safe enough to handle the bundles. Some of the money will be used to store bundles at reactor sites before they are moved.
Ontario Power Generation, NB Power Nuclear, Atomic Energy Canada Limited, and Hydro-Quebec have been paying into a trust fund since 2002, building up a nest of $1.5 billion by 2009.
The four nuclear partners are kicking in money to the trust fund each year and will be contributing $163 million in total by 2011. The overall fund is expected to grow to more than $2 billion by 2011, and increase to cover the construction costs of the facility. Given the recession and the financial crisis that began in the fall of 2008, the rate of return on the trust fund will likely have to be adjusted, as many funds lost money or saw a much lower rate of return.
"It's a leap of faith that the [trust] money will be enough," said Julie Michaud, with the New Brunswick Conservation Council.
Mike Buckthought of the Sierra Club Canada said he has no faith in the cost estimates.
"Look at [the nuclear industry's] track record. Whenever we see an estimate for the cost of a plant, the cost is higher. It's the same for this," said Buckthought.
Michael Krizanc, communications manager at NWMO, said the nuclear partners are mandated to cover the construction costs and operation of a central storage facility. He is confident the trust fund will cover costs, and said the federal government will not be on the hook for future money.
What is not known is what the effect on everyday ratepayers would be if the price balloons and the utilities must cover those costs somehow.
Krizanc admitted that his group does not have access to money (and guaranteed money) that was set aside by reactor operators before 2002 for decommissioning and temporary waste management, a figure that reaches into the billions of dollars. Much of the money set aside at that time will likely go to decommissioning plants, a process that is a huge drain on finances.
The nuclear plants operated for decades without paying into a long-term fund.
A spokesman for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said his organization did not require the plants to contribute money to a long-term storage plan but did require money for the temporary sites.
The NWMO essentially started fresh in 2002 with regard to finances, despite the fact reactors were creating spent bundles for more than 20 years previously.
A new estimate of the storage costs is expected in the next year, and nobody knows at this point what the tally will be, but given the economic conditions it will be no surprise if it goes beyond $24 billion, a figure that has more than doubled since the early 1990s.
A recap of the Seaborn Panel's report can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website, along with a reference to what the cost of the central site would have been about 10 years ago.
"The cost of a facility based on the concept, estimated by AECL in 1991 dollars, would range from $8.7 billion for five million fuel bundles to $13.3 billion for 10 million bundles, excluding financing costs, taxes, non-routine activities (such as waste retrieval), transportation and any extended monitoring stages," according to the report.
In the United States, the Yucca Mountain central storage project in Nevada was plagued by huge cost overruns, fought by environmentalists and was not welcomed in the end by many residents in Nevada. It was cancelled in February 2009 by President Barack Obama before any fuel was stored, after $9 billion had been spent.
Environmental concerns, social issues
The bundles will have to be stored for perhaps as long as 10,000 years or more as their radioactive nature decreases. The copper and steel containers will be put underground and built to last as long as 100,000 years and withstand pressure from a two kilometre-thick glacier, if an ice age comes in the meantime
The storage site, however, will likely include a design so that future generations can access the spent fuel (which still has some juice, so to speak) and use it if they choose, as Canada's easily accessed uranium reserves could diminish within 100 years. The material could be reprocessed, for example, and used in a special reactor.
After use in a nuclear power plant the bundles contain radioactive material which can emit X-rays and gamma rays as well as high energy alpha particles and beta particles, which can damage human tissue and cause cancer.
There are two ways the material can get into the environment and create havoc - through the air or through the water table.
The New Brunswick Conservation Council worries about the transportation of the waste to a central site and the potential that journey offers for an accident which could possibly contaminate water tables for centuries. The group, which is against nuclear power, said the only alternative to a central storage facility is keeping the waste on site at the various reactors, where it is being stored now.
"It's easy to access, easy to manage, rather than trucking it somewhere in the country. That's a terrible idea," said Michaud.
In this day and age, terrorism is also a concern, and the issue is being considered.
According to the NWMO's website, "the used fuel is shipped in heavy, impact-resistant containers, so it is not easily removed, accessed or damaged. A current typical road transport container weighs about 23 metric tonnes."
"Removal of the container lid requires special tools and lifting equipment. The used fuel is also highly radioactive, and if removed from the transport container, it would present considerable personal hazard to a hijacker."
Armed guards will be a consideration, all of which could be daunting for a community considering whether or not to be a host for the facility.
