March 21: This post has been corrected.

When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that tests showed the water is safe to drink in Dimock, Penn., a national hot spot for concerns about fracking, it seemed to vindicate the energy industry’s insistence that drilling had not caused pollution in the area.

But what the agency didn’t say 2013 at least, not publicly 2013 is that the water samples contained dangerous quantities of methane gas, a finding that confirmed some of the agency’s initial concerns and the complaints raised by Dimock residents since 2009.

The test results also showed the group of wells contained dozens of other contaminants, including low levels of chemicals known to cause cancer and heavy metals that exceed the agency’s “trigger level” and could lead to illness if consumed over an extended period of time. The EPA’s assurances suggest that the substances detected do not violate specific drinking water standards, but no such standards exist for some of the contaminants and some experts said the agency should have acknowledged that they were detected at all.

“Any suggestion that water from these wells is safe for domestic use would be preliminary or inappropriate,” said Ron Bishop, a chemist at the State University of New York’s College at Oneonta, who has spoken out about environmental concerns from drilling.

Dimock residents are struggling to reconcile the EPA’s public account with the results they have been given in private.

“I’m sitting here looking at the values I have on my sheet 2013 I’m over the thresholds 2013 and yet they are telling me my water is drinkable,” said Scott Ely, a Dimock resident whose water contains methane at three times the state limit, as well as lithium, a substance that can cause kidney and thyroid disorders. “I’m confused about the whole thing2026 I’m flabbergasted.”

The water in Dimock first became the focus of international attention after residents there alleged in 2009 that natural gas drilling, and fracking, had led to widespread contamination. That April, ProPublica reported that a woman’s drinking water well blew up. Pennsylvania officials eventually determined that underground methane gas leaks had been caused by Cabot Oil and Gas, which was drilling wells nearby. Pennsylvania sanctioned Cabot, and for a short time the company provided drinking water to households in the Dimock area.

This January, the EPA announced it would take over the state’s investigation, testing the water in more than 60 homes and agreeing to provide drinking water to several of families 2013 including the Elys 2013 in the meantime.

Then, last Thursday, the EPA released a brief statement saying that the first 11 samples to come back from the lab “did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern.” The agency noted that some metals, methane, salt and bacteria had been detected, but at low levels that did not exceed federal thresholds. It said that arsenic exceeding federal water standards was detected in two samples.

But Dimock residents say the agency’s description didn’t jibe with the material in test packets distributed to them, and they voiced concerns about why the EPA had passed judgment before seeing results from nearly 50 homes. Several shared raw data and materials they were given by the EPA with Josh Fox, the director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary “GasLand,” who shared them with ProPublica.

EPA press secretary Betsaida Alcantara said the agency was trying to be forthcoming by giving the tests results to Dimock residents and is now considering whether to release more information to the public about the water samples. “We made a commitment to the residents that we would give them the information as soon as we had it,” she said. “For the sake of transparency we felt it was the right thing to do.”

However preliminary, the data is significant because it is the first EPA research into drilling-related concerned on the east coast, and the agency’s first new information since it concluded that there was likely a link between fracking and water contamination in central Wyoming last December. The EPA is currently in the midst of a national investigation into the effects of fracking on groundwater, but that research is separate.

As the agency has elsewhere, the EPA began the testing in Dimock in search of methane and found it.

Methane is not considered poisonous to drink, and therefore is not a health threat in the same way as other pollutants. But the gas can collect in confined spaces and cause deadly explosions, or smother people if they breathe too much of it. Four of the five residential water results obtained by ProPublica show methane levels exceeding Pennsylvania standards; one as high as seven times the threshold and nearly twice the EPA’s less stringent standard.

The methane detections were accompanied by ethane, another type of natural gas that experts say often signifies the methane came from deeply buried gas deposits similar to those being drilled for energy and not from natural sources near the surface.

Among the other substances detected at low levels in Dimock’s water are a suite of chemicals known to come from some sort of hydrocarbon substance, such as diesel fuel or roofing tar. They include anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene2013 all substances described by a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as cancer-causing even in very small amounts. Chromium, aluminum, lead and other metals were also detected, as were chlorides, salts, bromide and strontium, minerals that can occur naturally but are often associated with natural gas drilling.

It is unclear whether these contaminants have any connection to drilling activities near Dimock. The agency says it plans further testing and research.

Many of the compounds detected have not been evaluated for exposure risk by federal scientists or do not have an exposure limit assigned to them, making it difficult to know whether they present a risk to human health.

Inconsistencies in the EPA’s sampling results also are raising concerns. EPA documents, for example, list two different thresholds for the detection of bromide, a naturally occurring substance sometimes used in drilling fluids, opening up the possibility that bromide may have been detected, but not reported, in some tests.

“The threshold that it is safe, that shouldn’t be changing,” said Susan Riha, director of the New York State Water Resources Institute and a professor of earth sciences at Cornell University. “For some reason 2026 one was twice as sensitive as the other one.”

The EPA did not respond to questions about the detection limits, or any other technical inquiries about the test data.

