Democracy on Line

Quote of the Month

Earth Increasing Exponentially
New study shows gloom unjustified, as global expansion will continue indefinitely
by Don Malcolm

Canada Signs POPs Treaty

Public Supports Grizzly-hunt Ban

Habitat Protection Bylaws on Saltspring Island

Canola Recall in Canada

Time for DFO to Act on Habitat

"The BC government says this is legal. Its not."
A small fish-bearing stream in the Klanawah Valley, Vancouver Island, BC,
clearcut to the banks under the Forest Practices Code.
Photo John Werring,, Sierra Legal Defence Fund

Mexico Pays, Communities Lose
Metalclad Ruling offers no relief for Free Trade fears
by Delores Broten

Stormy Weather
"There isn't one solution to Global Climate Change ... there are 101 solutions,"
according to authors Guy Dauncey and Patrick Mazza.

BC Hydro's Got the Urge to Burn
The economics don't add up and the optics are awful
By Tom Hackney, Sierra Club of BC

What is GSX? The Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) natural gas pipeline, proposed by BC Hydro and US giant Williams Gas Pipeline, would carry 2.66 million cubic feet per day of gas from the main gas line hub in Sumas, Washington State, to Vancouver Island, where it would connect with the existing Centra Gas pipeline. GSX would double and eventually triple the natural gas supply to Vancouver Island. It is meant to fuel three natural gas power plants on the Island: the just-completed, 240 MW Island Cogeneration Project (ICP) in Campbell River; the planned 260 MW Port Alberni Generation Project (PAGP); and the allegedly-needed-by-2007, 640 MW maybe-in-Duncan power plant referred to in BC Hydro's Integrated Electricity Plan. The pipeline and the associated power plants are part of a general strategy by BC Hydro to meet most new electricity demand in BC by burning natural gas. The Real Dope on Beef Hormones Is Canadian meat safe to eat, or just another hazard to our health? by Brad Duplisea, Canadian Health Coalition REPORT A recent audit of Canada's food-inspection system by the European Commission (EC) raises serious questions about the safety of Canadian meat. The audit reveals very serious deficiencies in the regulatory framework and documents wide-spread use of cancer-causing hormones, antibiotics and other endocrine disrupting substances in our meat supply. Canadian and European scientists believe that hormone-laced Canadian meat poses a threat to the public, particularly pregnant women and prepubertal children. Hormone residues in meat and meat products can disrupt the natural "endocrine equilibrium" (hormone balance). Disruption of this equilibrium can result in harmful consequences for health. The EC audit concluded that Canadian meat consumers are exposed to unnecessary risk from the intake of hormone residues. Scientists believe that susceptible groups are put at unnecessary risk by these hormones. Not enough data is available to allow a quantitative estimate of risk for any of the hormones in question. Therefore, because we can't establish safety thresholds, there is no means to ascertain the "acceptable daily intake." In the case of the common growth hormone estradiol, a growing body of evidence suggests it is a "complete carcinogen," exerting both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects. Children most vulnerable Each stage of life, from embryo onwards, is characterized by a well defined natural hormonal balance. Hormonal activity varies greatly throughout different stages in the human life cycle. Scientific observation now suggests that prepubertal children constitute a high risk population for beef-hormones since the "endocrine equilibrium" at that age was grossly miscalculated. New, more sensitive and sophisticated bio-assays (tests) developed for estradiol have concluded that the actual hormone production rates of children may have been overestimated by up to 100-fold. This represents a much greater risk than originally thought. Consumption of hormone-treated beef may cause girls to reach puberty earlier, thus making them more susceptible to breast and other cancers. According to Carlos Sonnenschein, from Tufts University School of Medicine (Boston, MA), "Early onset of puberty with its raging hormones translates into higher risk of breast cancer" and it is "very likely" that hormone residues in North American beef is a contributing factor in the early onset of puberty among girls observed in recent decades. According to Annie Sasco, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, it makes sense that hormone-treated beef could trigger an earlier onset of puberty. "Even if the risk is small it would be prudent to stop the use of hormones in the cattle industry because there is no offsetting benefit for consumers," Sasco stated. Hormones used in Canada estradiol [estradiol benzoate, estradiol beta-17, oestra diol]: "Considered a complete carcinogen ... it exerts both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects," and causes reduction of the thymus gland, which is essential to the normal functioning of the immune system. progesterone: A steroid hormone. In laboratory animals, it increases the incidence of tumours in the mammary gland, ovary, uterus and vagina. testosterone [testosterone propionat]: The main sex hormone secreted by males, known to induce tumours in mice and prostate cancer in rats. trenbolone [trenbolone acetate]: A synthetic androgen. Feeding trenbolone to mice produced pancreatic tumours, liver