Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts with label environmental contamination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental contamination. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2016

GE Taxpayer SCAM! BAD DEAL! BAD NEIGHBOR! And Pipe Dreams!


You can't sell a TAXPAYER SCAM! 



Skepticism Grows Around Boston's GE Deal

Critics cite Boston's impoverished schools and toxic contamination in the Berkshires


Chris Hoeh (center), a private school teacher whose child attends Boston public schools, holds a sign questioning Mayor Marty Walsh's priorities between giving General Electric a tax break and fully funding the public schools budget.
Chris Hoeh (center), a private school teacher whose child attends Boston public schools, holds a sign questioning Mayor Marty Walsh's priorities between giving General Electric a tax break and fully funding the public schools budget. Photo by Dylan Martin.
General Electric ($GE) relocating its headquarters to Boston has been called a victory for Boston and Massachusetts, but not everyone feels that way. Just ask the large group of protesters outside of Symphony Hall Tuesday night, where Mayor Marty Walsh was giving his annual State of the City address. To them, the city offering GE a $25 million tax break while the city's public schools face a reported $50 million budget deficit shows that Walsh doesn't have his priorities straight.
"I don't want that money going to corporations that don't even pay taxes."
"He has his priorities out of order," Christine Langhoff, a retired schoolteacher, told BostInno. She was holding a sign that said, "We have enough money for schools we deserve," accompanied by a GE logo, crossed out.
"I live in Dorchester, short distance away from where the mayor lived before he moved," she said, "and my property taxes have just gone up by 30%. I don't want that money going to corporations that don't even pay taxes because they got a tax rebate last year."
Tito Jackson, a Boston City Councilor for District 7, was standing with the protesters and said the city is moving in the wrong direction if it will consider tax breaks for companies while facing such a large budget deficit with the schools.
"The City Council will have an opportunity to hear all of the finances behind that," he said, "but the real underlying issue is that the reason why a company like GE would come here is because of our talent, and if we don't invest in our talent and our talent pipeline, a company like GE will come and go and will not stay here."
While Boston's schools superintendent, Tommy Chang, estimated the school budget deficit at $50 million, Walsh's administration has said it's closer to $10 million, according to the Boston Globe. During his State of the City Tuesday night, the mayor defended his commitment to schools, highlighting, among other things, his initiative to get the state to fully fund full-day preschool.
But GE receiving roughly $151 million in incentives from the city and Commonwealth remains an issue with protestors and others who don't see the deal for such a profitable company as reason for celebration. Broken down, the deal includes the up to $25 million property tax break from the city, up to $120 million through grants and other programs from the state, some $1 million for workforce development grants and up to $5 million for an "innovation center."
"What we offered GE was less an incentive package, than a cultural advantage."
Not counting the $1 million workforce development grants and the $5 million for the innovation center, the deal comes out to $181,000 per GE employee when considering the 800 jobs it will bring to Boston.
What's more, the Globe reported Wednesday morning that the city has pledged up to $100 million to reopen the Old Northern Avenue Bridge, and that the state will commit $25 million for infrastructure improvements—both on top of the $151 million already announced in the GE deal.
"What we offered GE was less an incentive package, than a cultural advantage," Walsh said in his State of the City address.
Walsh has previously said convincing GE to move its headquarters here is like winning the Powerball. He has also said that GE will "bring positive activity to the economy and continue to grow our industries." In addition, he has said he is confident that "this is the start of a strong partnership."
Will GE Play Hardball on Taxes in Mass., Again?Will GE Play Hardball on Taxes in Mass., Again?
"GE is not only a historic innovator, returning to the city where Thomas Edison got his start. It’s not only another step forward for Boston on the world stage," Walsh said during his State of the City address. "It’s a magnet for talent and investment that we’ll direct toward our shared goals: in opportunity, in community, in education."
When asked to break down what exact financial benefit GE will bring to Boston and Massachusetts, a Walsh spokeswoman provided an initial economic analysis that was done by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, based on an early estimate that GE would move 600 jobs to the state. The analysis predicted that in addition to 600 direct jobs, the move would bring 1,840 indirect jobs to the state, with 590 of them in Boston proper.
According to the BRA analysis, that's expected to generate annual incomes of $220 million in Boston, part of $325 million in new income flowing into the state. That translates into a $10,000 annual fiscal impact on Boston's budget and $20.9 million annual impact on state tax revenues, according to the BRA.
An excerpt of the Boston Redevelopment Authority's analysis of General Electric relocating its headquarters to Boston.
An excerpt of the Boston Redevelopment Authority's analysis of General Electric relocating its headquarters to Boston.
Another touted benefit is the startup accelerator of sorts that GE plans to launch called the GE Digital Foundry, though there are very few details on this right now.
People critical of the incentive package GE is slated to receive have started using the hashtag #makeGEpay to voice their grievances or concerns on Twitter.

