Catch of the Day: Scallops, Sardines, Scorpions and Fox
Friday, June 29, 2007
China, China, China. What will we do with Chinese imports?
After thousands of pets in North America became ill or died, from the use of tainted Chinese wheat gluten why would China not be more careful about the quality of their exports?
One could get the idea the China may not care how many people become sick or die from poisons contained in their products. Can this actually be the case? Why then are they sending Scallops and Sardines coated with putrefying bacteria to America?
Why are they shipping toxic cosmetics, tainted dietary supplements or dried apples preserved with cancer-causing chemicals to the rest of the world?
I get the message the Chinese are sending.
US inspection records show that China has been flooding the US with foods unfit for human consumption for years. The crime is that these products where simply sent back to China where they were, shipped right back to the US once, twice or three more times in an attempt to send the same poisoned products to American consumers.
Have we become so dependent upon cheap Chinese goods that we cannot live without them? It looks to me like many of us will stop living if we keep using them.
Canada exports $10 billion in FDA-regulated food and agricultural products to the US each year, of which, 56 shipments were rejected. By comparison 298 shipments from China's $2 billion imports were rejected. Horror of horrors, only less than 1 percent of regulated imports from China were even inspected by the FDA.
In the past year the USDA has seized hundreds of thousands of pounds of Chinese meat being smuggled into the US. No meat from China is approved for import into the US. Apparently 'dried lily flowers and prune slices' are allowed, because that is what Chinese exporters have labeled their pirate shipments of meat.
China is aiming for certification so that they can legally ship poultry into the US. I don't want a Chinese chicken legal, or otherwise, on the entire continent. I will never believe what they send will be safe. I think the US can grow more than enough chicken to meet American demand.
I think we have enough problems here already without importing new ones.
There is a story about a scorpion walking along the bank of a river, wondering how he would get to the other side. He saw a fox preparing to swim cross the river and he asked the fox to give him a ride.
The fox said, "no, if I do that you will sting me and I will drown." But, the scorpion sold the fox on the idea by saying, "If I did that we would both drown."
That logic made sense to the fox and he agreed. Half way across the river, the scorpion stung the fox. As the fox began to die he asked the scorpion, "Why did you do that? Now you'll die too."
"I can't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."
What is the 'nature' of the relationship China wishes to have with the US? I won't apologize for asking.
The danger of pesticides is a three-way merge onto a dangerous roundabout.
While Canadians are worried about the dangers coming their way from the US, Americans are worried about the dangerous pesticides being imported from Canada. Meanwhile the US exports banned or unregistered pesticides to Mexico.
25 % of all fresh and frozen produce in the US is imported, 50% of which is imported from Mexico. Canada is the second largest market for US agricultural exports and US exporters are the dominant suppliers of produce exporters to Canada.
In March of this year The US EPA and the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency gave the first joint approval of a NAFTA 'harmonized label for pesticide.
The first product called Avadex in Canada, and Far-Go in the US is an herbicide that "Warning labels state that it should not be applied directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark." "The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground water contamination." "Have a high potential for runoff into surface water where there are poorly draining or wet soils with slopes toward adjacent surface waters, frequently flooded areas, areas over-laying extremely shallow ground water, areas with in-field canals or ditches that drain to surface water, areas not separated from adjacent surface waters with vegetated filter strips, and areas over-laying tile drainage systems that drain surface water."
Is there any type of land being farmed that doesn't fall under the above classification?
It defies logic that the US and Canada, known for 'feeding the world', now depends on importing food from the world to be feed?
Importing and exporting, and shipping and receiving. Fast tracking, highway building, and labeling. NAFTA, SPP, NAF, NASCO, CTCS and the rest of the alphabet look strangely like a perpetual motion profit machine. A machine engineered by a basket full of corporations that walk hand-in-hand into the sunset with our good will, our health and our money in their pockets.
NAFTA Superhighway: The Road to the New Nation of OZ
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Road expansion construction is already underway on miles and miles of the NAFTA superhighway.
NASCO repeatedly insists they are not now, nor have they ever been behind building a 'supercorridor' and that the 'superhighway' already exists in the form of the north and south running I35.
So much conflicting information surrounding this superhighway must certainly come from all the secrecy surrounding this colossal NAFTA project.
Interstate 35 does already exist, but the path it takes may be the only thing NASCO recommends leaving the same.
The 3 respective Governments seem to be signing on for 1 Nation of super colossal proportions, which will certainly change our lives.
