2011-04-07 "Solar panel installers get on-the-job training, help low-income Vallejo homeowners" by Jessica A. York from "Vallejo Times Herald" newspaper
[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_17791158]
With the sun glinting off newly installed solar panels Wednesday afternoon, Mark Todd and his family feel like they are living the "American Dream."
The family of four moved into the Phoenix Circle house in November after Solano-Napa Habitat for Humanity bought the foreclosed property and worked its volunteer-powered restoration magic.
Shortly after, a GRID Alternatives flyer arrived in the mail, offering to help the low-income family offset their energy costs through free solar energy panel installation.
"I'm lucky enough to be a homeowner right now," Todd said, watching as the nonprofit Oakland-based GRID Alternatives volunteers aligned the rooftop solar panels. "To have this (solar) come in, I'm double blessed."
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Vallejo was the convergence point for three such solar installations -- the first in Vallejo by this company, said GRID spokeswoman Stacy Sauce. The Phoenix Circle home, plus ones on McGrue Circle and Rhododendron Court, are to save a combined $120,000 in 30 years, the equivalent of planting about 377 trees, company officials said.
While helping to improve the environment by reducing fossil fuel usage and energy bills for low-income homeowners, GRID earns a third benefit:-- on-the-job training for volunteers exploring a career in the solar field, said GRID Bay Area Regional Director Mary Biasotti.
Vallejo Mayor Osby Davis was invited to the Todds' home for the installation, by way of introduction to the project. Biasotti added that she shared her concerns with the mayor about the comparatively high cost of the city's solar permitting fees of $1,500.
Biasotti and Sauce said that potential solar panel recipients are worried that the free offer is "too good to be true," which is why they try to partner with city officials, like Davis, and local organizations -- to lend credence to the program.
The work being done on her new home was pretty clear for 4-year-old Olivia Todd. She told a reporter that it involved "sun," "good" and "lights."
Her dad said he had previously rented a house, and spent a year hunting for a home to call his own -- out from under a landlord's watch. During Todd's search, he saw the property that was eventually to become his, and immediately dismissed it.
In an otherwise quiet hilltop neighborhood, the house had bar-covered windows and a security door, Todd said. He was quick to pass over the foreclosed location, he said, because he assumed the whole neighborhood was unsafe.
After Habitat for Humanity had taken over the home over the summer, Todd took a second look.
"I saw this house a year ago and wouldn't have considered it at all," Todd said. "(Later), I said, 'Wow, what a difference.' I can't believe the work they've done."
The Todds' home was the first of several foreclosure rehabilitation projects in Vallejo by Habitat for Humanity, with the help of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program loan through the city of Vallejo.
For more information on GRID Alternatives, visit them online at www.gridalternatives.org or call (866) 921-4696. Solar installations are reserved for low-income homeowners. For more information on Solano-Napa Habitat for Humanity, visit www.solanonapahabitat.org or call (707) 422-1948.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
2011-04-01 "Greener Ferries Are Blowin’ in the Wind; Like car owners, ferry riders determined to green their commute have thus far had to settle for hybrid power" by Bill Picture from "Bay Crossings" newspaper
[http://www.baycrossings.org/dispnews.asp?id=2514]
Like car owners, ferry riders determined to green their commute have thus far had to settle for hybrid power. While considerably better for the environment than their diesel-guzzling predecessors, hybrid ferries, like hybrid cars, have left some commuters wondering, “Is that really the best we can do?”
One person who isn’t satisfied is Jay Gardner, co-founder of Napa-based Adventure Cat, which has offered sailing adventures on the San Francisco Bay since 1991. For the last three years, Gardner and his Adventure Cat partner, Hans Korfin, working under their newly formed company, Wind+Wing Technologies, have been using their knowledge of sailing and the wind to develop a wind-powered ferry vessel that could put its hybrid-powered peers on the Bay to shame.
“Wind is a resource that we’re never short of out on the San Francisco Bay,” Gardner said. “We’re blessed with consistent, powerful winds.” In fact, the winds blowing through the Golden Gate are so reliable that 95 percent of the trips made by Adventure Cat’s catamarans are done under sail—that is, without the assistance of diesel motors.
“And reliability is very important, for both the ferry operators and the people who rely on those ferries to get where they need to go,” he said.
Wind vs. solar -
Ferry vessels running almost entirely on solar-and-wind-generated power produced by Australian company, Solar Sailor, are already being used to scoot passengers around Sydney Harbor and Shanghai. In March, sea trials also began in Hong Kong with a true commercial hybrid vessel propelled by wind power, solar power, stored electricity and fossil fuel. But there’s a major difference between Sydney, Hong Kong or Shanghai and San Francisco.
