Palm oil in cosmetics and other products risks environmental safety

[caption id="attachment_18980" align="alignleft" width="400"] Avon pledges "green" in palm oil use[/caption]

If you are someone who likes cookies, crackers and cakes or you use cosmetics,  recent news details concerns that palm oil, a chief ingredient found in many of these products is produced in ways that are destructive to the environment.

Friends of the Earth has published news information related to palm oil planttions in Jakarta, Indonesia.    The article first points out that the claim of plantations as forest-friendly activity is incorrect,  when in fact these plantations are a large part of the problem of deforestation in Asia.  And the production of palm oil in these, and on similar plantations, is in large part responsible for the deforestation that negatively impacts climate change.

Palm oil is found in about half of all cosmetics and the foods mentioned, here along with others.  That's because it is relatively cheap to produce.  Friends of the Earth asks consumers to be aware of palm oil and reduce purchasing products with it, while at the same time exploring alternatives that are not destructive to the environment.

Environmentalists tell us to look for products that are certified as having sustainable palm oil.  These are referred to as CSPO and often can be found in packaging.

In the meantime, if you can't find a CSPO certified product, an organization out of Australia that advocates for orangutans, whose population is being decimated from deforestation, offers a list of products that can help you buy responsibly.   Another group that says we should say no to palm oil, offers a list of some of the products containing palm oil.

And for home baking, given the problems of palm oil with respect to temperature variations and other issues, the American Heart Association has this list of liquid butter alternatives.

Occupy Movement, environmentalists rally against Hanford nuclear threats

[caption id="attachment_15044" align="alignleft" width="300"] Dorli Rainey, activist[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Richland, Washington  looks to the idle visitor like the kind of town that is prospering, healthy and one of those sunny villages alongside the Columbia River that people flocked to for fishing and outdoor fun. But it is also located just a few miles from the Hanford Atomic Plant, a place some scientists tell us is the most dangerous area in the world. This weekend it was the site of a protest organized by the Occupy movement and an array of activists from different organizations, as controversy continues about the potential disaster that could result from the Hanford Nuclear Plant.

Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, reportedly called Hanford the “most tragic chapter in American Cold War history.”

The Hanford Atomic Plant was one of the principal research and development centers for nuclear energy for bomb-making purposes during World War II. After worries arose over the safety of nuclear energy, the plant was closed, leaving behind many unresolved issues. Some  of these issues have involved the health and welfare of people who had lived and worked in the area, with lawsuits in and out of the courts. Some of these lawsuits remain pending, although filed decades ago. Plaintiffs claim infertility, miscarriages, cancers and a host of other diseases they believe were caused from direct or downwind exposure to nuclear waste products. The medical risks associated with Hanford, some of which are still being investigated, also include birth defects, organ failure and a host of chronic diseases, as noted by this source.

Radioactive material, above the range of normal, is found surrounding Hanford. The concerns continue even more dramatically about the disposition of the nuclear waste that threatens widespread contamination and the specific  risks to the Columbia River that extends through Washington and Oregon.

Environmental activists and members of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon Peaceworks, Nukewatch, and Occupy groups from both Portland and the Tri-Cities, as well as private citizens and members of other activist groups gathered on April 15 at the Jon Dam Plaza in Richland, concerned over the consequences of a prolonged nuclear clean-up that has cost the taxpayers more than $12 billion to date.

The Hanford Watch Advisory Board  says, “The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere and a major Northwest environmental issue. It is a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River, which Oregon depends on for power generation, farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation.”

Environmentalists worry about the fact that the cleanup plant is only half constructed. Problems related to waste removal and protection of the environment have yet to be resolved for the estimated 53 million tons of radioactive waste. Some of that waste is contained in tanks that are long past the life span projected for safety.

In an article published in DC Bureau, entitled "Veteran Hanford Engineer Says DOE’s Multi-Billion Dollar Hanford Nuclear Waste Processing Plant Might Not Work Properly and Has Serious Potential Safety Problems", author David Rosenthal  relates some of the background of the Plant and the whistle-blower whose report of safety violations cost him his job. Dr. Walter Tamosaitis was the research and technology manager and the deputy chief processing engineer for URS Corporation, according to Rosenthal's report. URS Corporation is a subcontractor to Bechtel, the company in charge of the clean-up. Tamosaitis had been responsible for the  $500 million budget set up to cover the major design functions of the waste treatment plant. functions.

On July 2,  2010 Tamosaitis said that he was literally escorted out of the building at the Plant “like an absolute felon,” he said. He was fired after raising concerns of about safety and some of the operations taking place at the plant.

“The management, in my opinion, did not want to hear that and the easiest thing to do to move ahead is to eliminate what’s a potential road block. …’We’ll get rid of him,’” Rosenthal reports Tamosaitis as saying. This had followed a presentation Tamosaitis and some of his fellow engineers had presented to URS and Bechtel managers.

