Re: [Biofuel] Microbeads - Anybody got a source?
Hmm, no. You might start with websites that cater to DIY beauty hobbyists. You know, making your own soap and beauty creams and that sort of thing. Just thinking out loud, here. Sorry I can't be if more help. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot: Dark side of life
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/these-gruesome-pics-show-the-dark-side-of-human-life-on-earth/story-fnjww010-1227292047916 [Nigeria of the North Ouch! There are many images in the on-line article which could spoil your day.] These gruesome pics show the dark side of human life on earth Excerpt: “Think of Alberta as the Nigeria of the north. (Well, there are a lot more white people in Alberta, and Canada’s military hasn’t killed anybody to protect the oil business.) Both economies have been increasingly dominated by oil. In 2009 Nigeria exported around 2.1 million barrels of oil per day; Canada exported 1.9 million barrels per day. Environmental regulation of the oil industry in both Nigeria and Alberta is lax, and the industry has been actively opposed by native people — the Ogoni, in particular, in Nigeria and the Cree in Alberta.” – Winona LaDuke and Martin Curry. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Yakima Herald Republic | Each rail spill proves there’s cause for alarm
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/latestnews/3052126-8/each-rail-spill-proves-theres-cause-for-alarm Each rail spill proves there’s cause for alarm Posted on April 5, 2015 Michael E. Kraft Hardly a month goes by without news of a train derailment that spills oil or of an underground pipeline that leaks somewhere in the nation. We’ve been lucky that most had relatively minor impacts. Increasingly, however, we are seeing major accidents that pollute the land or rivers or that threaten public health and safety. In February, a train carrying 3 million gallons of North Dakota crude oil derailed in West Virginia, with 26 rail cars leaving the tracks and many catching fire. The accident required evacuation of hundreds of families and also polluted a tributary of the historic Kanawha River. An oil train derailment, explosion and fire in Casselton, N.D., in late 2013 required a mass evacuation of the town’s residents. Such accidents speak to the danger of transporting highly flammable oil and gas around the country through often-antiquated infrastructure in need of modernization and enhanced safety requirements. Some improvements have been made to rail car safety, but more needs to be done with the tracks themselves as well as the cars. As extensive as our existing pipeline networks are, they have insufficient capacity to handle the increasing amounts of oil and gas being produced. New pipelines have been proposed, with most of them receiving far less media coverage than the contentious Keystone XL pipeline. But even if approved, the construction of new pipelines could take years. This is why we rely on rail, truck and barge transportation rather than pipelines to move oil to refineries. The increased volume of oil being shipped by rail, sometimes called “virtual pipelines,” is astonishing. In 2008, only 9,500 rail carloads were shipped to U.S. refineries. By 2014, the number had soared to more than 400,000, or 42 times as much. Why the enormous increase in rail traffic? In the last six years, domestic oil production leaped by more than 50 percent. It reached 9.4 million barrels a day by 2015. There are too few pipelines to handle that volume, so producers use rail instead. Fully two-thirds of North Dakota’s shale oil field production is being shipped by rail. Studies by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service concluded that the increase in rail shipment raises serious concerns about the way oil is packaged in rail cars, the use of trains carrying as many as 80 to 120 oil cars, and the capacity for emergency response, particularly in rural areas. It is thus no surprise that accidents have surged. According to federal data, between 1975 and 2012, railroads spilled a total of 800,000 gallons of crude oil. But in 2013 alone the amount of oil spilled totaled over one million gallons. These accidents tell us that stricter rules, both federal and state, are imperative to protect the public and the environment. The Obama administration is developing new regulations that could help. Many states are considering similar actions. We also should make sure that key federal and state agencies, such as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in the U.S. Department of Transportation, have the resources and staffs to do their jobs. Many have long been poorly financed and understaffed. The PHMSA, for example, has a budget of just $200 million and only 500 employees to oversee 40,000 companies engaged in the commercial transportation of petroleum products and hazardous materials. At a minimum, rail cars need to be better designed, and built with thicker steel, to carry flammable cargo. It is the industry’s own interest to take actions like this. The oil car derailment and massive fire in Quebec in July 2013 killed 47 people and caused an estimated $1 billion in liability for the railroad. The United States and Canada should not continue to treat rail shipment of oil as though it poses no real danger. • Michael Kraft is professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Readers may write him at UWGB, 2420 Nicolet Dr., MAC B310, Green Bay, WI 54311 or email him at kraftmuwgb.edu. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] NJ Legislators Oppose Plans For Drilling Off Parts Of Atlantic Coast « CBS Philly