“The difference is that famous San Francisco fog,” Gardner said. Even on the foggiest day, enough sun manages to filter through the fast-moving blanket above our heads to power lights, televisions and laptops, and to charge our precious smart phones. It’s not enough, however, to produce the thrust required to move a several-hundred-ton vessel across the choppy waters of the San Francisco Bay, given existing solar technology limitations.
“Wind is a much better resource because its power is exponential,” Gardner explains. “When you double the speed of the wind, you quadruple its force. A 15-to-20 mile-per-hour wind is enough to fully power a ferry. That’s actually a light day on the Bay.”
Wind+Wing’s design replaces a traditional sail with a carbon-fiber wing similar in structure to an airplane’s. Two articulating pieces work in tandem to harness the wind’s power by creating either a flat surface to increase speed or a curved surface to generate power.
Rallying support -
Gardner and Korfin presented their design to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District last month, and proposed outfitting an existing vessel with one of their wings to test it out on the Bay. The winged vessel would shadow existing ferry routes to test maneuverability both on the water and at the docks, mechanical reliability and handling in heavy or unpredictable weather.
“The boat will also be outfitted with GPS, wind sensors and wind-angle indicators,” says Gardner. “We need to collect data on every route to find out how the wind behaves and how the boat behaves under a variety of conditions.”
Golden Gate’s board got behind the project, with one member calling the idea “fascinating.” Another board member, San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, told the Marin Independent Journal, “With lower fuel costs, you could drop the price of the ferry and get more people to ride the boat.” The prospect of significant savings has also helped Gardner and Korfin enlist the support of some of the region’s ferry operators, who are currently struggling with extreme fuel prices.
The U.S. Navy is also interested. As the single largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, the Navy has a serious stake in finding an alternative. To that end, they’ve offered to loan one of their vessels to Wind+Wing. Now, Gardner and Korfin must come up with the $1 million they need to outfit the Navy’s vessel with a wing. To date, they’ve spent about $100,000 of their own money.
“State funding is disappearing, and federal money is disappearing,” said Gardner. “Now’s not the best time to have your hand out. What little money there is left out there has already been committed to other projects, for the most part. But things are happening, and we’re very encouraged.”
When asked what the chances are of coming up with the money by March 12, 2012, when the Navy proposes handing over its vessel to Wind+Wing, Gardner responds, “I’m 75 percent positive it’s going to happen. There’s a lot of good will behind this project, and desire to see it happen.”
For more information, visit www.windwingtech.com
Solar ferries produced by Solar Sailor have been used for years commercially in Australia’s Sydney Harbor. Photo courtesy of Solar Sailor
The first sea-trials of “Solar Albatross” took place last month in Hong Kong of Solar Sailor’s 24 meter 100 passenger carrying catamaran ferry with its stow-able SolarSails. Photo courtesy of Solar Sailor
Wind+Wing plans on fitting a vessel on loan from the Navy with a carbon-fiber wing and running tests following existing ferry routes used in the Bay Area. Artist rendering courtesy of Wind+Wing
[http://www.baycrossings.org/dispnews.asp?id=2514]
Like car owners, ferry riders determined to green their commute have thus far had to settle for hybrid power. While considerably better for the environment than their diesel-guzzling predecessors, hybrid ferries, like hybrid cars, have left some commuters wondering, “Is that really the best we can do?”
One person who isn’t satisfied is Jay Gardner, co-founder of Napa-based Adventure Cat, which has offered sailing adventures on the San Francisco Bay since 1991. For the last three years, Gardner and his Adventure Cat partner, Hans Korfin, working under their newly formed company, Wind+Wing Technologies, have been using their knowledge of sailing and the wind to develop a wind-powered ferry vessel that could put its hybrid-powered peers on the Bay to shame.
“Wind is a resource that we’re never short of out on the San Francisco Bay,” Gardner said. “We’re blessed with consistent, powerful winds.” In fact, the winds blowing through the Golden Gate are so reliable that 95 percent of the trips made by Adventure Cat’s catamarans are done under sail—that is, without the assistance of diesel motors.
“And reliability is very important, for both the ferry operators and the people who rely on those ferries to get where they need to go,” he said.
Wind vs. solar -
Ferry vessels running almost entirely on solar-and-wind-generated power produced by Australian company, Solar Sailor, are already being used to scoot passengers around Sydney Harbor and Shanghai. In March, sea trials also began in Hong Kong with a true commercial hybrid vessel propelled by wind power, solar power, stored electricity and fossil fuel. But there’s a major difference between Sydney, Hong Kong or Shanghai and San Francisco.
“The difference is that famous San Francisco fog,” Gardner said. Even on the foggiest day, enough sun manages to filter through the fast-moving blanket above our heads to power lights, televisions and laptops, and to charge our precious smart phones. It’s not enough, however, to produce the thrust required to move a several-hundred-ton vessel across the choppy waters of the San Francisco Bay, given existing solar technology limitations.