Envisioned by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) task force report were: a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership office (SPP) has formed working groups comprised of representatives from the largest North American corporations.
These groups are operating behind doors sealed so tightly that the list of membership has never been published nor has any of their work product.
The SPP lists some 20 groups and does disclose the 'nature' of their assignments. Harmonized Pesticides (labeling) aviation policy (no-fly coordination) borders and immigration are just a few of the assignments for which these working groups are drawing up blue prints.
Now we know why all the secrecy, but the offices of the SPP inside the NAFTA office of the USDC wants the public to believe something different. "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." Geri Word SPP.
Word, suggested the work products were 'described on the SPP website, so publishing actual documents did not seem to be required'.
Canada's Foreign Affairs and International Trade (FAITC) invites Canadians to 'add your voice to the discussion' on its website, while in the US meetings have been held in buildings able only to hold only a small number of citizens leaving in some cases hundreds upon hundreds of opposition voices locked out of these so called public meetings.
It sounds like NAFTA will be the end of soverinty for these 3 nations.
Welcome to the NAFTA Dance: May I see YOUR invitation?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Shake hands with your partner.
Allemande Left, do the NAFTA DoSaDo!
If you feel like you're at a square dance that's being called in a foreign language, it's because you are. Welcome to the NAFTA Dance. Where the power elite is the belle of the ball, and the public, that's you, is the whore in the hall.
Mexico, Canada and the US have joined hands and are now forming a circle that is becoming impossible to penetrate. Impossible to penetrate because as more of the public is becoming aware of exactly what affect NAFTA is going to have on our futures the heavier the veil surrounding NAFTA becomes.
Among a litany of fast-track recommendations the Council of the Americas recommends being implemented by the end of this year are:
1. Establish a set of rules that provide legal protection for companies that conduct risk assessments and share information on vulnerabilities with the appropriate government entities. (Protection from litigation resulting in bad risk assessments resulting in harm to the public?)
2. Implementing preclearance pilot projects. (Well underway, this moves customs processes further inland from actual border crossings. This move constitutes moving potentially catastrophic events into the hearts of Canada and the US rather than keeping these events in the nation in which they originate.)
3. Improve the benefits of voluntary business participation in security programs. (Little needs to be said regarding business doing anything voluntary as it applies to anything much beyond the profit margin.)
4. Further simplify the NAFTA rules-of-origin requirements. (US$30billion in trilateral trade has already been simplified to the point our health protection is becoming virtually non-existent.)
5. Simplify NAFTA certification process and requirements. "The long-term goal should be to eliminate the NAFTA certificate on shipments." (Eliminating the administrative burden on producers of finished goods)
6. Withdraw or suspend the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (US and Canada should lower their standards by mitigating legitimate risks while minimizing disruption to legitimate trade.)
Potential meaning: Lower your health and safety standards as it pertains to imports.
Raise the potential for dangerous cargo getting past the borders and moving inland.
Leave border crossings free from congestion so that goods can still move freely across the border should there be a catastrophic event inland.
Spend all resources necessary for the promotion of trade rather than finding innovative, safe and secure ways of protecting and feeding our own citizens.
Those yellow bricks paving the NAFTA superhighway appear to be made of gold. Who is financing the fancy footwork of the NAFTA dance?
NAFTA, the SPP, Deep Integration: Follow the Yellow Brick Road!
Monday, June 25, 2007
The same way water seeks its own level; NAFTA seeks to level the field between Canada, the USA and Mexico.
Under the guise of creating a seamless commercial endeavor between the three countries, it appears NAFTA will in fact create a North American Union similar to the way the European Union was created. Smaller less economically developed nations could share in prosperity and economic growth by becoming members of the larger 'Nation of Commerce'. NAFTA will certainly lead to the same situation on the North American Continent. This scheme, for better or for worse, is rolling full steam ahead.
I can think of no other country that may guard its sovereignty more tenaciously than Great Britain, who did not sign on to the EU.
So why are people in Canada and the US only now starting to take a look at what may become of their sovereignty? The answer is simple answer is much of the nuts-and-bolts of this agreement have been parsed out to the people one tiny bite at a time, with many of the facts being concocted in high-level secret meetings where the public has not been made privy to these facts.
NAFTA has been served to the people in small bites that are easily swallowed, digested and passed. The pile of facts surrounding these digested pieces is now beginning to smell.
Proponents of the NAFTA, nearly without exception, are large corporations who stand to rake in even more profits and smaller business that hope to become larger by this agreement.