Jeremy Whitlock, who works for AECL and is a past president of the Canadian Nuclear Society, said there are likely communities that are willing to step up. A community has to be engaged, "trust the science" and be convinced that the economic benefits are worthy.
A community can't be forced to take the facility, he said.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Clean energy safer for workers
To keep the gears of America's economy turning, energy workers need to drill deep into the Earth for explosive gas and flammable oil, a dangerous occupation.
New research finds that switching to a renewable energy system based on sun and wind would provide safer working conditions and prevent more than 130 job-related deaths in the United States each year by significantly reducing the need for mining. The study is published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In the paper, Peter Layde, a professor in the department of population health and co-director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and Steven Sumner of the Medical Center at Duke University, compare the occupational hazards energy workers are exposed to in fossil fuel with that of renewable energy production. Three renewable energy sources with potential for growth - solar, wind and biomass - were included in the study.
"Focusing on the entire lifecycle is important when estimating occupational hazard, including construction and maintenance of all infrastructure needed," Layde said.
Wind and solar energy compared favorably with fossil fuels in every aspect from production to distribution, but the researchers note that better data is needed to make more precise comparisons. Renewables are safer than fossil fuels because mining isn't involved. Mining is the second-most dangerous industry in the U.S., resulting in 27.5 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared with an average of 3.4 deaths for all industries.
The most common biomass fuel, ethanol, did not compare as favorably.
Farming adds risks
Cultivation of corn explicitly for ethanol production is what makes it so hazardous for workers. Farming is the only occupation rated more dangerous than mining, with 28.7 deaths per 100,000 workers annually.
Use of petroleum-based fertilizers is another hidden occupational injury cost in generating ethanol. To make biomass energy safer for workers, they need to be generated from byproducts of farming, such as corn husks and wood chips, that do not increase farming.
According to Nick Wilson, a public health physician at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, ethanol's total carbon footprint and large subsidies compare unfavorably with solar and wind energy production. Worker safety is yet another disadvantage of ethanol production.
"The world is looking to the U.S. for its tradition of innovation to help with the global transition to renewable energy," said Wilson, "but the use of corn crops to make the biofuel ethanol is an unsustainable mistake that the U.S. needs to rectify."
Safer working conditions for U.S. energy workers adds another variable to the energy cost equation.
"This commentary addresses an aspect of energy costs that has not been addressed before," said Vasilis Fthenakis, senior research engineer and scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
Unlike many other benefits of renewable energies, safer working conditions will immediately result in reduced workplace injuries and fatalities, reducing costs to society.
"Transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is inevitable," Layde said. "That it creates safer working conditions for workers is a reason for doing so sooner than later."
New research finds that switching to a renewable energy system based on sun and wind would provide safer working conditions and prevent more than 130 job-related deaths in the United States each year by significantly reducing the need for mining. The study is published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In the paper, Peter Layde, a professor in the department of population health and co-director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and Steven Sumner of the Medical Center at Duke University, compare the occupational hazards energy workers are exposed to in fossil fuel with that of renewable energy production. Three renewable energy sources with potential for growth - solar, wind and biomass - were included in the study.
"Focusing on the entire lifecycle is important when estimating occupational hazard, including construction and maintenance of all infrastructure needed," Layde said.
Wind and solar energy compared favorably with fossil fuels in every aspect from production to distribution, but the researchers note that better data is needed to make more precise comparisons. Renewables are safer than fossil fuels because mining isn't involved. Mining is the second-most dangerous industry in the U.S., resulting in 27.5 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared with an average of 3.4 deaths for all industries.
The most common biomass fuel, ethanol, did not compare as favorably.
Farming adds risks
Cultivation of corn explicitly for ethanol production is what makes it so hazardous for workers. Farming is the only occupation rated more dangerous than mining, with 28.7 deaths per 100,000 workers annually.
Use of petroleum-based fertilizers is another hidden occupational injury cost in generating ethanol. To make biomass energy safer for workers, they need to be generated from byproducts of farming, such as corn husks and wood chips, that do not increase farming.
According to Nick Wilson, a public health physician at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, ethanol's total carbon footprint and large subsidies compare unfavorably with solar and wind energy production. Worker safety is yet another disadvantage of ethanol production.
"The world is looking to the U.S. for its tradition of innovation to help with the global transition to renewable energy," said Wilson, "but the use of corn crops to make the biofuel ethanol is an unsustainable mistake that the U.S. needs to rectify."
Safer working conditions for U.S. energy workers adds another variable to the energy cost equation.