A spokesman for Cabot declined to comment on the water test results or their significance, saying that he had not yet seen the data.

Correction: This post said EPA tests had detected bromium in some Dimock water wells. It should have said bromide. Also, the post identified Susan Riha as the director of the New York State Water Resources Group. She is the director of the Water Resources Institute at Cornell University.

by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, March 20, 2012, 2:42 p.m.

The article So, Is Dimock’s Water Really Safe to Drink? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

People say you are what you eat. In fact, what you eat affects far beyond just yourself and more than most people imagine. Several scientific studies state that eating meat is environmentally unfriendly, and that a diet based on vegetables and fruits is better for both your health and every aspect of the earth. But you may ask: how is that possible?

The answer is simple. As energy flows through the food chain, around 90 percent of it is lost while moving from one step to another.  If we decide to eat vegetables, fruits, cereals and harvest foods directly, we are saving 10 times more resources than choosing to eat meats like pork, chicken or beef although they are significant differences among them.

Feeding a herbivore, such as a cow, requires breeding it until it’s ready for slaughter. A cow will eat grain and drink water every day. Skipping one level can save up to 10 times more land, water, fertilizer, petrol for transportation, and so on.

According to a study from 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases. The numbers may seem high, but the crux of the matter can be found in what scientists call the “CO2 equivalent.”

Knowing that gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas expressed has an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential. For instance, when cows digest their food, they emit methane. Their manure, methane, and nitrous oxide have roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2.

The FAO found that current production of meat contributes between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases the world produces every year. In 1999, Susan Subak, scientist at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 3.6 and 6.8 kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere for each kilogram of beef produced.

Gidon Eshel and Pamela A. Martin, from the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent, it would be as if they switched from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius, which generates 89 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

For example, the production of 2.2 pounds of beef is the mass required for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles. That amount can burn enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Another study, led by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, showed the effects of beef production on water acidification and eutrophication owing the huge amount of manure that livestock farms produce at an undesirable output from meat production.

A bad management of animal´s manure often leads to water contamination as the non treated manure uses to disintegrate into the soil and after poisoning underground streams of water or be discharged in rivers of lakes directly. But this does not stopped many people from eating meat.

Beef consumption has increased both as population increases and as people in developing countries, such as south-east Asia, are increasing their living standards, allowing themselves to shift from a diet of rice and soya to more sophisticated foods as beef. The annual beef consumption per capita varies from 120 pounds in Argentina and 92 pounds in the U.S., to only a pound in Moldova.

The world average is about 22 pounds per person a year, according to the FAO for the year 2003. You can make a difference; think what is better for you, what is better for your environment and take a step forward. You don’t need to become a vegan. Just think about it, and the next time you go to a restaurant, choose the salad instead of the steak.

This is not about huge personal changes, it is about small, continuous social changes. The Earth will surely appreciate it.

The article Are the Foods we Eat Contributing to Global Warming? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The article How Does Cosmetics Pollute Our Water? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

China’s environmental regulators say they are planning a campaign that will target dumping and improper storage of hazardous materials. Special attention will be given to heavy metals and electronic waste.

Deputy director Zhang Lijun, a representative of the Ministry of environmental protection, mentioned in early September that the situation in Qujin city, in the southern province Yunan, was deteriorating. A local chemical company dumped more than 5,000 tons of chromium in June.

The case is not a singular one, as China has been confronting a crisis of heavy metals poisoning after years of lax policies regarding safety standards. This has led to a rise in the number of reported pollution emergencies, usually involving lead and other various toxins from chemical and electronics factories.

According to Zhang Lijun, the situation in Qujin, and many other similar cases, reflect “widespread inadequacies in handling and disposal of hazardous waste in the country and pose a threat to public health.” Zhang also added that companies handling chromium, polycrystalline silicon used in solar cells, sewage sludge and electronic waste would be facing closer scrutiny in the future.

The Qujin case caused national alarm after the chromium dumped by Yunnan Luliang Chemical Industry in June killed livestock and tainted rivers supplying drinking water for cities situated in the densely populated Pearl River Delta. The amount of chromium slag stockpiled at the chemical plant in Qujing reaches more than 140,000 tons, the environmental group Greenpeace reported.

The figures released recently by the government also point to the gravity of the situation. According to China Daily, the country produced 45.7 million tons of hazardous waste in 2007, an amount expected to increase by 5 percent to 7 percent a year in 2011-2015.

China’s environmental regulators have said they plan to clean up contamination of the soil and water supplies from factories scattered across the country, a side-effect of the concentration of so much of the world’s industrial production in China. Implementing efficient measures is also hindered by a lack of compliance at the local level.

In Qiujing the drivers who were meant to haul the chromium waste to a processing plant in a neighboring province, instead dumped the hazardous loads near a reservoir. According to media reports, rains washed some of the toxins into the lake, killing livestock.

After news of the incident surfaced, authorities in Yunnan initially denied complaints, voicing the fears of a public health hazard caused by inappropriate handling of toxic materials. In such instances, local officials heavily dependent on tax revenues from big factories usually try to downplay or cover up such problems.