The battle cry for the seamless integration of these three nations is Security and Prosperity as the name (SPP) Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America would indicate. But, it isn't clear what part of our security will be enhanced by this plan. What is clear is that the Security OF Prosperity will be enhanced.
Does the seamless transportation of goods from Mexico to Canada through the USA make us more secure?
Is prosperity the definnition of security? According to the CEO's of industry and the Politicians the answer is yes.
Lack of Law Enforcement Destroying Ocean Habitat & Inhabitants!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
International laws without teeth are useless. Unless and until we can find a way to enforce laws protecting our oceans, our seas and their habitat the rapid decline or our planet will continue.
Our representivites and our governments work for us. Think about that for a moment. We are in charge, we need to demand that when a law is passed there also is passed a way to enforce that law, and to fund the enforcement of that law. Passing any law without funding or a plan for enforcement should be illegal.
NAFTA Superhighway: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Friday, June 22, 2007
If we thought the FTAA was going to send us up the river, we may want to hang on to our oars.
NAFTA is coming to a neighborhood near you.
If you are a "superpower", or "any variation" on the superpower theme, such as Canada, Mexico and the USA you're going to be thrilled over what is in store for you.
If, however, you happen to be an ordinary Joe, you'll want to sharpen up your focus. Business and Industry is asking us to leave on our rose colored glasses. I suggest we take them off and have a good look at what NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is going to do for us.
To put things into perspective I'll quote and misquote Shakespeare. "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." Sounds pretty good. Sounds fairly right. Still, something about that quote sounds just a little wrong, doesn't it?
That's the way the NAFTA agreement sounds. It sounds pretty good. It sounds fairly right, in it's concept, anyway. A free flowing exchange of goods from Canada to Mexico with the US looking a lot like the 'middleman'. Hey, someone has to broker the deals. Still, something sounds just a little wrong.
In reality the correct Shakespere quote is "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks".
The supporters of NAFTA seem to be protesting a bit too much. For example the people at North America's Supercorridor Coalition,INC (NASCO) state they have a "fervent devotion" to transport efficiency. I don't mean to call anyones idea of devotion into question. But, Devotion? Fervent? Transport efficiency?
I'm really fond of ice cream. Sometimes I honestly 'desire' ice cream, but fervent devotion just seems a little over the top to me. Maybe a bit 'too much'.
The people at NASCO also seem to be more than just a little ticked off at their 'critics'. NASCO says, "Critics are attempting to exploit this 'misunderstanding' to disrupt federal, state, and local projects aimed at propelling our communities and countries foward"
NASCO doesn't state what those 'misunderstandings' may be. Explaining those misunderstandings would be the right thing to do, given the context of their statement. Maybe they don't want to bring them up, call more attention to them, maybe even expose more issues inadvertantly.
The NASCO doth protest too much, me thinks!
Why in the world would anyone want to 'disrupt' federal, state and local projects aimed at propelling our communities and countries forward? That seems to be a resonable question. Why would anyone want to do that?
Why indeed. Perhaps "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".
We'll be spending several days trying to get to the bottom, or the top of this complicated issue starting with the 'superhighway' on Monday.
Compact Florescent Lights Part III: Casting a Shadow
Thursday, June 21, 2007
By now we've all heard the story about the woman in Ellsworth, Maine that dropped a Compact Florescent Light bulb (CFL) on her daughters' bedroom floor.
Brandy Bridges realized the bulb contained mercury and called the store where it was purchased. They recommended she call poison control who referred her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection which directed her to call an environmental clean up crew that gave her a $2,000.00+ estimate to clean up the mercury mess.
So how much mercury does one of these bulbs contain? So much that the broken CFL left 6 times the safe level of mercury in the Bridges' bedroom.
Each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL.
Given the fact that we already know that mercury is dangerous and highly toxic, that it can cause brain damage and leaning disabilities, what is creating this Herculean push to install literally 10's of billions of these bulbs across the globe?
The move to ban incandescent lights in favor of CFL's is being considered in California as well as Canada, Australia parts of the EU, and many other states in the US. The Capitol Hill complex in the US is currently in the process of replacing 20,000 incandescent bulbs with these CFL's. These account for only the 'desk lamps'.
What is going on? These CFL's have been on the market for nearly 30 years. It is unrealistic to imagine consumers will dispose of these bulbs at hazardous waste collection sites. How will all the consumers be educated on the safe use and disposal of these bulbs? How many of these CFL's will be purchased after the consumer realizes the hazards involved?
