Mind Vomit by the ikss ~ a journal
Header
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004entry #2
Navigation
the archives
The last few dribbles...
- -
Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2005
good-bye diaryland -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
Social Security -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
save the arctic refuge -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
it's surreal -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
the latest entry
Contact the ikss
~ the ikss guestbook ~
email the ikss
notes to the ikss
New here? Start here
The Usual Suspects (Cast)
the ikss Mission Statement: Please Read
the ikss bio
the ikss profile, including favorite diaryland links
somebody out there loves me
�Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead�
-Lucille Ball
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
REGISTER TO VOTE
"The time is always right to do what is right"
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The "seven social sins": Knowledge without character,
Science without humanity,
Wealth without work,
Commerce without morality,
Politics without principles,
Pleasure without conscience,
Worship without self-sacrifice."
--Gandhi
"We have not inherited the world from our forfathers -
We have borrowed it from our children."
--Kashmiri, proverb
From BushGreenwatch
Administration Ignores Terrorist Potential in Its Own Backyard
The Bush administration, which has ventured thousands of miles away to pursue still unsubstantiated reports of weapons of mass destruction, continues to thwart efforts to eliminate the very real danger of catastrophic terrorist attacks right in the nation's own backyard.
The threat consists of chemical-laden railroad tank cars-- lethal cargoes which the US Department of Transportation characterizes as potential "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
A hair-raising photo taken last September shows the Capitol dome in the background with a loaded, clearly identified, extremely dangerous chlorine tank car passing in the foreground, on tracks just blocks away (dangerous cargoes carry this identification to assist firemen and emergency personnel responding to an accident).
"This photo is an indictment of non-homeland security," says Dr. Fred Millar, a rail security specialist who served as a consultant to Friends of the Earth on the issue of terrorism and dangerous rail cargoes. "The blindness on this is stunning," Millar told Bushgreenwatch.
The simple, effective solution-- opposed by the chemical industry, the railroads, and the Bush administration-- is to reroute hazardous cargoes away from cities ranked as major targets for terrorists, such as Washington, New York, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
A sudden release of chlorine from a 90-ton rail tank car could create a cloud 40 miles long and 4 miles wide and be fatal 8 to 10 miles downwind. [1] If terrorists ruptured a tank car on tracks near the Washington Mall during public events such as the Fourth of July or the Inauguration, the deadly cloud could kill 100,000 people in a half-hour, according to estimates from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratories. [2]
Dr. Millar, who also sits on DC's Local Emergency Planning Committee, has urged the DC City Council to enact a proposal to prevent the four most dangerous cargoes from passing through by rail or highway when practical alternative routes exist. "This seems a no-brainer," he told the council last October, "since re-routing would eliminate the attractiveness [to terrorists]." This could be done along the Eastern seaboard by shifting hazardous cargo to a rail route which runs largely through a rural corridor instead of major cities such as Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark. [3]
If anyone doubts how easy it would be to sabotage a rail car, all one need do is take a look at the rail cars passing the Capitol with graffiti sprayed all over them. That graffiti wasn't put there by any security police.
Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has conducted a study of the vulnerability of the Washington area's rail system to terrorist attack, it has repeatedly delayed the release. While awaiting this federal report, the DC Council has held back on the rerouting legislation.
On Capitol Hill, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) proposed a bill that would mandate DHS to reroute dangerous chemical cargoes, but Congress failed to take up the measure before going on recess. When promulgating regulations on hazardous cargo security in March 2003, the Bush administration dropped any mention of routing from the final rule.
[1] Chlorine Institute, Pamphlet 74.
[2] Testimony of Jay P. Borris, chief scientist at US Naval Research Laboratories before District of Columbia Council, Oct. 6, 2003.
[3] Testimony of Dr. Fred Millar on Bill 15-25 "Terrorism Prevention and Safety In Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 2003," Jan. 23, 2004.
~~~
Bush Blocking Safe Chemical Alternatives at Vulnerable Power Plants
In the almost three years since September 11, the Bush administration has not only failed to safeguard vulnerable terrorist targets here at home, it has actively blocked an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative to impose security measures for extremely hazardous chemicals stored at power plants across the country.
As a result, according to a new report by the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, some 3.5 million people living near these non-nuclear power plants continue to face the danger that a terrorist attack could send a cloud of toxic and lethal gas into their neighborhoods.
Titled Unnecessary Dangers:Emergency Chemical Release Hazards at Power Plants, the report describes how a sudden release of ammonia or chlorine from a power plant could kill and injure far more people than the tragedy of September 11.
Power plants burning coal or oil use ammonia in air pollution control equipment and chlorine in their cooling water systems. The report calls for power plants to shift to safer chemicals, which are available today and would all but eliminate the hazard. [1]
"Safer chemicals should be the option of first resort," Paul Orum, the author of Unnecessary Dangers told BushGreenwatch. "We know security systems will fail". The Working Group on Community Right-to-Know website contains excerpts from numerous media reports which have documented security breaches at facilities storing chemicals around the country. "Power plants are only one industry among many that pose chemicals emergency release hazards to communities," he added.