Jay Bardhan, an assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at Northeastern University, told BostInno that GE moving to Boston could be a great opportunity for his students, but said his main concern is with the city and state's process for determining the value of GE's incentive package. He added that he would like GE's relocation here to be a win for everyone but wants to know what exactly was communicated to the city and the state to convince them of using so many tax dollars.
"Does this hamstring the state because if we raise corporate taxes, is GE going to leave?"
"What’s the impact on tax revenue?" Bardhan said. "Does this hamstring the state because if we raise corporate taxes, is GE going to leave?" he added, referring one of the major reasons GE is leaving Fairfield, Conn.
State Sen. James Eldridge, D-Acton, is another person who has been critical of the deal. In a phone interview with BostInno, he said his objection is that GE is being offered tax breaks and incentives while the state is in need of more investment for transportation, education and workforce development.
"When you think about Massachusetts, our economy is pretty strong, creating an average of 6,000 jobs per month," Eldridge said, "so why are we dedicating $120 million for just 800 more jobs?"
To help make his point about the need to invest in more workforce development, Eldridge pointed to a new study by the Brookings Institute showing that Boston ranked No. 1 in income inequality. He said high-paid GE employees are the "the least deserving of tax breaks and subsidies" and will only continue to perpetuate income inequality in Greater Boston.
Another issue Eldridge said he has with GE is toxic contamination produced by the company in Pittsfield, Mass., when it had a 254-acre facility there. As reported by MassLive, GE had reached a $250 million settlement for the proposed cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that had leaked from its facility in the Berkshires, but the company is now in disagreement with the Environmental Protection Agency as how to clean up contamination in the Housatonic River.
The International Business Times noted that local environmental groups found that EPA's proposal, which GE has criticized and said would cost it $600 million, doesn't go far enough.
In speaking with MassLive, Gov. Charlie Baker said "there's no connection," in his view, between GE's fight with the EPA and the state contributing to an incentive package for GE to relocate its headquarters.
"I think that has to be considered when giving out tax breaks and subsidies."
"With respect to the commitment we made to General Electric, to GE, that was mostly, almost completely, a capital and infrastructure commitment, which I believe in the short term and in the long term is going to be a really good investment for the Commonwealth and for the people of Massachusetts," Baker told MassLive. An earlier report in The Boston Globe had a mixture of "grants, tax incentives, infrastructure improvements and help with real estate acquisition costs."
But for Eldridge, there is a question of whether a company that's currently fighting GE over the cleanup of a contaminated river should receive any kind of tax breaks or incentives for its corporate headquarters.
In statements GE provided to both the International Business Times and MassLive, a company spokesman said “GE remains committed to a common-sense solution for the Housatonic [river] that is fully protective of human health and the environment, does not result in unnecessary destruction of the surrounding habitat, and is cost effective."
Eldridge disagrees. "I think it’s fair to say GE doesn't have a reputation of being a good corporate citizen," he said, "and I think that has to be considered when giving out tax breaks and subsidies."



Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Ring of Fire: DuPont: Knowingly Poisoning Our Water, Environment, and Bodies With Cancerous Chemicals





DuPont: Knowingly Poisoning Our Water, Environment, and Bodies With Cancerous Chemicals