If our incandescent bulbs are banned we won't have a choice. What really is behind this push to create more mercury hazards after so many years of trying to eliminate the mercury hazards?
Only two possibilities jump to my mind. Either global warming is moving far more rapidly than we are being told, or the monetary profits associated with these CFL's is beyond imagination.
Compact Florescent Bulbs Part II: Are You Shinning Me On?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
We looked at Wal-Mart's drive to sell 100 million Compact Florescent Light bulbs by the end of 2008 yesterday. Although these lights have been on the market since 1977 and they produce 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incandescent bulbs why haven't they taken off?
These bulbs sound like a good idea to me, yet only 6% of homes today are using CFL's. Saving $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb sounds like a good idea too.
My mother, who grew up during the depression always said, "waste not want not". These bulbs certainly aren't wasting any energy. I can still see my mother standing in the middle of my room, pointing a long bony finger at the light burning in my ceiling, asking one of her favorite questions,"did you turn off the light when you left the room?"
Dear mom was by no means a conservationist; she was however highly tuned into conserving her money. Now when I leave a room I always turn off the light.
I like to think I'm a conservationist. I know I do less than some, but I'm pretty sure I do a lot more than others to keep my presence on this earth a small one.
Today I am satisfied to please my mother posthumously. I also enjoy feeling like I'm 'sticking it to the man' by not paying him unnecessary electricity money and I'm doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint. Besides all that, I'm just plain cheap!
It really isn't clear to me how much money I'm really going to be saving by using the CFL's since I'm already a miser in the 3rd degree. I'm not clear on just how many pounds of greenhouse gases my lights are actually contributing to the planet either. Like I said, I'm a tightwad.
There are some drawbacks as well as payoffs in using these CFL's in spite of their reduced energy use. They contain Mercury.
This begs the question of how much mercury are we going to leave in the landfills when millions of us throw these CFL's away?
Tomorrow we will look at the mercury and disposal issues surrounding these nifty little money and energy savers!
Why does Wal-mart want to put compact florescent light bulbs into 100 million homes by 2008.
Wal-Mart is hoping its 200 million shoppers will pick up these energy saving bulbs. But, just how much energy do these bulbs actually save?
There are clearly conservation advantages to these lights, though I've never looked on Wal-Mart as being a green company concerned with the well being of the communities in which they operate. Compact florescent lights use 75% less energy than regular incandescent bulbs and they last 10 times longer.
The loss of sales of 9 incandescent for every 1 compact florescent (CFL) would give pause to anyone, as jaded as I, when it comes to following the money trail. So what is the pay off for companies such as Wal-Mart that are known for their keen sense of the bottom line?
These CFL's are 8 times more expensive than incandescents. In spite of this, the consumer would save about $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb. These CFL's also produce about 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases.
These bulbs have been on the market for a couple of decades and only around 6% of homes currently use them. They are weird looking, they give off an odd light, and they cost 8 times more than incandescents so it's no big wonder why, as yet, they haven't caught on.
The rise in energy costs over the years has created conservation through necessity. Even if some people aren't taking on the whole global warming, climate change crusade, they are taking up the idea of lowering their monthly energy bills.
We'll explore this subject more tomorrow. In the mean time,
Turn off those lights when you are out of the room. It will keep you cooler in the summer time too!
Ancient Medusa of the Sea, Modern Medusa of the Sea
Monday, June 18, 2007
In the big picture geothermal vents are a fairly recent discovery. Or, are they?
The first of these vents being discovered in the modern days of 1977, new vents are still being found. As the technology advances for deeper and deeper exploration, our ability to find more of these vents increases.
Volcanic conduits heat these geothermal vents. In April a new undersea mineral chimney was discovered off the coast of Costa Rica 8,500 feet below the surface of the water.
This chimney called a "black smoker" was found to be emitting hot iron-darkened water. Scientists from Duke, the University of New Hampshire, and So. Carolina and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts named their discovery the Medusa Hydrothermal Vent Field.
A unique form of jellyfish order, stauromedusae, was found to be living in the mini eco-system produced by the hot waters of these vents. These jellyfish may even be a newly discover species. Their pink color is one unseen before.
The stauromedusae orders of jellyfish generally live further away from the heated vents in cooler water. These vents and now the discovery of life being able to sustain itself in the hotter waters close to the vents are giving scientists a new opportunity to study how living organisms adapt to extreme environmental conditions as well as insights into the origin of the earth's crust and its evolution.