"This commentary addresses an aspect of energy costs that has not been addressed before," said Vasilis Fthenakis, senior research engineer and scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
Unlike many other benefits of renewable energies, safer working conditions will immediately result in reduced workplace injuries and fatalities, reducing costs to society.
"Transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is inevitable," Layde said. "That it creates safer working conditions for workers is a reason for doing so sooner than later."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Energy workers rally against climate plan
Local energy workers jammed a downtown Houston theater today to protest climate change legislation that the U.S. Senate will take up in the coming weeks.
The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.
About 3,500 people, or 1,500 more than expected, filed into the facility, many donning yellow T-shirts that were being handed out that read "I'm an energy citizen." Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. was the keynote speaker.
Organizers of the event, billed as a dialogue on energy and the environment, told the Chronicle on Monday that legislation the U.S. House passed last spring will destroy millions of U.S. jobs and raise costs without reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” said James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Hackett said he supports reducing greenhouse emissions and developing alternative sources of fuel.
“But I do think there's a virtual reality that's being portrayed to most American citizens about how quickly we get there and how we get there,” Hackett said.
The rally is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown, with doors open at 11:30.
The climate change bill the House passed earlier this year sets a steadily decreasing cap on emissions from factories, power plants and other industrial sources and lets companies trade any excess emissions allowances. The price of those emissions allowances would most likely be passed on to consumers.
The measure also would set up a system for creating extra allowances, called offsets, through other projects that reduce emissions, and would include incentives for renewable energy sources and home and business energy efficiency.
But opponents say the bill won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn't secure promises from developing nations, like China and India, to put controls on their growing emissions.
It also makes no mention of encouraging nuclear power generation, which some rally organizers believe will be key to meeting the country's electricity needs without creating more greenhouse gases, and doesn't discuss a role for natural gas, which typically has lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels.
Opponents also say the cost of the legislation is ill-timed in a weak economy.
A study released by the National Association of Manufacturers last week says the law would cost 1.8 million to 2.4 million jobs by 2030 and would cost each U.S. household up to $1,248 a year by 2030.
Other estimates of annual household costs have differed — $83 per year according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration; $88-$140 according to the Environmental Protection Agency; and $175 a year projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major party nominees — Republican John McCain and Democratic winner Barack Obama — said they favored a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the scheduled speakers at today's event, National Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry Alford, said his organization has been on the record against such a bill since 1996 when it opposed the Kyoto Treaty that led to the emissions trading system now operating in Europe.
Chevron has invited Houston employees and retirees to participate in the event, and will provide transportation, so they can be part of the policy discussion, said spokesman Scott Walker in an e-mail.
“Chevron supports a national climate change program that is transparent, promotes energy efficiency and conservation measures, treats all participants fairly and protects our economy and energy security,” he said.
Shell Oil has been outspoken in support of climate change legislation, and is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a cap and trade program.
Shell is “neither encouraging nor discouraging participation in the rally,” spokesman Bill Tanner said.
The Greater Houston Partnership is “still in the process of formulating an official position on the cap and trade plan in the energy legislation,” according to a release concerning the event, but is encouraging dialogue because of the legislation's potential effect on the region.
The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.
About 3,500 people, or 1,500 more than expected, filed into the facility, many donning yellow T-shirts that were being handed out that read "I'm an energy citizen." Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. was the keynote speaker.
Organizers of the event, billed as a dialogue on energy and the environment, told the Chronicle on Monday that legislation the U.S. House passed last spring will destroy millions of U.S. jobs and raise costs without reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” said James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Hackett said he supports reducing greenhouse emissions and developing alternative sources of fuel.
“But I do think there's a virtual reality that's being portrayed to most American citizens about how quickly we get there and how we get there,” Hackett said.
The rally is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown, with doors open at 11:30.
The climate change bill the House passed earlier this year sets a steadily decreasing cap on emissions from factories, power plants and other industrial sources and lets companies trade any excess emissions allowances. The price of those emissions allowances would most likely be passed on to consumers.
The measure also would set up a system for creating extra allowances, called offsets, through other projects that reduce emissions, and would include incentives for renewable energy sources and home and business energy efficiency.
But opponents say the bill won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn't secure promises from developing nations, like China and India, to put controls on their growing emissions.
It also makes no mention of encouraging nuclear power generation, which some rally organizers believe will be key to meeting the country's electricity needs without creating more greenhouse gases, and doesn't discuss a role for natural gas, which typically has lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels.