What do you, arctic polar bears, and 98% of the U.S. population have in common? You all have the highly toxic man-made chemical, C-8, in your blood.
C-8 is a cancer-causing chemical that DuPont and a handful of other corporations used to make non-stick, stain/fire proof, “high performance” products such as Teflon. It has been proven that C-8 causes deadly and debilitating human diseases like testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.
C-8 lasts so long in the environment that any duration provided by experts on biodegradation is a mere guess, and even then, their very best guess says that the half-life of C-8 is a million years.Why does C-8 last so long once it is discarded into the environment? Because it’s a man-made chemical that does not bind to other natural occurring chemicals and it moves in, and is transported by water very easily. The chemical bonds that hold C-8 together are nearly impossible to break, unless heated to VERY high temperatures. It’s tough and rugged. What made it a good surfactant for DuPont is what makes it so very dangerous to humans and animals; it simply will not break down.
What does this mean? This means that the very first molecule of C-8 ever made in a lab, unless disposed of properly, still exists today. This means that every molecule of C-8 that DuPont dumped into the ocean, that leached out of landfills, that was flushed into the Ohio River, that was released into the air over Parkersburg, West Virginia still exists today.
DuPont’s C-8 will exist indefinitely. Every pound, every ounce, every molecule of C-8 not properly disposed of is here to stay and will outlast all of us, and nearly everything else known to mankind.
Unlike other toxic chemicals, the durability of C-8 makes it a more nefarious hazard to those exposed. Chemicals that are not easily degraded or passed through the organisms that ingest them are considered “biopersistent”. Biopersistence can result in “bioaccumulation” or the gradual increase in the amount of the chemical in an organism due to poor clearance of the chemical coupled with continued exposure. “Biodegradation” refers to the ability of a chemical to breakdown in the environment. If a chemical is highly biodegradable, the less likely environmental exposure becomes if the chemical is released. If the chemical is not biopersistent, then the duration of exposure to the chemical is shortened. Therefore, knowing that a chemical is biopersistent and not biodegradable is absolutely critical in understanding the risks posed by the chemical, particularly if the chemical is known to be toxic or if the toxicity is not yet fully understood. This is what makes DuPont’s conduct so egregious. DuPont knew that C-8 was toxic to animals and it knew that C-8 persisted in humans, and yet, for nearly 50 years, DuPont chose to increase its use of C-8 at its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. This in turn increased the amount of C-8 waste that DuPont released to the environment.
Where is most of the C-8 that DuPont released? Most of it is still in and around Parkersburg- in the water, in the soil, in the animals, on the plants, and in the people. People there, no matter what they do, can’t avoid being exposed to C-8.
The half-life of C-8 in humans is estimated to be 3-5 years. The average American currently has enough C-8 in their blood to take anywhere from 39-65 years for the concentration of the chemical to drop below detectable levels, and that’s only if they cease being exposed.
It doesn’t matter what DuPont does now to filter their water, to incinerate or capture the C-8 it now uses, or even if they never use C-8 again; the hundreds of thousands of pounds of C-8 that DuPont improperly disposed of since 1951, now, because of its unique chemical properties, moves in and out of the water, air, and soil.
But the unique slippery, soluble, soapy nature of C-8 has allowed the chemical to travel far beyond Parkersburg. Besides dumping tons of C-8 directly into the ocean, DuPont’s Washington Works plant fed its C-8 waste directly into the mighty Ohio river – the absolute worst place that DuPont could have dumped the chemical, and the very type of “surface water” that DuPont was expressly told NOT to “flush” their C-8 into. Dumping C-8 into one of our largest rivers- one of our most majestic ecosystems- and one earth’s biggest lifelines has caused C-8 to be spread far beyond Parkersburg. C-8 now flows around the earth freely and a molecule of C-8 will last long enough to circle the globe thousands of times before it’s gone.
DuPont has pointed to the fact that everyone has some C-8 in their blood and not everyone has cancer, and that is true; but if given a choice, most people would not want a known carcinogen in their blood, in their water, and in their food.
And now even Polar bears have it in their blood. Why? Because C-8 lasts so long and can travel in water so easily, it has found its way all the way to the Arctic. Because of the biopersistence of C-8, it’s in all of us.
DuPont knew C-8 was biopersistent, it knew it would not be destroyed once released to the environment, and it has known this since at least the 1970s. Despite this knowledge, DuPont dumped their C-8 waste into our water, our air and our soil.
It’s in us, it’s in the polar bears, and it’s here to stay.



Thursday, February 20, 2014

Group wants NStar to cease herbicide use



Group wants NStar to cease herbicide use
BARNSTABLE — In comments on NStar's yearly operational plan submitted for state approval, the Association to Preserve Cape Cod says the utility's proposed use of herbicides on rights-of-way under high-voltage power lines would be detrimental to the Cape's groundwater and environment.
 