In addition to the jellyfish there are also heat-tolerant tubeworms living on Medusa's chimneys.
I'm always amazed when I read stories about things being discovered like this newly named Medusa field and how these things somehow always seem to work back to our earth's ancient history.
The original Medusa was carrying the child of Poseidon, god of the seas. She offended Athena who turned Medusa's beautiful hair in the snakes, or was her hair actually turned into tubeworms of the sea?
Her face was then made so hideous that all who looked upon her were turned to stone. Was that stone actually lava flow from beneath the sea?
Poseidon was an angry and hot-tempered type and he carried the trident, with which he could split boulders and cause earthquakes. Modern science now knows this is how these geothermal vents are created, as well as the ocean shelves of the earth's deep seas.
It's a wonder to me how 'myth' is often times so close to 'reality'. I stand in constant wonder and awe of the possibilities of our perhaps forgotten past. Were the ancient Greeks and Romans able to explore the depths of the sea? Perhaps the seas were not nearly so deep in our earths ancient past.
Who knows? But, these are interesting things to ponder.
Mission Possible- Remove Fishing Nets Lost in Reef.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
This project was in concert with Shell's "Project Better World" and the Piasau Boat Club.
This video shows a group of dedicated divers removing lost fishing nets from the reef. Miri and the Northern Sarawak / Brunei coast has some wonderful reefs.
Recycling and Eliminating Toxins From Ewaste: Corperate Responsibility and Consumer Savvy!
Friday, June 15, 2007
We were wondering yesterday if there was any way to slow the tide of toxic Ewaste polluting our oceans, air and land. The most practical way of course will be to eliminate the use of these toxins used manufacturing of electronic equipment.
Business policing itself for the sake of the greater good isn't something we come across very often. The fast track to profit equals the status quo. Some companies have moved towards cleaning up their products while others are simply ignoring the dangers to our environment.
One of the best ways to effect a change in any industry is to vote with your wallet. Making a conscious effort to buy products that are greener will cause the market to produce greener products.
Manufactures need to implement more responsible end-of-life recycling of their own products. These manufactures need to set up a means by which consumers can return useless electronics back to the company of origin.
Consumers shouldn't be left holding the toxic bag.
Greenpeace lists the top 3 as most improved Lenovo, Sony Ericsson, and Samsung.
Nokia though listed as number 2 has fallen from number 1. Sony Ericsson now in the number 3 spot was number 5.
Apple is at the ultimate bottom of the list followed by Panasonic and LGE.
By looking at the list the responsible consumer can make a more informed decision regarding the electronics they buy. This guide is updated every 3 months so keep corporate responsibility on your mind when making your next purchase.
Think about what you are replacing and ask yourself it your purchase is really necessary and how are you going to responsibly dispose of the item you may be replacing. If you aren't replacing anything worn out, but buying a new technology find out where you can rid yourself if it when it is worn out or out dated.
Remember always 'if you aren't part of the solution, you really are part of the problem.'
We mentioned in our May 29 entry between 1997 and 2007 an unbelievable 500 million computers were discarded, by the US alone, producing a staggering 600,000 tons of toxic waste. What happens to all of this poison waste?
Here are some figures from The Basel Convention. 500 computers alone contain:
717kg of lead
1.36kg cadmium
863 grams chromium
287 grams mercury
The Basel convention is part of the United Nations Environment Programme. (UNEP)Basel seeks control of the transboundry movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal, much of which is transported via our oceans.
I first came across the Basel convention while researching the tainted products, in a seeming endless flow out of China into the rest of the world. Instead I became carried away looking at the apparent endless flow of poison waste flowing into China.
China is only one country receiving mountains of toxic waste created by other nations. Smaller under-developed countries all over the world are receiving toxic waste at an alarming rate. It may be easier to understand why these smaller extremely poor countries would import hazards for pay it's not immediately clear why China would expose its land and its people to such hazards.
China has taken positive steps toward environmental cooperation by signing onto the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, something the US still stands away from. With poverty eradication and economic development still two of China's top priorities it is still difficult to reconcile the importation of Ewaste from other countries.
I found a piece on the BBC News Series 'Disposable Planet?' A photo essay entitled 'China's hi-tech toxics'. The piece chronicles how, what was a perfectly good farming village is now a toxic hole in the ground. A hole with hundreds and in some cases thousands of times higher levels of toxins than are deemed safe by the WHO for lead, chromium and tin.