tumours, and hyperplasia. zerano: A mycoestrogen produced by fusarium moulds. Male mice exposed in utero produced testicular abnormalities, with development of pituitary gland tumours in mice, induction of adenomas and liver carcinomas in hamsters. melengestrol acetate [MGA, melengestrol]: A sister compound of Diethylstilbestrol (DES). In female mice caused increased incidence of mammary tumours. WTO beef dispute When Europe finally banned imports of Canadian beef, the federal government challenged the decision at the World Trade Organization. The WTO beef-hormone ruling, which allows the Canadian government to apply retaliatory trade sanctions against the European Commission, did not consider new scientific understanding of growth hormones when it made its decision. The WTO panel, made up of trade experts with no scientific credentials, based its decision on inadequate, non-peer-reviewed data dating in some cases back to the 1960s. Some experts view those studies as questionable, lacking transparency and scientific credibility. Most of the adverse effects of hormones only became apparent in the 1990s. The Precautionary Principle means that, in the face of scientific uncertainty, one should proceed with caution. In the case of beef-hormones the Precautionary Principle dictates that these hormone drugs should not be used until further research has ascertained their safety to humans. This is precisely why Europe banned the use of these potentially dangerous hormones. Canada should do the same. It was profoundly unscientific and imprudent for the Canadian government to authorize the use of these hormones based on a non-scientific "assumption of safety." Simply put, the Canadian government threw the Precautionary Principle out the window. Despite the scathing European audit, the Canadian government maintains it can provide European consumers with hormone-free beef. It's an outrage that the same precautionary measures won't be afforded to Canadians. Manage the damage The European audit provides further evidence that the federal government has made a major regulatory shift in the role of government. By shifting from the Precautionary Principle to that of a "risk management" approach (where illness and death are considered "acceptable risks"), food safety regulators now "manage the damage" instead of preventing harm from happening in the first place. This shift repudiates lessons learned from the European mad cow disaster and from Justice Horace Krever's inquiry into Canada's tainted blood disaster. To paraphrase Justice Krever, government must regulate in the public interest, not in the interest of the regulated. The Canadian government ignored warnings from its own experts in 1997 about the dangers of hormone residues in beef. Instead, it gagged two of its most knowledgeable veterinary scientists and told the Canadian public the European Commission's decision to stop importing Canadian beef was just a "trade dispute." Recently in the Toronto Star, Federal Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief responded to the EC audit by defending the use of animal hormones. "There has never been any scientific proof of any danger," stated Vanclief. This is a dangerously misleading statement. Health Canada's own scientific experts had recommended against approving these hormones on the grounds that they posed a threat to human health. In a speech to the European Union, Prime Minister Chretien said, "We urge that science-based approaches be taken to determine the degree of risk to the environment or human health posed by certain products." In April 1998, however, when the commission formally requested the risk assessment data on which Health Canada based its pro-hormone decision to authorize the use of beef hormones, Canada refused, claiming the data was submitted in confidence. So much for a "science-based" approach. Beef hormones are used by industry to increase weight gain in cattle. The use of such powerful hormones for non-therapeutic, non-essential purposes is irresponsible and offers no benefits to the consumer or society, only risk. Public health should come before beef industry profits. Let's do the right thing and ban the use of beef hormones. Sources: * Draft Report of a mission carried out in Canada from Sept. 19-29, 2000, In Order to Evaluate the Control of Residues in Live Animals and Animal Products: www.healthcoalition.ca/factsheets/EC-audit.pdf * European Commission's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating To Public Health Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products, April 30, 1999: www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scv/out21_en.pdf * Senate Agriculture Committee Proceedings, May, 1999, House of Commons Reference No. Agriculture, 34861 (pp. 0910-11 to 0910-13). * Status report from the EC to the WTO: Dispute Settlement Body On Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): www.wto.org/english/news_e/news99_e/26_17.htm * Globe and Mail, July 30, 1999, Breast cancer linked to beef; Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, Honourable Justice Horace Krever, Final Report , Vol. 3, p. 995. FRIENDS OF CORTES ISLAND Save That Oystercatcher! The best way to help the species is to practice responsible ecotourism, and leave their nesting sites alone. Compiled by Norberto Rodriguez dela Vega Among the great pleasures of exploring the Strait of Georgia are visiting remote islets and spits, walking the