The nonprofit environmental group noted a direct connection between surface and groundwater that is the only source of the Cape's drinking water. It said chemical contamination, including herbicides, was just beginning to be measured and understood.
"Unless NStar can guarantee that no chemical product will reach the groundwater or food chain, the Massachusetts Division of Agricultural Resources should not allow (the) use of herbicides by NStar," Edward DeWitt, the association's executive director, wrote.
 
The comment period on the plan ended Tuesday.

 
 
 
 
 

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Record year for offshore wind energy hides slowdown in new projects

The Regressive Party and the Dirty Energy Koch Brothers continue to stymie Wind Energy in the U.S. while Europe leads.

Sad commentary!




From: ClickGreen Staff, ClickGreen, More from this Affiliate
Published January 29, 2014 11:14 AM

Record year for offshore wind energy hides slowdown in new projects

A record number of offshore wind turbines were connected to the grid in Europe last year — and nearly 50% of the projects were installed in UK waters, according to a new report released today.


However, the pipeline of new wind energy projects is running worryingly low, according to the new industry briefing.

In 2013, 418 offshore turbines came online making a record 1,567 Megawatts of new capacity - one-third more than the capacity installed in 2012. The UK accounted for 47% of all new capacity in Europe with 733MW.

This makes a new total of 6,562 MW of offshore wind power - enough to provide 0.7% of the EU's electricity. Of the total 1,567 MW installed in European waters, 72% were located in the North Sea, 22% in the Baltic Sea and the remaining 6% in the Atlantic Ocean.

However, the share of total capacity installed in the UK was significantly less than in 2012 (73%). The second largest amount of installations in 2013 were in Denmark (350 MW or 22%), followed by Germany (240 MW, 15%) and Belgium (192 MW, 12%).

And a closer look at what happened reveals a slow-down during the year as two-thirds of the new capacity came online in the first six months.

With 11 projects now under construction, down from 14 this time last year, industry chiefs says market and regulatory stability is critical to bringing forward the 22,000 MW of consented projects across Europe.

The European Offshore Statistics report was published today by the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).

The organization’s deputy CEO Justin Wilkes said the industry now needs an ambitious decision on a 2030 renewable energy target by Government leaders in March.

He added: "The unclear political support for offshore wind energy - especially in key offshore wind markets like the UK and Germany - has led to delays to planned projects and fewer new projects being launched. This means installations are likely to plateau until 2015, followed by a decline as from 2016.

"An ambitious decision on a 2030 renewable energy target by the Heads of State in March would be the right signal to send to the offshore wind sector that Europe will develop its massive offshore wind potential for green growth, jobs, industrialization, technological leadership and CO2 reductions."

Read more from our affiliate, ClickGreen.

Offshore wind turbine farm image via Shutterstock.
A few more articles:
Leading Decision-makers to Convene on Advancing Climate Solutions
January 24, 2014 By: NCSE
Two Central Topic Areas: the Built Environment and Agriculture & Natural Resources.

Full Article

New Episode of Earth Focus Exposes the Truth
January 20, 2014 By: KCETLink
Burbank, California – Jan. 13, 2013 -- Americans are exposed to tens of thousands of man-made chemicals that are largely unregulated and untested for safety. Exposure to even very low doses of common chemicals like phthalates and BPA can have health risks especially for children.

Full Article

SUNSCREEN CHEMICAL IN SOAPS, COSMETICS AND BODY FRAGRANCES THREATEN CORAL REEFS
January 15, 2014 By: Haereticus Environmental Laboratory
Clifford, VA— A team of marine scientists from Virginia, Florida, Israel, and the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration published a study demonstrating that a common UV absorber found in over 380 different product lines of soaps, laundry detergents, cosmetics, and body fragrances is highly toxic to corals.

Full Article

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Linking Alzheimer's to environment.....

Since we can no longer count on Governmental Agencies to protect us or to provide us with Science-based information, the article below may provide helpful information is remaining healthy.

Please consider subscribing to and supporting independent media, such as this.

From: Robin Lally, Rutgers University
Published January 28, 2014 09:16 AM

Linking Alzheimer's to environmental contributors


In a study published online today in JAMA Neurology, Rutgers scientists discuss their findings in which levels of DDE, the chemical compound left when DDT breaks down, were higher in the blood of late-onset Alzheimer's disease patients compared to those without the disease.