These already poor villagers dismantling Ewaste shipped in from other countries are falling victim to incredible healthy problems as well as ruining farm land.
These poisons get washed into the not only the soil, but the water.
What in the world can be done about slowing down the Ewaste? Computers and peripherals, we spends thousands of dollars on, are rendered virtually worthless with each new computer and electronics show.
But, having just purchased a new laptop with the new VISTA installed, I'm thinking the race to discard our old computers will dramatically slow. So maybe there is some good news, for a little while at least!
There were 40 long years between 1929 and 1969. Long years following the fur trade, and they were completely void of Sea Otters in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1972 however, 89 Sea Otters were brought from Amchitka and Prince William Sound in Alaska to the west coast of Vancouver Island. There on Checleset Bay these Sea Otters struggled to repopulate and thrive, but by 1978 their population had only increased by less than 10.
In an act of friendship Canada placed the Sea Otter on SARA. (Species at Risk Act) and the northern Sea Otter was designated as Endangered in Canada.
It would be nearly 20 more long years before the Otters finally increased their population to approximately 1,500 and in 1996 were no longer classified as endangered. The Otters were considered to be only Threatened, but still at risk.
The DFO developed a National Recovery Strategy for the Sea Otter in British Columbia and SARA "prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing and taking Sea Otters. Damaging or destroying Sea Otter residences and any other part of Sea Otters 'critical' habitat."
Watch this vintage footage and see how other friends of the Sea Otter at The Marine Mammal Care Center Fort MacArthur San Pedro Ca. prove the old saying "a friend in need,is a friend indeed."
In aquaculture antibiotics have been used for therapeutic purposes and as prophylactic agents. Nearly all aquaculture operations use antibiotics in some amounts to limit the growth of fungi and bacteria.
Many bacterial species are able to double in numbers every 20-30 minutes. This gives the bacteria a huge advantage when it comes to adaptation. The results are mutations that enable them to survive therapeutic doses of antibiotics, thus becoming resistant. In turn, higher levels of these antibiotics are required to maintain the health of the farmed fish.
Catfish imported from China has been found to contain ciprofloxacin and enrofloxacin. These are two powerful antibiotics banned by the FDA for use in human foods. The use of these powerful drugs is playing a major role in the transmission of resistant microorganisms from animals to humans through the food chain.
The US Department of Commerce states, 10 million pounds of Chinese catfish have been imported to the US alone in the fist 6 months of this year. This is up from 4 million pounds to date last year. It would be nearly impossible to check all fish being imported from all over the world.
According to FDA records, ciprofloxacin and enrofloxacin have been found in shipments of catfish and basa from China and Vietnam. Shrimp from Vietnam, Venezuela, Thailand and Malaysia have tested positive for the antibiotic chloramphenicol.
Gentian violet and malachite green, anti-fungal or anti-bacterial agents applied to fish grown in tight quarters have also been found in shrimp from Mexico, eel from Taiwan, Vietnamese basa, Chinese eel, talapia and catfish.
A Canadian study in 1992 determined that people who eat fish contaminated with malachite green are at risk for liver tumors. Gentian violet has been linked to mouth cancer. Malachite green is used as a fabric dye as well as a fungicide. The United Kingdom and the US have denied entry of farmed salmon from Chile and Scotland after finding high levels of malachite green in their farm raised salmon.
More inspectors, better laws over imports and the aquaculture business using better practices is not going to be the answer to the growing hazards to our health and the health of our oceans.
We need to restore the health to our Oceans. We need to stop over fishing and give the species that are surviving in the wild time to rejuvenate and replenish.
Advances in commercial fishing techniques have created the unintentional catch of approximately 27 million tons of fish and sea life in the wild that never makes it a table. 27 million tons of unintentional 'bycatch' simply discarded.
Smithsonian"No Political Pressure" to Censor Exhibit!
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Yesterday we posted Global Warming censorship by the US government was being investigated as it related to an Exhibit at the Smithsonian.
The acting secretary of the Smithsonian, Chistian Samper has fired back a response. Samper is claiming the AP story was based on an erroneous allegation made by a former Smithsonian employee who was neither a scientist nor a curator.
Samper also claims that at no time did anyone from the Congress or the White House comment on the exhibition.
William Fitzhugh, director of Arctic Studies Center at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History told the Associated Press "We presented exactly what we wanted to present in that exhibit, which was NOT to explore carbon dioxide and the 'cause' of arctic/global warming, but to look at the environmental socio-cultural changes and impacts."
