BREAKING NEWS: Japan’s radioactive emissions are DOUBLED the initial claim.


Yesterday, 06/06/2011- Japan announced that the radioactive emissions from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi totaled 770,000 terabecquerels (more than double the initial estimated amount 370,000 terabecquerels) putting officials on the defensive about whether they have delayed the release of information to the public.

This seems to be a sticky pattern with the Japanese government as not only were they wrong about the radioactive emissions quantity but also that of the stability of the nuclear plant reactors as it was continually (ad nauseum) repeated that the reactors were “stable” yet last month, the government finally acknowledged that 3 out of the 6 plant reactors have suffered nuclear fuel rod and inner containment vessel meltdown to the floor of the reactor.

In addition, the indpenedent Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said  the reactor pressure vessel  at one of the plant’s reactors appeared to have been compromised as early as 5 hours after the quake.

2 “minor” facts that Japan and United States Government officials glossed over while feeding the People with the line that there are “relatively no” negative health effects.

Even at the time of the first estimate in April, Japan’s Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency, another independent government panel as well as our very own Denise Haywald of The Heart of America  called the nuclear radiation reading too low.

The commission relied on a computer model that uses radiation measurements taken at various distances from a nuclear accident. The model produces an estimate of the radioactive material escaping from the source.

However, as Heart of America has pointed out; there was ignorance towards the damage of the reactors radioactive cores and full potential for melt down. When taking these factors into consideration, the nuclear radiation level is expected to double, if not triple.

More disturbingly, I have not heard of any new health update or evacuation zone information from the Japanese or the US government which makes me question if the government is really on the side of the people or taking efforts to avoid a mass panic.

Copyright (c) June 7, 2011. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

If oil rigs are pulled from the moratorium; they MUST be in compliance with safety regulations and big oil subsidies MUST stop.


I agree that we need to kick start our own oil drilling and that we should extend the drilling permits of the oil companies restricted by the oil moratorium but we also need to do other things such as end big oil subsidies and seriously look into wind, solar and geothermal energy simultaneously.

However- it is essential that all oil rigs placed in the moratorium are in compliance with the new BP oil safety regulations as well as confirmed by a 3rd party contractor in order to resume drilling.

I DO NOT agree with addtl drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as we have seen the catastrophic events resulting from an oil spill. Not too mention that the oil has the potential to impact NW Florida and our military mission at large as well as has the potential to get into the loop current and travel up the East coast of Florida and the US.

I support get our oil rigs back up and running in the Gulf (that is; if they are truly 100% compliant with new safety regulations) as we depend on that oil the rigs produce but I do not agree with putting in any new oil rigs in the Gulf.

There are other areas to drill and if the local residents want it and the drilling does not pose a safety risk or a military mission risk- then by all means should we consider it.

In the meantime; it is imperative that we look into alternative energy and become energy independent. Drilling is not the full answer as it is a known fact that drilling is not renewable; therefore, we will eventually run out of that resource.

Let’s look at long term solutions while we are lowering our gas costs so that gas does not get above $4/ gallon ever again.

Read more about the reasoning behind eliminating big oil subsidies and how the consumer will reap the benefits.

https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/case-in-point-eliminate-big-oils-subsidies-and-royalties-reduction-of-national-debt-encourage-alternative-energy-and-give-back-money-to-the-american-taxpayers/

Read more about the independent 3rd agency that CG Adm Thad Allen and Bureau of OEM supports.

https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/cg-adm-thad-allen-and-bureau-of-oem-support-an-indepenent-drilling-regulatory-agency/

Seafood, seafood everywhere and not a bite to eat.


While seafood in the Gulf of Mexico is currently “safe to eat” (and I use that saying loosely), the wide-ranging impact of the oil spill on physical and mental health of people across the coast could continue for years, a panel of scientists and environmentalists told a south Mobile, AL crowd.

Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist who has studied the long-term impact of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, painted a gruesome picture of the long-term effects of the BP PLC spill.

Ott told the audience that the oil industry tends to spin the story in order to decrease their liability.

“BP likes to put a filter up there to try to minimize the extent of harm that the public understands,” Ott said.

She talked of oil spill cleanup workers becoming sick across the northern Gulf Coast, fish kills in four states, and even dive gear disintegrated by dispersants in the water.

“It’s in the water; it’s in the air,” Ott said. “And I’m sorry that five federal agencies cannot measure it.”

George Crozier, with the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, said that much of the seafood, such as shrimp and fish, had likely not yet been impacted by the oil, though future harvests may be.

“There has not been time for this to be bio-magnified,” Crozier said.

He echoed Picou in saying that people may suffer for years, but added that the ecosystem would be more resilient.

“The problems we’re dealing with are going to be long-term, particularly in the human environment,” Crozier said. “The human system is not going to recover in three to five years. It depends on the recovery of the seafood industry. The natural system will recover.”

Crozier said that dispersants have caused the oil to sink below the surface of the water so deep that makes it difficult to find.