 

Scientists have known for more than 40 years that the synthetic pesticide DDT is harmful to bird habitats and a threat to the environment. Now researchers at Rutgers University say exposure to DDT, banned in the United States since 1972 but still used as a pesticide in other countries, may also increase the risk and severity of Alzheimer's disease in some people, particularly those over the age of 60.  

In a study published online today in JAMA Neurology, Rutgers scientists discuss their findings in which levels of DDE, the chemical compound left when DDT breaks down, were higher in the blood of late-onset Alzheimer's disease patients compared to those without the disease.

DDT — used in the United States for insect control in crops and livestock and to combat insect-borne diseases like malaria — was introduced as a pesticide during WWII. Rutgers scientists — the first to link a specific chemical compound to Alzheimer's disease — believe that research into how DDT and DDE may trigger neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimer's, is crucial.

"I think these results demonstrate that more attention should be focused on potential environmental contributors and their interaction with genetic susceptibility," says Jason R. Richardson, associate professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a member of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI). "Our data may help identify those that are at risk for Alzheimer’s disease and could potentially lead to earlier diagnosis and an improved outcome."

Although the levels of DDT and DDE have decreased significantly in the United States over the last three decades, the toxic pesticide is still found in 75 to 80 percent of the blood samples collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a national health and nutrition survey. This occurs, scientists say, because the chemical can take decades to breakdown in the environment. In addition, people may be exposed to the pesticide by consuming imported fruits, vegetables and grains where DDT is still being used and eating fish from contaminated waterways.

In the Rutgers study, conducted in coordination with Emory University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School’s Alzheimer's Disease Center, 74 out of the 86 Alzheimer's patients involved — whose average age was 74 — had DDE blood levels almost four times higher than the 79 people in the control group who did not have Alzheimer's disease.

Read more at Rutgers University.
Elderly couple image via Shutterstock.



http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/46950





Sunday, January 5, 2014

GMO, Food & American Healthcare Debate

Carl Gibson raises a significant and thought-provoking issue of the lack of health of many.

This is a stream contaminated by Mountaintop Removal of DIRTY COAL:


Do you use COAL-FIRED electricity?

Brayton Point and others spew soot, mercury and other hazardous chemicals into our air, leaving toxic coal ash behind to jeopardize drinking water.


We might also consider the expanding environmental pollution caused by Big Corporations and Dirty Energy, the destruction of clean drinking water caused by Mountaintop Removal, Fracking, Dirty Tar Sands spills and much else.



While Big Corporations whine about environmental costs imposed, many escape those costs, leaving unseen pollutants to impose their health costs.



Not only do GMOs pose risks, but large scale agri-farms plant mono-crops requiring massive amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, destroying healthy soil, spreading pesticide residues in consumed food.



Animals are not raised with the  goal of creating healthy food, but raised as a commodity to speed to market at the greatest possible speed, frequently laden with antibiotics.

Shouldn't we be asking WHY? Why do we allow it? Why do we suffer the health consequences caused by our silence?




The real issue is the high cost of health care. (image: Shutterstock)
The real issue is the high cost of health care. (image: Shutterstock)

American Healthcare Debate Misses the Mark

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News
04 January 14
he real healthcare debate in this country shouldn’t be focused on insurance, but on the fundamental causes of the outrageous costs of healthcare and why even basic health insurance is unaffordable for millions of Americans.
 
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an improvement over the status quo. Health insurers can no longer deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, young adults can stay insured on their parents’ plans until they’re 26, and some states have chosen to expand Medicaid under the ACA. I recently wrote about my decision to pay 1 percent of my income in penalties rather than buy health insurance through healthcare.gov. This prompted a direct response from Ezra Klein, editor of the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.
 
Klein made multiple arguments explaining his view of how important it was to buy private health insurance now, even going so far as to suggest single-payer healthcare would be worse for someone like me in terms of cost (not taking into account that it could be funded through progressive taxation). His main argument was that young healthy people enrolling is part of the same social contract that makes social insurance programs like Social Security work. By everyone paying in from an early age, the program will be there later in life when they need it.
 