Climate Science Watch promoting integrity in the use of Climate science in government have a statement from Robert Sullivan, the now resigned former associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History says "Smithsonian Institution executives ordered a politically motivated rewrite of science in the 2006 exhibit at the center of the controversy.
The AP reported that Sullivan, said among other things, the text of the exhibit was edited to minimize the relationship between global warming and humans.
"Our own review of the exhibit finds that, in fact, it discusses climate change and its impacts on the Arctic but, with evident evasiveness, avoids ANY mention of human-induced global warming as a driver..."
The Smithsonian's official line seems to be this exhibit was an important one. Apparently the cause of why 'Our Friend the Artic is Acting Strangely' ...not so much!
The AP stands by it's original story.
Mr. Sullivan's claim was Smithsonian executives ordered the rewrite. Not that the White House ordered the rewrite. I think, by now, we've all realized the White House knows more than one way to skin a cat.
Global Warming Censorship by US Government Investigated
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
"Rep. Edward J. Markey Chairman of The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has opened an investigation into allegations that the Smithsonian Institute altered an Exhibit on Global warming.
Mounting evidence indicates there has been very real pressure applied to government-affiliated scientific bodies to color, gloss over or in some cases ignore facts being presented to the public as well as Congress regarding Global Warming.
NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen says the government has pressured him to toe the party line on Global Warming "contrary to the evidence". The EPA also allowed a former oil lobbyist working in the White House to censor Global Warming science from an EPA report. This former lobbyist, come White House employee is as yet un-named.
The latest slap in the face to the public, who are paying these very government-affiliated scientific bodies, is the revelation that The Smithsonian altered an exhibition on Global Warming.
On May 22, Markey sent to Chistian Samper, Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian, asking for all information pertaining to the exhibit in question including letters, emails, a list of scientific and an non-scientific consultants, and any correspondence with political bodies.
"This administration's pattern of stifling and censoring Global Warming science is too clear for us to ignore yet another possible example of political influence on Climate science," said Chairman Markey. "We can no longer allow the ideology of this President and his operatives of climate denial to compromise the reputations of our greatest scientists and proudest scientific institutions."
Is the common sense of a fifth grader what we are lacking?
Has the time come to ask our elected officials "are you smarter than a fifth grader" finally arrived?
It may be obvious to a fifth grader that eating genetically altered fish is probably a bad idea. The introduction of non-native species of fish into local habitat might sound like a bad idea too. It also seems that trying to keep fish contained in open water might be an expensive and dangerous folly.
Florida has taken steps to protect its coastal waters against the damaging consequences of accidental introduction of non-native, and genetically altered fish from Aquaculture.
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services last week finalized some strict rules governing non-native, genetically altered and open water aquaculture. Florida has already felt the sting of non-native fish escaped from aqua farms in the past. Now well-established, non-native species such as the spotted talapia, some types of catfish and the oscare are only a few species that have established themselves in the coastal waters of Florida.
Farming non-native and genetically engineered fish in the open waters of our oceans should never be allowed. Regardless of what type of pens or nets the aqua farmers install, there is no foolproof way of containing fish. Some of these fish will always escape. Non-native fish will forever alter the Eco-systems and damage natural, local fish populations.
Lack of common sense is running ramped regarding aquaculture in open waters across the globe. Hazards to the Eco-systems of the oceans are well documented, but little is known of the future potential hazards of consuming genetically altered fish by humans.
As the population of the earth burgeons, feeding that population becomes a huge challenge. However large that challenge, there is no reason for common sense to evacuate the planet.
If you have, or know someone with a fifth grader at home ask him or her their opinion on this subject. We just may find out the only thing smarter than a fifth grader is another fifth grader.
The Port of San Francisco gave the Norwegian Sun it's stamp of approval for deploying on-board environmental systems which help decrease pollution to both air and water.
The Port evaluates 3 categories:
Air pollution
Water treatment
Recycling and disposal of solid waste
Bill Hamlin, Norwegian Cruise Line's V.P. of fleet operations says, "...we have demonstrated our commitment to maintaining the highest level of environmental protection standards."
The Port of Seattle has made it possible for cruise lines to plug into their publicly owned electric utility, City Light. (City Light is the first electric utility to attain a net-zero greenhouse gas emission.)
Princess Cruises and Holland America at the Port of Seattle are currently using shore power provided by City Light.