The article China Targets Hazardous Waste Dumping, Stockpiles appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The energy company CronocoPhillips and their Chinese section has not effectively stopped or cleaned up offshore spills in the Bohai Bay, according to China’s Oceanic Agency. The spills, which occurred on June 4 and June 17, releasing approximately 700 barrels of oil into Bohai Bay and 2,500 barrels of mineral oil-based drilling mud onto the seabed, have raised an outcry among environmentalists.

The State Oceanic Administration said its investigation discovered that the company had failed to completely clean up damage from the spills and to ensure leaks would not recur. The agency also ordered the company to halt all gas and oil production in the area off China’s eastern coast, until effective measures are taken to prevent further oil leaks as well as ensure that any remaining spills are completely removed.

It also called for a full environmental impact assessment before production can be resumed. CronocoPhillips said it was drawing up a compliance plan along with its partner in the Bohai Bay, China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC). “Activities that are related to depressurizing the field will continue in a safe and environmentally responsible way,” it said in a statement released by CronocoPhillips at the beginning of September.

CronocoPhillips China holds a 49 percent stake in the venture in the Penglai 19-3 oil field, being its sole operator, with CNOOC holding 51 percent. Both companies have publicly apologized for the incident. Initially, CronocoPhillips reported that the spills have been entirely removed. The company also said the fault causing the leak was sealed and that the situation was basically under control.

Despite the companys reassuring statements, the State Oceanic Administration and the Chinese press clearly expressed its dissatisfaction towards the manner in which the oil giant has handled the problem. The People’s Daily severely criticized the company, saying that CronocoPhillips issued misleading statements over the spills while displaying “indifference” over the harm caused to the environment.

According to the publication, CronocoPhillips strove more to protect its image and did not put enough effort into safeguarding the environment after the spill was made public in early June. “There is a sharp contrast between the company’s sensitivity regarding its image and its indifference to the pollution,” People’s Daily commentator Jiang Hongbing said in unambiguous terms.

“After repeated delays and a series of cover-ups and deceptions, production at the Penglai 19-3 oil field has finally been ordered to stop.” The government also says that the spills spread up to 5,5000 square kilometers(2,124 miles) and may have killed scallops.

CronocoPhillips declared that damage to the marine environment was minimized and that oil traces discovered onshore were not related to the spills but were from fuel in the water. The comments made by the oceanic administration at the beginning of September suggest a clash of opinions over how to handle the seeps.

It is believed that pressure had built up underground due to injections used to help force oil from the wells. The notice issued by China’s Oceanic Agency ordered CronocoPhillips to accept CNOOC’S “strict supervision” in preventing further spills and recently has also threatened to sue the company.

Environmental groups complained about the slow pace of the cleaning operations, while fishermen in Shandong, Hebei and Liaoning provinces claim that oil has killed off most marine life. Another consequence of the incident was a drop in CNOOC’s shares in early September, which fell 8.8 percent in Hong Kong.
Lorraine Kourafas / Shutterstock.com

The article China Says CronocoPhillips Hasn’t Ended Bohai Spill appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Five Chinese non-governmental organizations have accused Apple of adding to environmental degradation by using suppliers with known histories of environmental violations. The American company also faces strong criticisms for undermining social responsibility as its suppliers have been involved in serious work-related accidents and deaths.

A report released on Wednesday, which calls Apple out for taking “advantage of the loopholes in developing countries’ environmental management systems,” is threatening to cast a big shadow on Apple’s image.

One of the co-authors of the report Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, has been outspoken in several media outlets about Apple’s apparent disregard and unresponsiveness. The coalition of environmental groups has requested the help of businesses to map the companies’ impact on local communities;

Apple shied away from contributing to the report. Several electronics brands, including Samsung, Nokia and LG outsource all or part of their manufacturing. These orders are then picked up by suppliers with factories in, among other countries, China.

According to the New York Times, Apple spokesman Steve Dowling responded on Wednesday that the company had been aggressively monitoring its supply chain regularly.

“We require that our supplier provides safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made,” Dowling said.

But at the same time, Apple has, according to GOOD magazine, defended its ranking in the environmental groups report as a result of their suppliers’ actions — not theirs. CNN reported that the Apple company found 80 facilities where storage and handling of hazardous chemicals was not done properly during the 2010 audit.

According to Apple’s own report, the company had requested the non-compliant facilities to correct their mistakes and document these processes but nowhere does it say if the request was granted.

Apple’s market share in China has grown exponentially and the busiest Apple store in the world is located there. Yet their presence in the mainland has caused controversy. Despite keeping their suppliers under wraps, the company has faced multiple production challenges.

The New York Times reports that one of Apple’s biggest suppliers was hit by a suicide wave among workers at several mainland facilities last year while an explosion at fire at another plant in southwest China in May killed two and injured more than a dozen.

Apple is not the only company to face harsh criticism for taking advantage of the Chinese system — several multinational corporations have, according to the New York Times, been accused of employing child labour, violating local labor laws and polluting water resources and land.

The article Apple Singled Out for Heavy Pollution in China appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.