Opponents also say the cost of the legislation is ill-timed in a weak economy.
A study released by the National Association of Manufacturers last week says the law would cost 1.8 million to 2.4 million jobs by 2030 and would cost each U.S. household up to $1,248 a year by 2030.
Other estimates of annual household costs have differed — $83 per year according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration; $88-$140 according to the Environmental Protection Agency; and $175 a year projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major party nominees — Republican John McCain and Democratic winner Barack Obama — said they favored a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the scheduled speakers at today's event, National Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry Alford, said his organization has been on the record against such a bill since 1996 when it opposed the Kyoto Treaty that led to the emissions trading system now operating in Europe.
Chevron has invited Houston employees and retirees to participate in the event, and will provide transportation, so they can be part of the policy discussion, said spokesman Scott Walker in an e-mail.
“Chevron supports a national climate change program that is transparent, promotes energy efficiency and conservation measures, treats all participants fairly and protects our economy and energy security,” he said.
Shell Oil has been outspoken in support of climate change legislation, and is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a cap and trade program.
Shell is “neither encouraging nor discouraging participation in the rally,” spokesman Bill Tanner said.
The Greater Houston Partnership is “still in the process of formulating an official position on the cap and trade plan in the energy legislation,” according to a release concerning the event, but is encouraging dialogue because of the legislation's potential effect on the region.
Young activists from 110 countries want climate change action
More than 800 young environmental activists from 110 countries on Monday began a meeting described as the biggest-ever youth gathering on climate change.
The week-long conference in the central South Korean city of Daejeon is organised by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
It will give young people a chance to demand action on global warming before a crucial Copenhagen meeting in December, according to UNEP.
Achim Steiner, UNEP executive director, said in a statement the conference "is a gathering of the generation that will inherit the outcome of the decisions taken in December and beyond."
The 800 people aged between 10 and 24 year were chosen from thousands of applicants due to their outstanding green projects, the UN body said.
Among these are a rap video by two Canadian teenagers on how people can reduce their environmental footprint, a drive to distribute 500 low-energy lightbulbs in Nepal, a car pooling initiative in Samoa, a recycling project in Sierra Leone and a river clean-up in Russia.
The initiatives will be put to a vote during the conference to choose the best one out of several hundreds on display.
The Children and Youth Conference is part of the UN's global "Seal the Deal!" campaign being spearheaded by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to spur support for a global climate agree
The week-long conference in the central South Korean city of Daejeon is organised by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
It will give young people a chance to demand action on global warming before a crucial Copenhagen meeting in December, according to UNEP.
Achim Steiner, UNEP executive director, said in a statement the conference "is a gathering of the generation that will inherit the outcome of the decisions taken in December and beyond."
The 800 people aged between 10 and 24 year were chosen from thousands of applicants due to their outstanding green projects, the UN body said.
Among these are a rap video by two Canadian teenagers on how people can reduce their environmental footprint, a drive to distribute 500 low-energy lightbulbs in Nepal, a car pooling initiative in Samoa, a recycling project in Sierra Leone and a river clean-up in Russia.
The initiatives will be put to a vote during the conference to choose the best one out of several hundreds on display.