While I agree in principle, Klein’s argument neglected the failure of US companies to participate in the same social contract we do, which has been the prime reason healthcare is so expensive, and even the most basic health insurance policies are still unaffordable for Americans in the lower middle class. And before we even address the insurance argument, we must demand corporations abide by that same social contract, or it becomes meaningless altogether.
 
In the last 50 years, American healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP tripled from 6 percent in 1960 to 18 percent in 2010. And the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that healthcare costs will be almost 20 percent of GDP by 2022. This means as Americans, we’re spending more than two and a half times more on healthcare than the OECD average. So what sets America apart from other countries spending far less on healthcare than we do?
One prime cause could be that the United States is the world’s largest grower and consumer of genetically-modified (GM) foods. As of 2010, the United States had 66.8 million hectares of GM crops planted, covering 16.5 percent of our total agricultural area. Because GM foods are made with proteins from organisms that weren’t previously part of the food chain, GM foods have caused allergic reactions in children several years after these foods were made available for public consumption. Additionally, genetically modifying food can result in disease-causing bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, leading to widespread food-borne illnesses.
 
As Americans eat GM foods and get sick, they rely on drugs made by pharmaceutical companies to get well. The relationship between Monsanto, a chief grower of GM crops, and Pfizer, one of the world’s largest prescription drug manufacturers, is insidious. According to Monsanto’s own website, prior to September 1, 1997, the Monsanto Company owned a pharmaceuticals business that later became known as Pharmacia, which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Both companies are heavily invested in growing food that makes people sick when they eat it, and selling sick people the drugs to treat those health conditions.
 
More than 20 countries around the world have all taken action to ban the growing or importing of genetically-engineered foods. While citizens in several states have unsuccessfully tried to pass GM labeling ballot initiatives, the GM industry has used its tremendous wealth to drown out pro-labeling advocates with millions of dollars in misleading advertisements. Until the US government addresses the fundamental issue of what GM food does to American consumers, our healthcare costs will continue to rise.
 
One major reason people like me are choosing not to purchase a health insurance policy is simply because they are still so unaffordable. The cheapest bronze HMO plan, for me, would cost $1800 annually in premiums, plus a deductible between $2000 and $6000. Since I make $30,000 a year in self-employed income (roughly $14 an hour), and pay no alimony or student loans, I don’t qualify for a premium tax credit on healthcare.gov. But millions of other Americans are in a far worse financial situation than I am.
 
Even as corporate profits have been skyrocketing, and the Dow Jones and S&P 500 have both hit multiple record highs in 2013, workers’ wages have actually gone down. While the actual unemployment rate has been steadily decreasing, new job growth has been mostly in fast food and retail sectors, which still pay the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour despite their growing profits. If the minimum wage had kept up with worker productivity over the last several decades, it would actually be roughly $22 an hour today. If companies like McDonald's, Target, and Walmart paid workers just $15 an hour, those workers would have enough to support their families, their local economies, and purchase health insurance.
 
If America is ready to have a real healthcare debate, let’s discuss the causes of skyrocketing healthcare costs and why they’re unaffordable for so many. Only then will we have real, meaningful healthcare reform.
--
Keep up with US Uncut!
Web: usuncut.org
Twitter: twitter.com/usuncut
FB: http://www.facebook.com/usauncut



Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at carl@rsnorg.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.
 
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
 
 
 
 
The rest from RSN:
 
Court Allows US to Keep Legal Memo on Phone Data Secret
Sari Horwitz, The Boston Globe
Horwitz reports: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected an effort by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to make public a January 2010 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that allowed the FBI to informally gather customer phone call records from telecommunications companies."
READ MORE
US Economy Losing 'Up to a $1bn a Week' After Jobless Benefits Cut
Paul Lewis, Guardian UK
Lewis reports: "The US economy is losing up to a billion dollars a week because of the 'fiscally irresponsible' decision to end long-term unemployment benefits, a Harvard economist said on Friday."
READ MORE
Access to Abortion Falling As States Pass Restrictions
Erik Eckholm, The New York Times
Eckholm reports: "A three-year surge in anti-abortion measures in more than half the states has altered the landscape for abortion access, with supporters and opponents agreeing that the new restrictions are shutting some clinics, threatening others and making it far more difficult in many regions to obtain the procedure."
READ MORE
Obama Administration Pushes to Strengthen Background Checks on Mentally Ill Gun Buyers
Sari Horwitz, The Washington Post
Horwitz reports: "The Obama administration on Friday announced two executive actions to try to strengthen federal background checks and prevent guns from ending up in the hands of mentally ill people who pose a danger to others."
READ MORE
Climate Change Could Put One-Fifth of World's Population in Severe Water Shortage
Ari Phillips, ThinkProgress
Phillips reports: "A new study by a diverse group of researchers from twelve countries found that of the human impacts stemming from climate change, the threat it poses to global water supplies may be the most severe."
READ MORE
 

Friday, January 3, 2014

Paint this anyway you want....