“We don’t know where it all is, we don’t know the concentrations of it and we simply do not know what the rates of degradation are — if they are, in fact, taking place,” Crozier said.

Environmentalist Casi Callaway, who heads Mobile Baykeeper, said she would continue to push for “transparency” in scientific studies.

Her group has organized roughly 6,000 volunteers dedicated to ensuring that the seafood is safe and the waters are clean, she said. Despite what Crozier said about seafood, Callaway expressed a reluctance that many appear to share.

“I want to buy seafood. I miss it like crazy. But I’m scared,” she said, receiving a round of applause.

Personally, I am not so worried about the oil (as that is compatible with Mother Nature) then I am with the toxic corexit dispersant.

I have yet to find any testing results on the long term toxicity and degradation levels and knowing that the Corexit 9500 & 9527A has toxicity levels leaves my faith shaken in the government who claims that the seafood is “safe to eat”.

If you have access to reports indicating long term affects of Corexit 9500 & Corexit 9527A please contact me directly at: TheHeartofAmerica@hotmail.com

Copyright (c) February 13, 2011. All rights reserved.

Funding fight over new food safety legislation.


Food safety advocates barely done celebrating the passage of new legislation in Congress are now gearing up for the fight to implement and fund the food safety bill that cleared the House just one day before the 111th Congress adjourned.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill early this week after his return from Hawaii. It is then, after three contentious votes in the House and two in the Senate over the past 18 months, the real debate will begin.

The legislation gives the Food and Drug Administration the power to recall tainted food, quarantine geographical areas and access food producers’ records.

Among the first controversies will be how to pay the legislation’s projected $1.4 billion cost over the first five years. Republicans taking over the House have warned they will not fund the bill.

“People often focus on the legislative process, when really this is just the beginning, not the end,” said Sandra Eskin, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’s Food Safety Campaign.

The Senate eschewed the $500 annual fee on processing facilities that the House adopted when it first passed its version of the bill in July 2009, leaving the program at the mercy of the appropriations process.

Eskin said she expects some advocates to continue to make the case for some kind of industry fee to pay for the program, similar to what the drug industry and medical device makers pay to fund FDA oversight.

In addition to the fight over funding, regulations implementing the law will come under intense lobbying and scrutiny over the next few years. These include:

• Requirements for food-safety plans that food processors will have to abide by in coming years;

• New produce safety standards for high-risk, raw fruit and vegetable growers, possibly including new regulations for irrigation water and compost;

• A risk-based inspection schedule; and

• A new approach to food imports that makes food importers responsible for guaranteeing that imported food is grown or processed under the same standards as those spelled out in the new law.

Some lobbying from states is also expected, since they’ll be able to seek a variance from the produce safety standards as long as they can show that they have procedures in place to reach the same goals.

Before any legislation is funded, the kinks and small details need to be straightened out and then posted on the internet 72 hours before debate so that the public can view it.  Something tells me that once all the regulation is ironed out- the funding for this legislation is going to exceed expectation.

Copyright (c) January 17, 2011. All rights reserved.

Published in: on January 17, 2011 at 10:00 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Behind the Food Safety Modernization Act


By a vote of 215 to 144, the US House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Modernization Act on Tuesday 21 December, enacting first changes to the regulations since 1938.

The good in this bill, however, is still accompanied by the bad, and the Food Safety Modernization Act still contains an amendment from Senators Jon Tester of Montana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina that threatens producers and processors based only on the size of their business, their geographic location, or to whom they sell their products.

This inclusion of exemptions based on non-scientific qualifications will limit the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to assure consumers that all foods they purchase, whether at grocery stores, restaurants, farm markets, or elsewhere, have met the same food safety standards.

Even kitchen gardeners are worried that the “fake food safety bill” will affect their ability to grow food in their own backyard without government interference.

Additionally, Republican Senator Tom Coburn also outlined his concerns with the food-safety legislation.

In a detailed entry on his Web site, Coburn in particular raised concerns with duplication and overlap of responsibilities between the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Coburn also objected to the bill’s $1.4 billion price tag over five years, not including $230 million directly offset by new fees.

Further, the organization, Citizens for Health (CFH) also points out disturbing and unacceptable language in the House version of the bill, which calls for the effective imposition of martial law through cordoning off potentially affected geographic areas in the case of a perceived food transport safety threat in order to halt the movement of food.

As per the new law, the FDA would come under the auspices of Homeland Security and its budget would increase 40%. Since 2008, the Obama administration has increased the FDA budget by 135% to $4.03 billion. An additional 18,000 government employees will be needed to enforce the multitude of new regulations, a twofold increase in personnel.

The only thing S.510 will succeed at is driving smaller, safer producers out of business, broken under the weight of oppressive administrative costs and hidden taxes, while not addressing the root of the foodborne illness problem – the subsidization of industrialized (read: unclean) farms and centralized (read: pathogen-rich) food processing centers. Food prices will rise while the food supply, now even more centralized.

Feeling safer yet?

Copyright (c) January 10, 2011. All rights reserved.