The Children and Youth Conference is part of the UN's global "Seal the Deal!" campaign being spearheaded by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to spur support for a global climate agree
Health care, climate, and the progressive movement
The last week or so has been the right-wingers-at-town-hall-meetings moment, and it looks like it’s going to be supplemented by something similar but different: rallies organized by fossil-fuel-supporting corporations in the states of Texas, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Tennessee, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, South Carolina, Alaska, Illinois, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas. Late last week, Greenpeace released a memo written by the leader of the American Petroleum Institute (API) to heads of oil companies—apparently given to Greenpeace by a less-than-loyal employee of one of the API member companies. The memo referred to a “series of ‘Energy Citizen’ rallies in about 20 states across the country during the last two weeks of Congress’s August recess ... API will provide the up-front resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a problem ... Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies.” “Energy Citizen,” of course, really means “Fossil Fuel Citizen.” Working with groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, American Conservative Union, FreedomWorks, and Americans for Tax Reform, you can be sure that when it comes to the rapidly worsening climate crisis, or the millions of jobs that could be created by a shift to a clean energy economy, or energy independence, or the national security threat of being dependent on Middle East oil—none of these issues will be on the agenda of these particular “energy citizens.” It would be a good thing—more than that, it is imperative—to have a presence of progressive activists at these events, just as it is important that we are at the town hall meetings focused on health care where the right-wingers are attempting to hijack the debate over how we fix a broken and expensive health care system. We need to show them and show the media that the progressive movement, the climate movement, and the health care reform movement are not just sitting back and putting our faith in President Obama and Democratic congressmen to do the right thing. And we need to be there to talk face to face with those from the other side. I am certain, based on many experiences doing just this kind of thing, that if we talk to them with respect and patience, a small number will be willing to consider what we have to say and a larger number will begin to have some doubts. Unfortunately, too many progressive people seem to have the attitude that Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress can take care of things. They’ve had that attitude for the last seven months, since Obama took office. I remember hearing about the low turnout at a national conference of the Campaign for America’s Future, a Democratic think tank/action center, in early June. The reports that I saw were that there were about half as many people at this event as there had been the year before. Then there were the anti-war demonstrations in D.C. and NYC in March on the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Taken together, there were a maximum of 10,000 people present, and that may be generous. It is not surprising that after Obama’s historic victory the hundreds of thousands of progressives who worked hard on his campaign would step back from the kind of intense activism many of them engaged in during 2008. This is a normal response for many campaign volunteers when their candidate for President, or any office, wins. It does make you wonder, though, about the effectiveness of the Organizing for America operation that Obama handed over to the Democratic National Committee soon after taking office. A front-page article in August 14’s New York Times, “Health Debate Fails to Ignite Obama’s Web,” explored this issue and, based upon research done in Iowa, came to the conclusion that there is “a sense of fatigue among volunteers being recruited for [the health care] battle.” Could this just possibly have something to do with people’s concerns about the power and influence of the Pentagon, the banks, the coal companies, the health insurance companies and other powerful corporations within the Obama administration and especially within Congress? You betcha, it sure seems to me. This is why I was pleased to see in my email inbox today an editorial from the upcoming August 31 issue of The Nation magazine. Entitled “Blue Dog Daze,” it criticized the “conservative” and “Blue Dog” Democrats as “the epitome of a Washington captured by moneyed interests. They aren’t working to ensure that health care reforms are paid for; they are laboring on behalf of insurance companies to protect their obscene profits.” The editorial goes on to say that
What the country needs—what Obama needs, whether he realizes it or not—is an independent, mobilized, progressive citizen’s movement that takes on the corporate lobbies, from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Wall Street; challenges the legislators who are in their pockets; and demands affordable national healthcare, renewable energy, empowerment of workers, regulation of Wall Street and more. That movement should go after the conservatives and the compromised in both parties—anyone who stands in the way of reform.
During these “dog days” of August and into September, a good place to start for independents who agree with this sentiment are the town meetings and “Energy Citizen” rallies. We should be present to speak the truth about what we need, to peacefully confront those who lie and obstruct democratic dialogue, and to engage in just that dialogue with those fellow citizens who are willing to talk.
What the country needs—what Obama needs, whether he realizes it or not—is an independent, mobilized, progressive citizen’s movement that takes on the corporate lobbies, from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Wall Street; challenges the legislators who are in their pockets; and demands affordable national healthcare, renewable energy, empowerment of workers, regulation of Wall Street and more. That movement should go after the conservatives and the compromised in both parties—anyone who stands in the way of reform.
During these “dog days” of August and into September, a good place to start for independents who agree with this sentiment are the town meetings and “Energy Citizen” rallies. We should be present to speak the truth about what we need, to peacefully confront those who lie and obstruct democratic dialogue, and to engage in just that dialogue with those fellow citizens who are willing to talk.
Scientists analyze blood to test for toxic airplane air exposure
Inside a freezer in a research laboratory at the University of Washington are blood and blood plasma samples from 92 people who suffer from mysterious illnesses, including tremors, memory loss and severe migraine headaches.They are mostly pilots and flight attendants who suspect they've been poisoned in their workplace -- on board the aircraft they fly.
Clement Furlong, University of Washington professor of medicine and genome sciences, leads a team of scientists who have been collecting the samples for 2 ½ years.
Furlong said his team is a few months away from finalizing a blood analysis test that will be able to definitely confirm whether the study participants were indeed poisoned by toxic fumes.
Results of Furlong's research could expand recognition of what a select group of researchers believes is a largely unrecognized risk of flying: the chance that poisonous fumes enter the cabin.