“Wind is a much better resource because its power is exponential,” Gardner explains. “When you double the speed of the wind, you quadruple its force. A 15-to-20 mile-per-hour wind is enough to fully power a ferry. That’s actually a light day on the Bay.”
Wind+Wing’s design replaces a traditional sail with a carbon-fiber wing similar in structure to an airplane’s. Two articulating pieces work in tandem to harness the wind’s power by creating either a flat surface to increase speed or a curved surface to generate power.
Rallying support -
Gardner and Korfin presented their design to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District last month, and proposed outfitting an existing vessel with one of their wings to test it out on the Bay. The winged vessel would shadow existing ferry routes to test maneuverability both on the water and at the docks, mechanical reliability and handling in heavy or unpredictable weather.
“The boat will also be outfitted with GPS, wind sensors and wind-angle indicators,” says Gardner. “We need to collect data on every route to find out how the wind behaves and how the boat behaves under a variety of conditions.”
Golden Gate’s board got behind the project, with one member calling the idea “fascinating.” Another board member, San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, told the Marin Independent Journal, “With lower fuel costs, you could drop the price of the ferry and get more people to ride the boat.” The prospect of significant savings has also helped Gardner and Korfin enlist the support of some of the region’s ferry operators, who are currently struggling with extreme fuel prices.
The U.S. Navy is also interested. As the single largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, the Navy has a serious stake in finding an alternative. To that end, they’ve offered to loan one of their vessels to Wind+Wing. Now, Gardner and Korfin must come up with the $1 million they need to outfit the Navy’s vessel with a wing. To date, they’ve spent about $100,000 of their own money.
“State funding is disappearing, and federal money is disappearing,” said Gardner. “Now’s not the best time to have your hand out. What little money there is left out there has already been committed to other projects, for the most part. But things are happening, and we’re very encouraged.”
When asked what the chances are of coming up with the money by March 12, 2012, when the Navy proposes handing over its vessel to Wind+Wing, Gardner responds, “I’m 75 percent positive it’s going to happen. There’s a lot of good will behind this project, and desire to see it happen.”
For more information, visit www.windwingtech.com
Solar ferries produced by Solar Sailor have been used for years commercially in Australia’s Sydney Harbor. Photo courtesy of Solar Sailor
The first sea-trials of “Solar Albatross” took place last month in Hong Kong of Solar Sailor’s 24 meter 100 passenger carrying catamaran ferry with its stow-able SolarSails. Photo courtesy of Solar Sailor
Wind+Wing plans on fitting a vessel on loan from the Navy with a carbon-fiber wing and running tests following existing ferry routes used in the Bay Area. Artist rendering courtesy of Wind+Wing
2011-04-01 "Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto over GM Seed" by Nancy Roberts
[http://www.care2.com/causes/real-food/blog/organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gm-seed/]
A group of organic farmers and seed dealers is preemptively suing agribusiness/biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from legal action by the corporation in cases when Monsanto seeds contaminate their organic crops. The suit is intended to protect farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when the farmers' crops are contaminated by Monsanto's patented, genetically modified seed. Under current law, if Monsanto seeds are found in a farm for which they were not purchased, Monsanto is legally entitled to sue, even if the seeds drifted over accidentally or by natural cross-pollination. The suit was filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of 60 farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations, representing some 270,000 members.
Monsanto's blog [http://www.monsantoblog.com/2011/03/29/pubpat-allegations-are-false-misleading-and-deceptive/] called the lawsuit a publicity stunt, and the allegations "false, misleading and deceptive." The blog states that "It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means."
Yet there are multiple cases [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml] of harassment [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml] and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over alleged unauthorized use of its seed products.
Sourcewatch claims [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers]: "Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
PUBPAT's [http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantofiled.htm] Executive Director Dan Ravicher, noted, "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients." Transgenic (aka genetically engineered) seed contaminates and destroys organic strains of the same species. Ravicher noted, “Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply."
Plaintiff Rose Marie Burroughs of Cloverleaf Farms stated, "We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty... We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people's right to non GMO food contamination."
[http://www.care2.com/causes/real-food/blog/organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gm-seed/]
A group of organic farmers and seed dealers is preemptively suing agribusiness/biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from legal action by the corporation in cases when Monsanto seeds contaminate their organic crops. The suit is intended to protect farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when the farmers' crops are contaminated by Monsanto's patented, genetically modified seed. Under current law, if Monsanto seeds are found in a farm for which they were not purchased, Monsanto is legally entitled to sue, even if the seeds drifted over accidentally or by natural cross-pollination. The suit was filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of 60 farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations, representing some 270,000 members.
Monsanto's blog [http://www.monsantoblog.com/2011/03/29/pubpat-allegations-are-false-misleading-and-deceptive/] called the lawsuit a publicity stunt, and the allegations "false, misleading and deceptive." The blog states that "It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means."