Should nuclear power be dismissed as an option for energy? While environmentalists complain about the potential risks, Jerry Schlaman, a mechanical engineer who has worked for 27 years in nuclear power and who was interviewed by this reporter at the rally, maintains nuclear power is a viable option.  He said, "I am pro-nuke, but anti-nuke management. The emphasis needs to be on safety, not money."

And money continues to be a major factor, as Richland sports new housing developments everywhere. Money from Hanford fuels much of the Tri-Cities economy, and the longer the delay, the more money is spent on the challenges left at the nuclear plant. It is, however, those great risks to the populations of Oregon and Washington all the way to the Canadian border that brought the activists to rally this weekend for the government to explain the delays in containment of the nuclear waste and to demand appropriate solutions to what they call "the problems caused by Hanford's past in order to ensure the health and dignity of future generations."

Dorli Rainey, who is called by the community of activists, "a rock star" for her involvement in causes of peace, women's rights and the environment, spoke early on the program about the need for safety in solving the problems of the nation's energy crisis. She was raised in Austria during World War II, and at the age of 84 remains a stout defender of peace, telling folks, "When you have a bomb dropped on your house, you can scream for revenge or look for peaceful ways to solve problems. I choose the path of peace."

But for Lori McMillan of Hermiston, Oregon, who lives "downwind" or less than 50 miles from the Hanford plant, the problems at Hanford are truly  personal. She told this reporter she had moved to the area in 1977. Out of 14 people who were a close group of friends, Lori said there are only 4 left. All the others died of cancer, and McMillan has breast cancer now. Her daughter has cervical cancer, had an ectopic pregnancy and two miscarriages.

[caption id="attachment_15045" align="alignleft" width="300"] Lori McMillan at protest rally in Richland, Washington[/caption]

It is this personal story, the anecdotal evidence, that arouses compassion from those who call attention to the safety concerns of nuclear power and those who challenge governmental delays before Hanford becomes the far greater disaster than Japan's Fukushima plant that some scientists predict may happen.

How the Santa Ana Sucker represents our environmental challenge

by Samantha Torrence- The Santa Ana Sucker might just be a fish but it represents an issue that impacts all of us and the way we decide to live in the future.

[caption id="attachment_4552" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Santa Ana Sucker - flickr- Hotash"][/caption]

The Santa Ana sucker is more than an ordinary fish. It is a small bottom feeding fish that has sparked a large controversy in California’s 41^st district. At face value the controversy may seem limited to  the environment of Inland Empire and the people who live there, but if you look deeper there is another  issue.  Is our current need to have large cities with urban sprawl met at the expense of our environment?

In the past, before major industrialization, we had cities that were surrounded by green zones dotted here and there with small villages or farms. The forests were burgeoning with fauna and flora, and our rivers and streams were mostly clean and teaming with life. Pollution was centered usually around the larger gatherings of our species while farms and villages lived more in tune with the land.

Industrialization changed our way of life in ways we could have never imagined.  There was significant impact on life expectancy and infant mortality giving us more children that lived on through an increasingly extended lifespan. Our population increased and as humans tend to do, we grouped together in large cities. Our need to have space, to be in touch with the land, but still have comfortable homes and closeness made us move from the big cities into the surrounding areas we now call suburbs. Our urban sprawl eliminated green zones until one city blended with another. Forests were destroyed, lakes and rivers tamed to our needs, and our farms over farmed to feed the growing population.

Species after species has succumbed to human tampering and in that long line of suffering swims in one little seemingly insignificant fish that has caused to surface an age- old debate between environmentalists and industrialists.

In the Inland Empire metropolitan area urban sprawl and big cities have made the necessity of a dam to be built to protect the population from flooding and to control and increase the water supply. The residents of the area are facing litigation and lobbying from environmentalist groups that champion biodiversity. The groups are working to convince the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to tear down the Seven Oaks dam and give the Santa Ana River back to the sucker fish that inhabit it. Jerry Lewis, the Republican Representative for the district has claimed that the dam needs to stay or there will be 2.7 billion dollars in loss as well as a loss of enough water for 400,000 families or 10% of the Inland Empire Population.

Why are there over 4 million people sprawled into this area? California has always been an attractive place to live because of its beauty and its bounty. There are also political motivations for the gay community and for illegal immigrants due to the sanctuary cities in its midst. People of like minds like to congregate, to find safety in numbers; however those numbers are over burdening the Californian wildlife. Environmentalists have proposed lifestyle shifts to help solve the problems of needed congregation without hurting the wildlife. The lifestyle shifts all go back to our historical way of living, but with a modern twist. Vertical sprawl with large cities surrounded by a mandatory green zone then outlaying farmlands have been seen as a solution.

There are many proposals for changing the way we live, from simple solutions like more clean living, to frightening solutions like eugenics and population control. Each solution has been looked at on an academic basis to determine its values and flaws. Everyone agrees overall that over population is the problem, and the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker is just one symptom.

The Santa Ana fish represents the complicated choices we must make for our future because where the fish swims cleanly, smoothly and safely might represent the safe passage for the rest of us.