"There's a danger of inhaling compounds that are coming out of the engine," said Furlong in his laboratory. See a diagram of how the air is circulated »
The air we breathe on board a plane is a 50-50 mix of filtered, recirculated air and so-called "bleed air" -- which bleeds off the engines, and then is pressurized and cooled before being sent into the cabin through vents. If an engine oil seal leaks, aviation engineers and scientists say, the bleed air can become contaminated with toxins.
In 2002 the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council reported "contaminant exposures result from the intake of chemical contaminants (e.g., engine lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, deicing fluids and their degradation products) into the Environmental Control System and then into the cabin."
"There's a danger of inhaling compounds that are coming out of the engine," said Furlong in his laboratory.
The air we breathe on board a plane is a 50-50 mix of filtered, recirculated air and so-called "bleed air" -- which bleeds off the engines, and then is pressurized and cooled before being sent into the cabin through vents. If an engine oil seal leaks, aviation engineers and scientists say, the bleed air can become contaminated with toxins.
In 2002 the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council reported "contaminant exposures result from the intake of chemical contaminants (e.g., engine lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, deicing fluids and their degradation products) into the Environmental Control System and then into the cabin."
Of particular concern are toxic anti-wear agents in the oil, designed to prolong an engine's life, called tricresyl phosphates.
"The engine seals fail and there's very potent toxins that can come on board," said Furlong.
Neuropsychologist Sarah Mackenzie Ross of University College London studied 27 British pilots who claimed they had inhaled contaminated air and subsequently had difficulty processing information and slowed reaction times. Her testing confirmed their symptoms.
"They did appear to underperform on tasks that required attention, processing speed, reaction time, and what we call executive functioning, which is high-level decision making," said Ross.
Former flight attendant Terry Williams believes she is a victim of such a "fume event." She complains of debilitating migraine headaches, tremors, and blind spots in her field of vision.
"It's been so constant and just continues to worsen so it's extremely frustrating," said Williams, who is suing Boeing, the owner of McDonnell Douglas, which made the MD-82 aircraft on which she worked. "I'm frustrated that I don't feel any better and it's over two years after the exposure."
Boeing told CNN, "It is our belief that air quality on airplanes is healthy and safe."
In its response to Williams' suit, the company said: "The potential for bleed air contamination has been known through the aviation industry for many years." But Boeing denies any responsibility for Terry Williams' illness.
While Williams' symptoms appear to be quite rare, it appears that fume events occur with regularity.
A British study for the House of Lords found fume events in 1 of every 2,000 flights. In the U.S., airlines are required to report "fume events" to the Federal Aviation Administration. There were 108 such reports last year.
So why wouldn't more flight attendants, pilots and passengers suffer symptoms?
Furlong said a small percentage of people (how small is not known) appear to be highly sensitive to the most toxic chemicals. They may be genetically disposed to a strong reaction, possessing multiple genes of metabolizing proteins in their livers, or temporarily have high enzyme levels (which can be triggered by prescription drugs) that will act on the inhaled chemicals to magnify their toxicity.
"If you happen to be taking a medication that turns on the protein that converts pre-toxin to very potent toxin, you've got an issue," said Furlong.
As a result, someone sitting next to a victim may have inhaled the same contaminated fumes, but not suffer the same reaction.
How might you know that you may have been exposed to a "fume event" while flying? Experts say the telltale sign is a "dirty sock" smell. That's butyric acid from engine oil, which itself is not highly toxic. But along with it comes the deadly nonodorous compounds tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate and mono-ortho-cresyl phosphate
Boeing's new plane, the 787 Dreamliner, has been designed so that air entering the cabin from outside will not "bleed" off the engines. The company says that's only for fuel efficiency purposes, not because of any concern about the quality of bleed air in its current fleet of aircraft.
Indeed, Boeing and the FAA say the air quality on airplanes is as good or better than that of the average office building or home.
Clement Furlong, University of Washington professor of medicine and genome sciences, leads a team of scientists who have been collecting the samples for 2 ½ years.
Furlong said his team is a few months away from finalizing a blood analysis test that will be able to definitely confirm whether the study participants were indeed poisoned by toxic fumes.
Results of Furlong's research could expand recognition of what a select group of researchers believes is a largely unrecognized risk of flying: the chance that poisonous fumes enter the cabin.
"There's a danger of inhaling compounds that are coming out of the engine," said Furlong in his laboratory. See a diagram of how the air is circulated »
The air we breathe on board a plane is a 50-50 mix of filtered, recirculated air and so-called "bleed air" -- which bleeds off the engines, and then is pressurized and cooled before being sent into the cabin through vents. If an engine oil seal leaks, aviation engineers and scientists say, the bleed air can become contaminated with toxins.