Unnecessary Dangers reports that EPA was making final preparations in June 2002 to announce new security requirements for power plants and other industries with stores of hazardous chemicals. The staff had already drafted a press release and talking points, when the White House suddenly stepped in and blocked the regulatory initiative.
The report also details how opposition from chemical manufacturers has derailed a bill in Congress, the Chemical Security Act, which would have required facilities using the most dangerous chemicals to consider safer technologies and use them where practicable.
The report makes it clear that a power company's choice of chemicals determines the danger to the surrounding community:
� The choice of anhydrous ammonia by some 166 power plants endangers 21,000 people on average around each facility.
� The choice of the far less dangerous aqueous ammonia by 69 power plants endangers an average of 205 people off-site.
� The chlorine gas used at 40 power plants endangers on average 4,600 neighbors.
Orum says power plants can readily substitute safer chemicals that work just as well for pollution control and cooling systems. Urea can replace the extremely hazardous anhydrous ammonia, and chlorine bleach or bromine can replace chlorine gas. Unnecessary Dangers identifies the 225 power plants of concern and the specific chemicals used.
SOURCES:
[1] Unnecessary Dangers:Emergency Chemical Release Hazards at Power Plants, Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.
~~~
The Weekly Grist
POLLUTING THE VILLAGE TO SAVE IT
Bushies Cite "National Security" as Reason to Skirt Enviro Rules
While the Bush administration doesn't want to ask Americans to make any economic sacrifices for the war on terrorism, it doesn't seem to think twice about asking for environmental sacrifices. The Department of Homeland Security recently proposed exempting a raft of agencies under its control from environmental review requirements. If the feds log more trees and spray more pesticides, will we be better protected from terrorists? Muckraker wonders -- this week on the Grist Magazine website.
this week in Grist: DHS pushes for environmental exemptions -- in Muckraker
LOOK, OVER THERE! A WAR!
With Public Attention Elsewhere, Bush Rolls Back Regulations
The Bush administration, critics say, has taken advantage of the public's distraction since 9/11 to govern via regulatory initiatives and rollbacks -- which, unlike new laws, do not require congressional approval. Pro-business measures enacted by the Bushies include a rule allowing Forest Service managers to circumvent environmental reviews on logging projects and the rollback of new-source review rules for power plants. Some rule changes have been blocked in court, but with a steady flood, most get through. A budget office official brags of "cut[ting] the growth of costly business regulations by 75 percent," while Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) calls it "tak[ing] a lot of loot out the back door without anybody noticing." Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope says, "Now, when I hold focus groups with the general public and tell them what has been done, they exclaim, 'How could this have happened without me knowing about it?'"
straight to the source: The New York Times, Joel Brinkley, 14 Aug 2004
HEAVEN CAN'T WAIT
Climate Stability Possible with Current Technology, Researchers Say
Stabilizing global emissions of carbon dioxide and forestalling the worst consequences of global warming are possible with current technology, said Princeton researchers last week in the journal Science. While the Bush administration has stressed the need for "revolutionary technologies ... to transform the way we produce and consume energy," as Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham put it last year, the new study "proves we have the technology several times over, and the marketplace can decide which ones to use," said study coauthor Stephen Pacala. The study recommends widespread use of a portfolio of some 15 approaches ranging from solar and wind energy to energy efficiency to carbon sequestration to nuclear energy. While they stress that the search for new, transformative technologies should continue, the researchers' central message is simple: There's no need to wait. Let's get started.
straight to the source: The Christian Science Monitor, Peter N. Spotts, 13 Aug 2004
straight to the source: The Star-Ledger, Kevin Coughlin, 13 Aug 2004
WELCOME TO THE MO' HELL CALIFORNIA
New Study Predicts Hot, Dry Future for California
According to a new study, global warming will leave California either really hosed or just moderately hosed, depending on the choices the world makes in coming years. Conducted by 19 prominent climate-change scientists, the study -- published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- models two different scenarios. The first, a "business as usual" scenario involving no substantial change in the burning of fossil fuels or emission of greenhouse gases, would yield a rise in the average temperature of 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Snowpack in the Sierra Mountains, one of the state's primary water sources, would be reduced by 89 percent. Heat waves would be more severe. The dairy, wine, and skiing industries could be devastated. Luckily, if substantial moves toward renewable energy are undertaken immediately -- the second scenario -- the average temperature will rise by only 4 to 6 degrees, and though the same effects will ensue, well, at least they'll be less severe.
straight to the source: The Sacramento Bee, Edie Lau and Stuart Leavenworth, 17 Aug 2004
straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Miguel Bustillo, 17 Aug 2004
straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Carl T. Hall, 17 Aug 2004
DO GOOD
Take Action to Preserve Wyoming's Wildlands
Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest -- encompassing tall peaks, big swaths of prairie, and a whole lotta trees -- is poised to get a new management plan, which will determine how much logging will be done, how many miles of roads will be bulldozed, and what sort of protections will be afforded to wildlife. Five management options are on the table. The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club are putting their energy behind the option that would protect the most land; the timber industry is pushing the option that would open the most areas to logging. Submit a comment and tell the U.S. Forest Service which option you favor.
do good: Take action protect the Bighorn National Forest
last / next
~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised:
All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words
***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point.
I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.