beaches, and camping on the shores. However, the consequences are not always benign. Boaters and kayakers visiting out-of-the-way spots have unknowingly destroyed the nests, eggs, and chicks of oystercatchers. Haematopus bachmani, the black oystercatcher, is an unusual-looking, crow-sized black shorebird with pink legs, red eyes, and a long, bright-red bill. Care and feeding Despite the name, oystercatchers rarely feed on oysters, at least on the Pacific Coast. Instead, their favourite menu is comprised of limpets, chitons, mussels, barnacles, and even the occasional worm. Parents in not-so-good territories lay the standard three-egg clutch even with inadequate food supplies. The additional egg may be insurance against the loss of the first or second. Oystercatchers usually begin nesting during the third week of May and fledge chicks by mid August. Favoured sites are offshore islets and shell spits with little vegetation, giving the birds a 360-degree view of potential predators. Approximately the size of two cupped adult hands, the nests are simply a shallow depression of shell or gravel making them, and the well camouflaged eggs and chicks, difficult to spot. These birds are sensitive to disturbance, and their shrill "eeek" is an alarm call to the unwary. In 1995, there were approximately 11,000 black oystercatchers on the north Pacific coast--although a census taken in 2001 indicates that population may have fallen to 8,000--and about 2,000 of them were located in British Columbia. Full-time residents While most Canadian shore birds migrate south for the winter, black oystercatchers reside year-round on the Pacific Coast. "This makes them a great indicator species," explains Stephanie Hazlitt, a researcher at Simon Fraser University. "If populations are going up or down," she says, "you can be confident that it is an effect of something going on locally." Raising young oystercatchers through the perils of seashore life often ends in failure. Hazlitt's research shows that nesting is arduous, with few oystercatchers surviving to adulthood. Well-meaning boaters and kayakers often cause the most disturbance. "You can step on the chicks very easily. They look like little rocks," says Hazlitt. Dr. Rob Butler of the Canadian Wildlife Service says, "I think most people are well intentioned, but maybe not terribly well-informed." FOCI takes the pledge Concern for these vulnerable nesting sites has led Friends of Cortes Island (FOCI) to join other communities in the Strait of Georgia in a pledge of non-disturbance at nesting sites. Signs provided by the Ministry of Environment alert boaters and kayakers to active nesting areas and request that no craft land on these islets from mid April to mid August. This spring, as part of the Marine Stewardship Initiative, FOCI installed signs at Little Islet (Long Tom), Three Islets (Cod Rocks) and Powell Islet. Wildlife biologist Chris Amato has written the following basic guidelines for responsible wildlife viewing: 1. Use binoculars. Binoculars are a kayaker's best friend, and the best insurance against having to approach and disturb wildlife. 2. Observe the 100-yard rule. Maintain a buffer of at least 100 yards between your boat and the wildlife you are viewing, whether they are on land or in the water. Where areas are posted, obey the restrictions imposed by the signs. Remember that posted buffers and the 100-yard rule are only general guides; remain alert to behavioural changes which may indicate that a larger buffer is required between you and the wildlife you are viewing, even though you may already be complying with a posted distance. 3. Educate yourself. Before you visit an area, find out about the wildlife you are likely to encounter, the locations of sensitive wildlife areas, and the existence of any seasonal or other restrictions on paddling, landing, or camping in such areas. Following these three simple rules will help balance your desire for wildlife encounters and the needs of the birds and mammals with which you share the water and the land. By treating wildlife with the respect it needs and deserves, we help ensure that our children and grandchildren can experience the thrill of wildlife watching from a kayak. * References A Sense of Balance; Chris Amato, Sea Kayaker, 1995. Currents; Christine Kondo, Pacific Yatching, 1999. Conservation Concerns; Black Oystercacther; Breeding sites update; Environment Canada. Quiet kayaks worry wildlife; Bruce Obee. 1998. Stewards of the Shore; Adrianne Mason, Canadian Wildlife, 2000. Black Oystercatcher; Brad A. Andres and Gary A. Falxa, The Birds of North America, No. 155, 1995. SPECIAL REPORT Sewage Sludge - Valuable Biosolid or Toxic Hazard? Coming soon to a Neighbourhood near You? IN THE UNITED STATES: Landspreading Rules Under Investigation by Doris Cellarius, California Sierra Club Since the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved land spreading of sewage sludge in 1993, the neighbours of sludge sites, concerned citizens, environmental groups, and scientists have protested the weaknesses of this program and the harm resulting from it. Recent reports from both the EPA Office of Inspector General and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety have reinforced their concerns. A major congressional hearing in March 2000 featured testimony that public health and the environment are not adequately protected. The National Academy of Sciences was then asked to review the