In 2002 the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council reported "contaminant exposures result from the intake of chemical contaminants (e.g., engine lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, deicing fluids and their degradation products) into the Environmental Control System and then into the cabin."
"There's a danger of inhaling compounds that are coming out of the engine," said Furlong in his laboratory.
The air we breathe on board a plane is a 50-50 mix of filtered, recirculated air and so-called "bleed air" -- which bleeds off the engines, and then is pressurized and cooled before being sent into the cabin through vents. If an engine oil seal leaks, aviation engineers and scientists say, the bleed air can become contaminated with toxins.
In 2002 the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council reported "contaminant exposures result from the intake of chemical contaminants (e.g., engine lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, deicing fluids and their degradation products) into the Environmental Control System and then into the cabin."
Of particular concern are toxic anti-wear agents in the oil, designed to prolong an engine's life, called tricresyl phosphates.
"The engine seals fail and there's very potent toxins that can come on board," said Furlong.
Neuropsychologist Sarah Mackenzie Ross of University College London studied 27 British pilots who claimed they had inhaled contaminated air and subsequently had difficulty processing information and slowed reaction times. Her testing confirmed their symptoms.
"They did appear to underperform on tasks that required attention, processing speed, reaction time, and what we call executive functioning, which is high-level decision making," said Ross.
Former flight attendant Terry Williams believes she is a victim of such a "fume event." She complains of debilitating migraine headaches, tremors, and blind spots in her field of vision.
"It's been so constant and just continues to worsen so it's extremely frustrating," said Williams, who is suing Boeing, the owner of McDonnell Douglas, which made the MD-82 aircraft on which she worked. "I'm frustrated that I don't feel any better and it's over two years after the exposure."
Boeing told CNN, "It is our belief that air quality on airplanes is healthy and safe."
In its response to Williams' suit, the company said: "The potential for bleed air contamination has been known through the aviation industry for many years." But Boeing denies any responsibility for Terry Williams' illness.
While Williams' symptoms appear to be quite rare, it appears that fume events occur with regularity.
A British study for the House of Lords found fume events in 1 of every 2,000 flights. In the U.S., airlines are required to report "fume events" to the Federal Aviation Administration. There were 108 such reports last year.
So why wouldn't more flight attendants, pilots and passengers suffer symptoms?
Furlong said a small percentage of people (how small is not known) appear to be highly sensitive to the most toxic chemicals. They may be genetically disposed to a strong reaction, possessing multiple genes of metabolizing proteins in their livers, or temporarily have high enzyme levels (which can be triggered by prescription drugs) that will act on the inhaled chemicals to magnify their toxicity.
"If you happen to be taking a medication that turns on the protein that converts pre-toxin to very potent toxin, you've got an issue," said Furlong.
As a result, someone sitting next to a victim may have inhaled the same contaminated fumes, but not suffer the same reaction.
How might you know that you may have been exposed to a "fume event" while flying? Experts say the telltale sign is a "dirty sock" smell. That's butyric acid from engine oil, which itself is not highly toxic. But along with it comes the deadly nonodorous compounds tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate and mono-ortho-cresyl phosphate
Boeing's new plane, the 787 Dreamliner, has been designed so that air entering the cabin from outside will not "bleed" off the engines. The company says that's only for fuel efficiency purposes, not because of any concern about the quality of bleed air in its current fleet of aircraft.
Indeed, Boeing and the FAA say the air quality on airplanes is as good or better than that of the average office building or home.