ExxonMobil flooded Mayflower, Arkansas with DIRTY TAR SANDS and were unprepared for the cleanup, attempted to clean it up with paper towels.

They want to restart that pipeline.

Wind Energy and Solar Energy don't destroy ecosytems. Let's stop supporting Dirty Energy. Let's stop subsidizing Dirty Energy.


Exxon may restart its faulty Pegasus pipeline this year — the one that spilled tarsands into the yards of residents of Mayflower, Arkansas — and is challenging penalties from federal pipeline regulator PHMSA, as well as at least 17 different lawsuits from Arkansas residents, state and federal regulators.
 

Monday, November 18, 2013

NStar's herbicide use approved




NStar's herbicide use approved
 
Despite fierce opposition, state regulators have approved NStar's use of herbicides beneath the utility's transmission rights of way on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard in 2013.
 
The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources approved the annual vegetation management plan Friday, according to an email from the department's spokeswoman Mary-Leah Assad.

NStar vegetation management plan 2013

For more information on NStar's vegetation management plan go to http://1.usa.gov/1ajyvXP. Here are the towns
on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard affected by herbicide
use under the plan:
  • Barnstable
  • Bourne
  • Brewster
  • Chatham
  • Edgartown
  • Falmouth
  • Harwich
  • Oak Bluffs
  • Orleans
  • Sandwich
  • Tisbury

Plans are approved for the calendar year so the current plan will expire Jan. 1, Assad wrote. Eight Cape towns and three Vineyard towns will be affected by the use of herbicides, according to the 15-page plan.
 
NStar has not used herbicides on Cape Cod for the past four years as part of a voluntary moratorium prompted by local concerns about the chemicals.
 
"We're very pleased to have received approval from the (Department of Agricultural Resources) so that we can continue with this very important electric service reliability program," NStar spokesman Michael Durand said Sunday.
 
NStar uses a vegetation-management program similar to programs across the country, Durand said.
 
These have consistently been shown to be not only the best way to maintain reliable service but also to promote the growth of a self-sustaining meadowland environment requiring less and less use of herbicides, he said.
 
Herbicides are applied to target species by workers using backpack sprayers as part of a plan that includes mechanical controls and the encouragement of low-growing plants in lieu of high-growing species, according to NStar officials.
 
The exact time and location of herbicide applications under the current plan will depend on a variety of factors, including scheduling with the company's vendor, Durand said.
 
The utility uses only herbicides approved for environmentally sensitive areas, Durand has said previously. NStar has repeatedly defended itself as being heavily regulated and accountable for less than 1 percent of the Cape's herbicide use.
 
In 2011, a Barnstable County panel reviewing NStar's use of herbicides voted in favor of the utility's plan.
 
Opponents of the practice, however, argue that NStar's use of the chemicals poses a danger to public health and the environment.
 
"The adventure continues," said Sue Phelan, director of GreenCAPE, a nonprofit organization that has led the opposition to NStar's herbicide use.
 
Phelan said NStar has avoided discussing the group's health concerns.
 
"I guess we'll just have to meet them where we meet them," she said.
 
Most recently that strategy included demonstrations Friday at NStar's office on Willow Street in West Yarmouth and in Boston at the end of October with Cape legislators. Last week, opponents staked out the Osterville home of Northeast Utilities CEO Tom May. Northeast Utilities is NStar's parent company.
 
Although all 15 Cape towns have passed resolutions calling on NStar to stop the practice, the company announced in August that it would resume the use of herbicides.
 
NStar submitted a vegetation management plan for 2014 on Thursday, according to Assad.
 
That plan will be published for public notice on Wednesday, followed by a 45-day comment period, she wrote.