Yet there are multiple cases [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml] of harassment [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml] and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over alleged unauthorized use of its seed products.
Sourcewatch claims [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers]: "Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
PUBPAT's [http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantofiled.htm] Executive Director Dan Ravicher, noted, "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients." Transgenic (aka genetically engineered) seed contaminates and destroys organic strains of the same species. Ravicher noted, “Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply."
Plaintiff Rose Marie Burroughs of Cloverleaf Farms stated, "We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty... We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people's right to non GMO food contamination."
2011-04-01 "Napa sheep slaughter solved: Culprits were cougars" by Peter Fimrite from "San Francisco Chronicle" newspaper
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/31/BAVP1INGPN.DTL]
(04-01) 11:15 PDT NAPA --
Seven dead lambs were found scattered among leaves and brush in the woodlands of Napa County's Mount Veeder area, some half-buried and others just lying there after being dragged from the adjacent vineyard.
It was a massacre - in all, 10 specially bred sheep had been killed, and some of them had been eaten - but the carnage was not the work of bloodthirsty humans as sheriff's investigators and the sheepherder had believed.
It was marauding mountain lions that killed the sheep, officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Thursday.
"They found evidence of sheep and baby lambs that had been torn apart," said Tom Meadowcroft, the owner of Mount Veeder Vineyard, who was using the flock of sheep to control weeds on his property.
"Some were half-buried. Others had been left there on the hillside. It's all evidence of mountain lions."
Napa County sheriff's investigators and sheep-owner George Richmond had erroneously concluded that three sheep found dead in the vineyard March 25 had been shot and that six others had been stolen, possibly for someone's Easter roast. They were all Babydoll Southdowns, a gentle breed with short legs that make it difficult for them to reach grapes on the vines.
Richmond noticed that the gate, which has a pass code, was wide open. A sheriff's deputy spotted wounds in the back of the head of the dead ram, ewe and lamb and concluded that they were gunshot holes.
The news created an uproar in this normally peaceful wine-growing region northwest of Napa, where there have been several recent burglaries. The missing sheep, all but one of them young lambs, added an element of mystery to what looked to everyone like a diabolical crime.
That all changed when a federal trapper found the missing lambs' carcasses in nearby woods, Meadowcroft said. The trapper told Meadowcroft that more than one mountain lion, probably a male and female, had killed the sheep in the vineyard, dragged them down a hill, ate some of them and buried the others for later.
"I imagine their appetite was satiated," said Meadowcroft, 50, of Kentfield, who was grazing sheep on his 2 1/2-acre property for the first time. "What a feast."
Meadowcroft suspects the vineyard gates either blew open during heavy winds or were left open, but experts say it wouldn't have made any difference for the sheep because cougars can climb fences.
Mountain lions are found in most wildland areas around the Bay Area, but attacks on livestock are rare, said Zara McDonald, executive director of the Felidae Conservation Fund, a Marin County nonprofit dedicated to the protection of wild cats.
McDonald said deer make up 80 percent of their diet, but mountain lions are opportunists and will go after easy prey when they see it. They typically kill with a bite to the back of the neck and head, which would explain why the punctures on the dead sheep looked like gunshot wounds.
Killing rampages like this one are unusual but not unheard of, she said.
"Sometimes if they kill one it sort of drives the predator instinct and that will trigger them to continue to kill," McDonald said, "kind of like a house cat playing with a toy."
McDonald said folks in the area need not panic. Cattle, horses and people are almost never on the mountain lion menu, she said.
The fact that pumas and not people were responsible actually makes things a little better, Meadowcroft said.
"I'm relieved to know that what caused this was part of the cycle of life," he said. "I hope it gives comfort for people to know that it wasn't some crazy sick person out there."
Tom Meadowcroft / Courtesy to The Chronicle
Sheep graze on Tom Meadowcroft's Mt. Veeder vineyard, Meadowcroft Wines, March 19, 2011. The sheep are specially bred to graze in the vineyards, clearing overgrown brush, but unable to reach the grapes on the vines. Authorities now say that several lambs were killed by mountain lions, not shot, as earlier reported.
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/31/BAVP1INGPN.DTL]
(04-01) 11:15 PDT NAPA --
Seven dead lambs were found scattered among leaves and brush in the woodlands of Napa County's Mount Veeder area, some half-buried and others just lying there after being dragged from the adjacent vineyard.
It was a massacre - in all, 10 specially bred sheep had been killed, and some of them had been eaten - but the carnage was not the work of bloodthirsty humans as sheriff's investigators and the sheepherder had believed.
It was marauding mountain lions that killed the sheep, officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Thursday.
"They found evidence of sheep and baby lambs that had been torn apart," said Tom Meadowcroft, the owner of Mount Veeder Vineyard, who was using the flock of sheep to control weeds on his property.