New sustainable agriculture fellowships result in green jobs for fresh crop of campus food activists
As a new crop of college graduates worries about finding that all-important first job, and students flock to internships in food and farming, Bon Appetit Management Company (http://www.bamco.com) has established a program that brightens new graduates’ job prospects. The sustainable food service leader has created three new career-boosting paid fellowships for young campus activists involved in sustainable food and social justice. The new fellows will work directly with farmers around the country to assess overall sustainability, including labor practices in agricultural operations that supply the company’s 400 kitchens in 29 states. The Bon Appétit fellows will gather information about best practices on both small, owner-operated farms and conventional large-scale farms that currently supply products to Bon Appétit kitchens. Fellows will evaluate farmworker labor conditions, farm biodiversity, and handling of farm waste. Their reporting will be used by the company to determine how it can work with its long-time Farm to Fork small-operator partners and larger conventional suppliers to ensure the entire supply chain is as safe, efficient, and fair to farmers and farmworkers as possible. Their work will deepen understanding and strengthen relationships between buyers and farmers, ultimately benefiting the nation’s food system. Bon Appétit’s Farm to Fork partners are farms located within 150 miles of each specific restaurant where the food is served. Chefs in all 400 Bon Appétit restaurants work directly with Farm to Fork farms to meet the company’s commitment of sourcing at least 20% of all food items locally. With 10 years of the Farm-to-Fork local sourcing program under the company’s belt, Bon Appétit is taking the next step to look at labor issues both in current small-farmer partners and larger operations. Following a move in April 2009 to support the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ quest for fairness in the Florida tomato fields, Bon Appétit realized the need to explore what the company’s role could be in facilitating fair labor practices throughout their entire supply chain. The fellows will provide an informational bridge that will plant the seeds for meaningful partnerships, helping farms of all sizes serve larger buyers more effectively while fulfilling Bon Appétit’s overall sustainability goals. Says Maisie Greenawalt, Vice President, Bon Appétit Management Company, “Meaningful change at all points of the food system is our goal. The fellows program allows us to involve young people in a way that invests in both these deserving graduates and the farmers who have fed them throughout their college years. This work will result in a deeper understanding of the issues facing farmers and suppliers, and help us define a viable approach to farm worker justice as the final link in the chain of sustainability from farm to table. ” Working on the East Coast is fellow Carolina Fojo who graduated in May with honors from Washington University in St. Louis with a degree in Cultural Anthropology. Fojo has lived with indigenous Fair Trade coffee producers in Oaxaca, Mexico and interned with UN affiliated NGOs on Fair Trade and worker migration issues. West Coast fellow Vera Chang is an honors graduate in Global Ethics from Carleton College. Vera is certified in permaculture design and is currently completing an apprenticeship in Ecological Horticulture. Chang was also an intern with The California Food & Justice Coalition and Founder and President of Food Truth, a student organization at Carleton focusing on food issues. Midwest fellow Dayna Burtness graduated with honors from St. Olaf College with an individual major in The Politics and Practices of US Agriculture. Burtness was co-founder of St. Olaf’s student- run farm, and served as an intern with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. She went on to become a Program Associate for the institute’s Local Foods Program. All fellows are hired for a period of one year with a possibility of renewal for a second term. “Agriculture in the United States today faces real pressure to change for the better. As a recent college graduate, I see my Bon Appetit fellowship as a fascinating and critical opportunity for me to work on positive ways to improve our national food system. This is a terrific chance to bring together the best thinking in business with young graduates’ energy and commitment. I look forward to working towards a more socially responsible food system with Bon Appetit and partnering farms." said Dayna Burtness, Midwest fellow. In today’s economy, recent graduates face a tough climate for first-time employment. At the same time, challenges in the food system present an unprecedented opportunity for positive change. Landing a dream green job is a boost for these hardworking young people, giving them first-hand experience of the sweet spot between business and sustainability and providing a platform for career growth in the years to come.
About Bon Appétit Bon Appétit Management Company (www.bamco.com) is an onsite restaurant company offering full foodservice management to corporations, universities and specialty venues. Bon Appétit is committed to sourcing sustainable, local foods for all cafés throughout the country. A pioneer in environmentally sound sourcing policies, Bon Appétit has developed programs addressing local purchasing, the overuse of antibiotics, sustainable seafood, cage-free eggs, and most recently, the connection between food and climate change. The company has received numerous awards for its work from organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Seafood Choices Alliance, The Humane Society of the United States, and Food Alliance. Based in Palo Alto, CA, Bon Appétit has more than 400 cafés in 29 states, including eBay, the University of Pennsylvania and the Getty Center.
About Bon Appétit Bon Appétit Management Company (www.bamco.com) is an onsite restaurant company offering full foodservice management to corporations, universities and specialty venues. Bon Appétit is committed to sourcing sustainable, local foods for all cafés throughout the country. A pioneer in environmentally sound sourcing policies, Bon Appétit has developed programs addressing local purchasing, the overuse of antibiotics, sustainable seafood, cage-free eggs, and most recently, the connection between food and climate change. The company has received numerous awards for its work from organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Seafood Choices Alliance, The Humane Society of the United States, and Food Alliance. Based in Palo Alto, CA, Bon Appétit has more than 400 cafés in 29 states, including eBay, the University of Pennsylvania and the Getty Center.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)