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/04/05/nj-legislators-oppose-plans-for-drilling-off-parts-of-atlantic-coast/ NJ Legislators Oppose Plans For Drilling Off Parts Of Atlantic Coast April 5, 2015 4:38 AM By David Madden TRENTON, NJ. (CBS) — New Jersey legislators are working on a measure to express their displeasure over plans by the Obama Administration to allow for oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic Coast. A resolution sponsored by three assembly members allows legislators on both sides of the aisle to tell the White House exactly where they stand. Atlantic County Democrat Vince Mazzeo suggests this goes far beyond the usual tourism concerns. “Natural gas and oil is at an all time high as far as reserves,” says Mazzeo. “So we don’t see the importance of trying to establish this. The only people who will probably profit from this would be the oil companies.” Mazzeo also argues any drilling in the Atlantic could trigger a natural disaster not unlike the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “Virginia is about a hundred miles south from New Jersey,” he says. “It would still have an impact to our area if something happened that wasn’t good as far as an oil spill.” Particularly when you talk about the Garden State’s tourism industry. It’s thought the resolution might be useful to the state’s congressional delegation as they seek to stop the administrative change, announced in January, which would allow for drilling 50 miles offshore from Virginia through Georgia. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] It's Time to Take Arctic Drilling Off the Table | Cindy Shogan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-shogan/its-time-to-take-arctic-d_b_7000330.html [links in on-line article] It's Time to Take Arctic Drilling Off the Table Posted: 04/04/2015 6:44 pm EDT Cindy Shogan Executive director, Alaska Wilderness League Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of the Interior swung the door wide open to drilling in the remote waters of the iconic Arctic Ocean when it announced that it was reaffirming controversial Bush-era leases for the Chukchi Sea - a lease sale referred to as Lease Sale 193. The history of Lease Sale 193 dates back seven years - in 2008, the Bush administration offered nearly 30 million acres of remote and poorly understood ocean to oil companies despite widely acknowledged gaps in scientific information and a complete lack of proven response technologies for the harsh and unforgiving Arctic Ocean conditions. Shell purchased the majority of the leases, and ever since, a coalition of groups that includes Alaska Wilderness League has fought Lease Sale 193 in the courts. Late last year the Obama administration released a new court-mandated draft analysis of the effects of oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi Sea demonstrating just how risky it would be to allow drilling in this remote, climate-stressed region. The analysis found that there is a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill (more than 1,000 barrels, or 42,000 gallons) occurring if the Chukchi leases are developed. With a three-in-four chance of a major disaster, and with no effective way to clean up or contain spilled oil in Arctic conditions, the analysis acknowledges that such a spill would result in the loss of a large number of bowhead and endangered beluga whales, polar bears, thousands of seals, and have devastating effects on most marine and coastal birds in the area. Which brings us back to the present. Despite all of the controversy surrounding the original sale in 2008; despite the findings since of a major risk of spill if these leases are developed; and despite Shell's less-than-reassuring history in the Arctic, the administration and the Interior Department have elected to validate Lease Sale 193, which could potentially mean a return to the Chukchi in 2015 for Shell. And let's not forget Shell's 2015 plans involve working with the same contractor, Noble Drilling, that pleaded guilty to eight felony counts for its role in Shell's disastrous 2012 season. This is not, however, the time to hang heads and concede the Arctic. Shell still needs to gain approval for its exploration plans, a revised set of which were just submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). And even if BOEM deems these plans complete, there will still be a comment period to follow during which the public will have the chance to speak up for the Arctic. And as Shell vies for a second chance in the Arctic, there will be several other approvals needed as well. Recently, Shell tested oil spill equipment in Bellingham, Washington with government officials looking on, and we all know how well that went the last time. On March 24, exactly one week prior to the Lease Sale 193 announcement, we recognized the anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. We did so by joining our friends at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and World Wildlife Fund, and taking our message to the steps of the White House: we can't afford another Exxon in the Arctic. As we said that day: offshore drilling is reckless and risky, proven by disasters like the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills, and yet Shell continues to push to return to the Arctic Ocean this summer. As we approach another landmark anniversary - April 20 marks the 5th anniversary of Deepwater Horizon - we must continue to stay vigilant and raise our voices alongside those that depend on the Arctic Ocean for their survival, and speak up for the Arctic wildlife that are already feeling the effects of climate change, and would be devastated by an oil spill. Beyond Lease Sale 193, President Obama recently protected sensitive areas in the Arctic Ocean, but the Department of Interior is still looking to lease the vast majority of Arctic waters. Be it Exxon or Deepwater, we've all seen the impact of what a major oil spill looks like. It's time to take Arctic drilling off the table. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Surprise Finding Heightens Concern Over Tiny Bits Of Plastic Polluting Our Oceans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/plastic-ocean-pollution-fish-health_n_6923872.html [The plastic pollution you can see is troubling. It's the stuff you can't see that is likely doing more damage. images in on-line article] Lynne Peeples Surprise Finding Heightens Concern Over Tiny Bits Of Plastic Polluting Our Oceans Posted: 03/23/2015 2:37 pm EDT Updated: 03/23/2015 2:59 pm EDT Scientists are looking for -- and finding -- little bits of plastic in a lot of places lately: ice cores, deep sea sediments, coral reefs, crab gills, the digestive system of mussels, even German beer. Now, new research suggests they need not actually be searching for the man-made material to discover it. We never thought of looking for plastic, said Javier Gomez Fernandez, a biologist at Singapore University of Technology and Design. His team's accidental finding of plastic in the skin of both farmed and wild fish, published online this month in the supplementary section of their unrelated peer-reviewed paper, adds to already growing environmental and public health concerns about the plastic particles pervading our oceans and waterways. Over time, waves and sunlight break down large chunks of plastic, leaving the remnants of discarded packaging, bottles and bags nearly invisible to the naked eye. These so-called microplastics, particles under a millimeter across, may pose big troubles, experts warn. It fragments quickly. We fear that as plastic continues to break down, it becomes even more susceptible to being eaten by marine organisms or taken into the gills of fish or, apparently, even embedded into their scales, said Kara Lavender Law, of the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Plastic has been found in creatures ranging from worms and barnacles to seabirds and marine mammals, Law noted. Synthetic chemicals can then travel up the food chain, and potentially on to our dinner plates. Law co-authored a study published in February that estimated 5 to 13 million metric tons of plastic litter enters the world's oceans every year. That's equivalent to five plastic grocery bags filled with plastics for every foot of coastline. Since plastic does not biodegrade, it simply accumulates -- year after year. Only about 1 percent of the plastic estimated to reside in the oceans has been accounted for by the five major floating garbage patches, according to another study published last year. How all this translates into potential harm to wildlife or human health remains unclear. Law and other experts, however, suggest the outlook isn't good. Some plastics are manufactured with chemicals known to mess with hormones. Perhaps even more concerning is that plastic can act as a sponge for other toxic pollutants such as flame retardants and pesticides. Even DDT, long banned in the U.S., still lingers in coastal waters and can hitch a ride on plastic particles. Decades of convenient plastics and environmental pollution may be coming back to haunt us in our seafood, said Chelsea Rochman, a postdoctoral fellow in conservation research at the University of California, Davis. At the forefront of the current debate over microplastics are microbeads, the minuscule balls of petrochemical-derived plastic added to hundreds of cosmetics, sunscreens, toothpastes and exfoliating body washes. When they're rinsed down the drain, microbeads can flow through sewer systems -- where they are often too tiny to be efficiently filtered by wastewater treatment plants -- and into lakes, rivers and, ultimately, oceans. They arrive in the environment already fish-food size, even before the waves and sun begin breaking them down. More than a dozen states have begun addressing the emerging concern. Microplastic pollution in the Great Lakes drove Illinois to pass the first ban on microbeads last summer. A policy brief from the Society for Conservation Biology, authored by Rochman and several other microplastic experts, is set to be sent this week to senators drafting similar federal and state legislation. Rochman said she anticipates signatures from about 50 scientists on the brief, which supports the bans and warns of potential loopholes in the Illinois bill that could allow for continued production and use of microbeads. Meanwhile, Rochman called the fish skin finding unexpected and interesting, and noted that it opens up new questions. The discovery began with a one-liter bucket of slimy fish scales and skin. It is smelly, said Fernandez, of working with the fish soup that filled the bucket. Fortunately, I come from a region of fishermen [Cantabria, Spain], so I kind of like the smell of the sea. Fernandez and his colleagues from Harvard University and the University of Washington had been investigating the presence of a natural substance called chitin when they also began detecting a foreign material in the farmed Atlantic salmon, and wild haddock and