"Some were half-buried. Others had been left there on the hillside. It's all evidence of mountain lions."
Napa County sheriff's investigators and sheep-owner George Richmond had erroneously concluded that three sheep found dead in the vineyard March 25 had been shot and that six others had been stolen, possibly for someone's Easter roast. They were all Babydoll Southdowns, a gentle breed with short legs that make it difficult for them to reach grapes on the vines.
Richmond noticed that the gate, which has a pass code, was wide open. A sheriff's deputy spotted wounds in the back of the head of the dead ram, ewe and lamb and concluded that they were gunshot holes.
The news created an uproar in this normally peaceful wine-growing region northwest of Napa, where there have been several recent burglaries. The missing sheep, all but one of them young lambs, added an element of mystery to what looked to everyone like a diabolical crime.
That all changed when a federal trapper found the missing lambs' carcasses in nearby woods, Meadowcroft said. The trapper told Meadowcroft that more than one mountain lion, probably a male and female, had killed the sheep in the vineyard, dragged them down a hill, ate some of them and buried the others for later.
"I imagine their appetite was satiated," said Meadowcroft, 50, of Kentfield, who was grazing sheep on his 2 1/2-acre property for the first time. "What a feast."
Meadowcroft suspects the vineyard gates either blew open during heavy winds or were left open, but experts say it wouldn't have made any difference for the sheep because cougars can climb fences.
Mountain lions are found in most wildland areas around the Bay Area, but attacks on livestock are rare, said Zara McDonald, executive director of the Felidae Conservation Fund, a Marin County nonprofit dedicated to the protection of wild cats.
McDonald said deer make up 80 percent of their diet, but mountain lions are opportunists and will go after easy prey when they see it. They typically kill with a bite to the back of the neck and head, which would explain why the punctures on the dead sheep looked like gunshot wounds.
Killing rampages like this one are unusual but not unheard of, she said.
"Sometimes if they kill one it sort of drives the predator instinct and that will trigger them to continue to kill," McDonald said, "kind of like a house cat playing with a toy."
McDonald said folks in the area need not panic. Cattle, horses and people are almost never on the mountain lion menu, she said.
The fact that pumas and not people were responsible actually makes things a little better, Meadowcroft said.
"I'm relieved to know that what caused this was part of the cycle of life," he said. "I hope it gives comfort for people to know that it wasn't some crazy sick person out there."
Tom Meadowcroft / Courtesy to The Chronicle
Sheep graze on Tom Meadowcroft's Mt. Veeder vineyard, Meadowcroft Wines, March 19, 2011. The sheep are specially bred to graze in the vineyards, clearing overgrown brush, but unable to reach the grapes on the vines. Authorities now say that several lambs were killed by mountain lions, not shot, as earlier reported.
2011-04-01 "California's recreational salmon season opens Saturday" from "Associated Press" newswire
[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110401/WIRE/110409952/1350?Title=Recreational-salmon-season-opens-Saturday&tc=ar]
SAN FRANCISCO — For the first time in four years California's recreational Chinook salmon fishermen are gearing up for what is expected to be a normal-length season.
California Department of Fish and Game officially opens the season on Saturday, after forecasts predicted triple the amount of salmon expected to return to the Sacramento River this fall.
It was also welcome news for the state's bait and tackle shops, boat mechanics and others who have been hard hit economically by the salmon declines.
Anglers can fish salmon legally from Cape Mendocino south to the U.S.-Mexico border. Waters north of Cape Mendocino to the Oregon border will be opened at a later, undetermined date.
The fall Sacramento River Chinook salmon run provides 80-to-90 percent of the fish caught off the California coast.
[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110401/WIRE/110409952/1350?Title=Recreational-salmon-season-opens-Saturday&tc=ar]
SAN FRANCISCO — For the first time in four years California's recreational Chinook salmon fishermen are gearing up for what is expected to be a normal-length season.
California Department of Fish and Game officially opens the season on Saturday, after forecasts predicted triple the amount of salmon expected to return to the Sacramento River this fall.
It was also welcome news for the state's bait and tackle shops, boat mechanics and others who have been hard hit economically by the salmon declines.
Anglers can fish salmon legally from Cape Mendocino south to the U.S.-Mexico border. Waters north of Cape Mendocino to the Oregon border will be opened at a later, undetermined date.
The fall Sacramento River Chinook salmon run provides 80-to-90 percent of the fish caught off the California coast.
Nuclear Power is Anti-Life
2011-04-01 "The Nuclear Accident in Japan: Impacts on Food" by Rich Bindell from "Food & Water Watch"
[http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/the-nuclear-accident-in-japan/]
Radioactive emissions from Japan have been detected throughout the United States, from California to Colorado and as far east as Massachusetts. Monitors in the Carolinas have detected the presence of radioactive iodine, the first time this material had been detected there since the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago.