In Vancouver, where there are no strict rules on what type of fuel is burned while in port, ships calling are offered reduced port dues if they use cleaner burning fuels.
Cruising has developed into a strong 'growth' industry and it only makes sense to protect the 'hand-that-feeds' it. We hope as more ships are retired, the new ships being built to replace them will see state-of-the-art environmental technologies used.
What's good for the sea is also good for the air. These are small, but expensive steps. We think they are necessary for the cruise industry to start taking in order to maintain growth and to protect the very environment it needs to operate.
More innovations and incentives need to be promoted by ports around the world such as The Port of San Francisco, The port of Seattle, and The Port of Vancouver are putting into place.
Princess Cruises, Holland America and Norwegian Sun are setting good examples. Still there is a long way to go toward reducing the negative impact these floating cities have on our oceans Eco-systems. Good stewardship of the residents of the seas, shores, and ships must become a priority in order for the cruise industry to continue to be vibrant and welcome.
We've seen what happens to marine mammals that cross paths with bigger and faster ships. Now we can see what happens when one of these bigger and faster ships crosses paths with a hostile sea.
The Grand Voyager is said to be one, if not the, fastest ships on the ocean. She may be able to travel up to 28 knots, but she wasn't able to escape what the ocean had in store for her on Valentines Day 2005. It certainly wasn't a bed of roses for her on this day.
This is a grueling 3 1/2 minutes of film.
This clip shows how it doesn't matter how high up something may be on the chain...there is always something higher.
We will be searching for more interesting video having to do with the ocean for our week-end entries.
Friday Commentary: Where will you take your stand?
Friday, June 1, 2007
I suppose the question at hand is...Are we willing to let our planet die?
There are all kinds of tiny things each one of us can do to create a better environment for ourselves as well as our grandchildren and their children. All those tiny steps are very important, and each one adds to the positive outcome of our predicament.
Yes, we are in a world of hurt. We are in a world that is hurting.
We have watched the planet slide down hill for decades. Halting jumps with stages of leveling. We have snatched several species of plants, and animals from the jaws of extinction patted ourselves on the back and moved on. This is a good thing. There is no denying that.
We became more mindful of the impact we were having on our surroundings. We started to recycle our waste...when it was practical and convenient of course. Oh, I'm not talking about the died in the wool conservationists, I mean the everyday people you pass on the streets. Your neighbors, your co-workers, your kid's teachers. This is a good thing. There is no denying that.
Somewhere amid our acts of good things a horrible thing was happening. Our planet was and is dying. Maybe we all thought 'the earth is dying slowly, everything dies after all.' Maybe we thought 'if I do my part by recycling, turning off my lights, raising my thermostat, and buying organic, generations to come will get this whole thing figured out.' We were wrong.
We were wrong. While the debate raged on over what was actually causing the planet to die...She was dying. The time has come to step up to the plate, to launch into a full court press, to dive head first into the murky and dying waters of our future. We can no long stand by the shores and point to the tiny, lonely ships upon the waters trying to save the planet alone.
If the rain forests of the earth are the lungs of the planet, the sea is it's life blood.
We the people of the planet, me, you, your neighbors, our children...we are the heart of this earth and our hearts will not go on pumping without our life blood.
The best minds in science reckoned the sea would save us. They thought the sea was big enough to heal herself and in turn help to heal our climate. They were wrong and they are freely telling us they were wrong.
As our oceans die, not little by little, but acres by acres, all hope of slowing down climate change,all hope of sustaining life in fact is disappearing. Life as we know it today, for us, not future generations, not even in our grandchildren lives, but our lives will be nothing recognizable, to us, by us if we don't save our seas.
We, the heart of this earth have accomplished feats that were unimaginable a short generation ago. Our knowledge is growing at quantum leaps, yet the devastation of our earth too is growing at quantum leaps.
We, that is you, me, our neighbors cannot stand on the shore any longer pointing at the good deeds of the tiny ships afloat alone upon the oceans of change. We must, and I know we can, step up and take responsibility for saving our own lives.
Does this require sacrifice? You bet it does. Is this a task that looks to be more than we can take on? No!
I say yes, we can take on this challenge. We can fly. We can go to the moon. We can cure polio, we can save our oceans.
What we are facing right now, not years to come, but right now requires tough decisions. What we are facing requires commitment. What we are facing requires sacrifice. What we are facing is our own extinction.
If we fail at this, there will be no future generations to record how we handled our history, our legacy.
If we don't take up this challenge and win...this will be our last challenge. Where will you take your stand?