A major avenue for exposure to radioactive contamination comes through food and water. Decades after the Chernobyl accident, the United Kingdom still maintains restrictions on large sectors of the country’s sheep production because radioactive cesium—dispersed through wind and rain—still contaminates grazing lands.
The U.S. imported around 150 million pounds of food from Japan in 2010, a small percentage of what Americans consumed, but not an insignificant amount. Imports from Japan included nearly 600,000 pounds of crab and anchovies and nearly 5 million gallons of bottled water, soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages containing water, products that may be potentially higher risk if contamination continues to spread to the ocean and fresh water sources.
American consumers could be at risk through consumption of food products from other countries that experience radioactive fallout from the nuclear accident in Japan as well.
2011-03-31 "Any Radiation Can Be Harmful" by Rich Bindell from "Food & Water Watch"
[http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/any-radiation-can-be-harmful/]
Let’s start with the bottom line: the National Academy of Sciences says that exposure to even low levels of radiation can be harmful. They originally shared this finding in a report published back in 2006. This is critical information to consider since we all have legitimate reasons to be concerned with the current situation regarding Japan’s nuclear reactors.
News has spread quickly that evidence of radiation is turning up in several states in the United States. But rather than explain how they will protect people from potential exposures, our government is simply telling us that the levels of radiation are minor and that we shouldn’t worry about it. Did they read the NAS report?
Reminder: There is no safe level of exposure to radiation in food or in water.
From the National Academy of Sciences Report [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340]: “A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects.”
The big hook here should be the “preponderance of scientific evidence.”
The FDA has said that it will be blocking imports that come from the region where the nuclear plant sits, but that’s not really enough. Sadly, the FDA would need to block all imports from all of Japan to truly be effective.
It’s true that only four percent of our food imports come from Japan, most of which is fish and processed foods. Considering the fact that 80 percent of seafood in the United States is imported and only two percent is inspected, this becomes much more of a concern. Last year, we imported nearly 600,000 pounds of crab and anchovies and nearly 5 million gallons of bottled water, soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages containing water, from Japan. These products may be potentially higher risk if contamination continues to spread to the ocean and fresh water sources.
There is also the possibility of radiation exposure from the plumes that have drifted into North America. While it’s not clear how widespread or severe the contamination is so far, keep in mind that the damage is done over a longer period of time, and it can affect us through the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we use.
The real danger from radiation will be cumulative and will involve many factors. As humans, we are at the top of the food chain and therefore more susceptible to radiation exposure as it moves up the food chain.
Considering all of these factors, and knowing that we are extremely vulnerable to radiation exposure, we need our government to step up and take action.
Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter has sent a letter [http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/japanletter.pdf] to President Obama, heads of federal agencies, and Congressional leaders noting that the agencies responsible for regulating our food— the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have done very little to detail specific ways in which they are responding to the threat of radiation in food.
Food & Water Watch is asking for a comprehensive and transparent plan to monitor and test for radiation, and expand the monitoring program into agricultural regions of the United States.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should increase its monitoring of air, water, and precipitation, as well as step up monitoring of radiation in milk.
If you’d like to learn more about the impact of Japan’s nuclear accident on our food, check out our fact sheet [http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/japan-radiation.pdf].
Take action to make sure our food and water is being monitored for radioactive contamination [http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6370]
[http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/the-nuclear-accident-in-japan/]
Radioactive emissions from Japan have been detected throughout the United States, from California to Colorado and as far east as Massachusetts. Monitors in the Carolinas have detected the presence of radioactive iodine, the first time this material had been detected there since the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago.
A major avenue for exposure to radioactive contamination comes through food and water. Decades after the Chernobyl accident, the United Kingdom still maintains restrictions on large sectors of the country’s sheep production because radioactive cesium—dispersed through wind and rain—still contaminates grazing lands.
The U.S. imported around 150 million pounds of food from Japan in 2010, a small percentage of what Americans consumed, but not an insignificant amount. Imports from Japan included nearly 600,000 pounds of crab and anchovies and nearly 5 million gallons of bottled water, soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages containing water, products that may be potentially higher risk if contamination continues to spread to the ocean and fresh water sources.
American consumers could be at risk through consumption of food products from other countries that experience radioactive fallout from the nuclear accident in Japan as well.
2011-03-31 "Any Radiation Can Be Harmful" by Rich Bindell from "Food & Water Watch"
[http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/any-radiation-can-be-harmful/]
Let’s start with the bottom line: the National Academy of Sciences says that exposure to even low levels of radiation can be harmful. They originally shared this finding in a report published back in 2006. This is critical information to consider since we all have legitimate reasons to be concerned with the current situation regarding Japan’s nuclear reactors.
News has spread quickly that evidence of radiation is turning up in several states in the United States. But rather than explain how they will protect people from potential exposures, our government is simply telling us that the levels of radiation are minor and that we shouldn’t worry about it. Did they read the NAS report?
Reminder: There is no safe level of exposure to radiation in food or in water.
From the National Academy of Sciences Report [http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340]: “A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects.”
The big hook here should be the “preponderance of scientific evidence.”
The FDA has said that it will be blocking imports that come from the region where the nuclear plant sits, but that’s not really enough. Sadly, the FDA would need to block all imports from all of Japan to truly be effective.
It’s true that only four percent of our food imports come from Japan, most of which is fish and processed foods. Considering the fact that 80 percent of seafood in the United States is imported and only two percent is inspected, this becomes much more of a concern. Last year, we imported nearly 600,000 pounds of crab and anchovies and nearly 5 million gallons of bottled water, soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages containing water, from Japan. These products may be potentially higher risk if contamination continues to spread to the ocean and fresh water sources.
There is also the possibility of radiation exposure from the plumes that have drifted into North America. While it’s not clear how widespread or severe the contamination is so far, keep in mind that the damage is done over a longer period of time, and it can affect us through the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we use.
The real danger from radiation will be cumulative and will involve many factors. As humans, we are at the top of the food chain and therefore more susceptible to radiation exposure as it moves up the food chain.
Considering all of these factors, and knowing that we are extremely vulnerable to radiation exposure, we need our government to step up and take action.
Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter has sent a letter [http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/japanletter.pdf] to President Obama, heads of federal agencies, and Congressional leaders noting that the agencies responsible for regulating our food— the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have done very little to detail specific ways in which they are responding to the threat of radiation in food.
Food & Water Watch is asking for a comprehensive and transparent plan to monitor and test for radiation, and expand the monitoring program into agricultural regions of the United States.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should increase its monitoring of air, water, and precipitation, as well as step up monitoring of radiation in milk.
If you’d like to learn more about the impact of Japan’s nuclear accident on our food, check out our fact sheet [http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/japan-radiation.pdf].
Take action to make sure our food and water is being monitored for radioactive contamination [http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6370]
2011-04-01 "California’s 'Dust Bowl Drought' that Really Never Happened - is Officially Over!" by Patrick Porgans
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/01/18676111.php]
(916) 833-8734 [pp @ planetaraysolutionaries.org]
No; it is not an April Fool’s Joke Governor Jerry Brown’s recent announcement that California’s “drought” is officially over, which critics claimed was grossly exaggerated; government records indicate it may not have happened.
Gov. Brown’s Proclamation officially rescinds former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-06-08, issued on June 4, 2008 and ends the States of Emergency called on June 12, 2008, and on February 27, 2009.
It took as much as 50 feet of snowpack, which blanketed the roughed Sierra Nevada Mountains, all of the state’s major reservoirs full or overflowing, many of which are making floodwater releases to provide room for spring runoff, and the Golden State at “ground saturation, before the Governor’s water advisors to confirm the “drought emergency” was over.
Ironically, doubts were raised at the time former Gov. Schwarzenegger issued the “drought proclamation”, which he issued at the very onset of a below-average water year; slightly less than the “average” amount of precipitation and water runoff received statewide.
Last, year, for example, California received more than 110 percent of “average” precipitation, and statewide reservoir capacity reach 95 percent. At the end of that year, the “fourth” year of the “drought” federal and state water “experts” were at odds as to whether the drought was over; state officials took the position it wasn’t.
A series of in-depth reports, based entirely on government documents, revealed that the so-called “drought” was not only significantly overstated but, revealed serious doubts as to whether it actually happened. For example, for the four year period (water-years 2007 through 2011), at which time the “drought proclamation” was in effect, California received 85 percent of “average” precipitation, and the “average” water storage, based on “averages”, in its major reservoirs, for that period was in the 90 percentile range.
Weather conditions in the Golden State vary from year to year, the “average” precipitation and water runoff varies; it is not unusual to experience wet and dry cycles. In fact, prior to 2007, the state had experienced a series of very wet water years.
When it rains it pours, and if it someone “claims” it doesn’t rain in Sunny California, it pours a torrent of free-flowing “drought-relief” grant funding. Funds that primarily go to benefit government water agencies, their customers, and wealthy landowners and water speculators. This funding mechanism is made possible by using the public’s credit to borrow vast sums of money, which is repaid back by the public-at-large, from the $26 billion deficit-ridden General Fund.
One of the how to get “drought” relief money give-away sessions was held at the Irvine Ranch Water District duck club, which was announced on California Department of Water Resources’ letterhead. The district is a well-healed and politically connected supporter of water development.
Critics contend that the motive behind the drought was essentially a major financial bailout for Gov. Schwarzenegger’s campaign supporters that rely heavily on publicly subsidized water, provided by government water projects, exporting water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to central and southern California. They claim that by issuing the drought proclamation at the onset of the below average conditions, and not declaring the drought as being over in 2010, allowed the flow of cash to continue.
Obviously, the drought proclamation opened up the floodgate to release hundreds of millions of dollars of public moneys used to fund so-called drought relief programs to a host of local water agencies and agricultural recipients [http://www.water.ca.gov/lgagrant/docs/120309grant.pdf].
California recently sold $733 million in bonds to fund drought, flood control and water management projects, and the state is preparing for another bond sale of $400 million for water and drought response, according to a press release issued by the Governor on the 15 April 2009. [gov.ca.gov/press-release/12022].
Lastly, and yet equally important, is when a state-of-emergency is proclaimed, it essentially sets aside many regulatory and environmental safeguards.
Next in the series: Harvesting Windfall Profits from the so-called Drought – While Funds for Public Safety-Net Programs and Jobs Dry Up. Other drought-related stories, published by the author, can be obtained at the following websites: http://www.planetarysolutionaries.org; http://www.lloydgcarter.com or Google “Doubts About the Drought”. Ω
For additional information send request or comments to pp [at] planetarysolutionaries.org
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/01/18676111.php]
(916) 833-8734 [pp @ planetaraysolutionaries.org]
No; it is not an April Fool’s Joke Governor Jerry Brown’s recent announcement that California’s “drought” is officially over, which critics claimed was grossly exaggerated; government records indicate it may not have happened.
Gov. Brown’s Proclamation officially rescinds former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-06-08, issued on June 4, 2008 and ends the States of Emergency called on June 12, 2008, and on February 27, 2009.
It took as much as 50 feet of snowpack, which blanketed the roughed Sierra Nevada Mountains, all of the state’s major reservoirs full or overflowing, many of which are making floodwater releases to provide room for spring runoff, and the Golden State at “ground saturation, before the Governor’s water advisors to confirm the “drought emergency” was over.
Ironically, doubts were raised at the time former Gov. Schwarzenegger issued the “drought proclamation”, which he issued at the very onset of a below-average water year; slightly less than the “average” amount of precipitation and water runoff received statewide.
Last, year, for example, California received more than 110 percent of “average” precipitation, and statewide reservoir capacity reach 95 percent. At the end of that year, the “fourth” year of the “drought” federal and state water “experts” were at odds as to whether the drought was over; state officials took the position it wasn’t.
A series of in-depth reports, based entirely on government documents, revealed that the so-called “drought” was not only significantly overstated but, revealed serious doubts as to whether it actually happened. For example, for the four year period (water-years 2007 through 2011), at which time the “drought proclamation” was in effect, California received 85 percent of “average” precipitation, and the “average” water storage, based on “averages”, in its major reservoirs, for that period was in the 90 percentile range.
Weather conditions in the Golden State vary from year to year, the “average” precipitation and water runoff varies; it is not unusual to experience wet and dry cycles. In fact, prior to 2007, the state had experienced a series of very wet water years.
When it rains it pours, and if it someone “claims” it doesn’t rain in Sunny California, it pours a torrent of free-flowing “drought-relief” grant funding. Funds that primarily go to benefit government water agencies, their customers, and wealthy landowners and water speculators. This funding mechanism is made possible by using the public’s credit to borrow vast sums of money, which is repaid back by the public-at-large, from the $26 billion deficit-ridden General Fund.
One of the how to get “drought” relief money give-away sessions was held at the Irvine Ranch Water District duck club, which was announced on California Department of Water Resources’ letterhead. The district is a well-healed and politically connected supporter of water development.
Critics contend that the motive behind the drought was essentially a major financial bailout for Gov. Schwarzenegger’s campaign supporters that rely heavily on publicly subsidized water, provided by government water projects, exporting water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to central and southern California. They claim that by issuing the drought proclamation at the onset of the below average conditions, and not declaring the drought as being over in 2010, allowed the flow of cash to continue.
Obviously, the drought proclamation opened up the floodgate to release hundreds of millions of dollars of public moneys used to fund so-called drought relief programs to a host of local water agencies and agricultural recipients [http://www.water.ca.gov/lgagrant/docs/120309grant.pdf].
California recently sold $733 million in bonds to fund drought, flood control and water management projects, and the state is preparing for another bond sale of $400 million for water and drought response, according to a press release issued by the Governor on the 15 April 2009. [gov.ca.gov/press-release/12022].
Lastly, and yet equally important, is when a state-of-emergency is proclaimed, it essentially sets aside many regulatory and environmental safeguards.
Next in the series: Harvesting Windfall Profits from the so-called Drought – While Funds for Public Safety-Net Programs and Jobs Dry Up. Other drought-related stories, published by the author, can be obtained at the following websites: http://www.planetarysolutionaries.org; http://www.lloydgcarter.com or Google “Doubts About the Drought”. Ω
For additional information send request or comments to pp [at] planetarysolutionaries.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)