science behind EPA's biosolids standards and how the relevant chemical pollutants were identified. A great deal of information is now available to assist concerned citizens comment on the need for stringent regulation of sewage sludge. The Case for Caution In The Case for Caution, scientists at Cornell University documented the problems with EPA's "biosolids rules": Self-enforcement of the regulations, Lack of permitting processes, Lack of requirements for labelling of products made from sludge, Damage to organisms in soil such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria, The need for stringent standards to prevent leaching of sludge-borne contaminants into groundwater, The need for environmental monitoring for all the possible contaminants (including the ones not yet regulated), Disregard for the hazards of mercury, which EPA wrongly assumed did not volatilize from land application, No monitoring required for viruses, Bacteria can actually increase in numbers during the sewage treatment processes * Ellen Z. Harrison, Murray B. McBride, and David R. Bouldin: The Case for Caution: Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludges and an Appraisal of the US EPA's Part 503 Sludge Rules, August 1997, updated February 1999. 40 pp. www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/sludge.html Compliance The March 2000 EPA Office of Inspector General's audit report, Biosolids Management and Enforcement, concluded that without mechanisms to enforce compliance, "EPA cannot assure the public that current land application practices are protective of human health and the environment." Worker Health The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health Hazard Evaluation investigated worker complaints, interviewed workers, and tested air and waste samples. They concluded, "The detection of enteric bacteria in a limited number of air and bulk samples confirms the potential for workers to be exposed to organisms which have been associated with gastrointestinal symptoms and illness." NIOSH recommended additional practices to prevent the risk of disease among workers who are exposed on the job to biosolids used to fertilize agricultural lands or mine reclamation sites. Metals and Toxics Many people do not realize that for land applications of sewage sludge, the United States has the most relaxed standards for metals among developed nations. Currently EPA regulates only nine metals: arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, zinc; and the standards for what is allowed are up to 100 times higher (weaker) than any other country has ever proposed. The problem with synthetic organic chemicals such as PCBs and pesticides such as lindane, is even worse. The Environmental Working Group analyzed the only available national data on sludge content, the 1988 National Sewage Sludge Survey of 208 treatment plants. Their report Dumping Sewage Sludge On Organic Farms? Why USDA Should Just Say No, reported "a total of over 100 synthetic organic compounds (not including pesticides) in US sludge, including phthalates, toluene, and chlorobenzene." Dioxins were found in sludge from 179 out of 208 systems (80%). In addition, 42 different pesticides were found, at least one in almost every sample. None of these chemical contaminants are regulated in sludge. The nine heavy metals that are regulated were routinely detected, often at high concentrations. No comprehensive data are available to assess if these toxic components of sludge have been reduced since the late 1980s. Toxic Waste In Fertilizers Waste Lands: The Threat of Toxic Fertilizer, released in May by US PIRG and the State Public Interest Research Groups, reported that American fertilizers are contaminated with toxic metals. Twenty-nine fertilizers, purchased in twelve states were tested by Frontier Geosciences, and found to contain arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, and dioxin. Twenty fertilizers exceeded levels of concern for disposal in landfills. Fertilizers become contaminated when manufacturers buy toxic waste from industrial facilities to obtain low cost plant nutrients, such as zinc or iron. Such industrial wastes are often highly contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals. http://www.pirg.org/toxics/ reports/wastelands Soil at Risk The US sludge program also appears to be putting long-term soil productivity at risk. Studies in Europe have found that microbial functions in soils are affected at metals levels that are not toxic to crops. Scientists have found heavy metals in earthworms from sludge-treated soils; rodents fed those earthworms accumulated cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. Compared to the US, there has been more concern and research in European countries about the effects of sewage sludge on soils and ecological processes. An article in Environmental Science and Technology states: "Evidence began to emerge about 10 years ago that sludge-borne metals could have adverse effects on total soil microbial biomass and on nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria and by the nitrogen-fixing bacteria Rhizobium." The evidence, which was not conclusive at that time, came from long-term experiments at sites where sludge was repeatedly applied in large quantities. The article describes research showing that other species of nitrogen-fixing bacteria are adversely affected by high zinc concentrations in soil. Endocrine Disruptors When EPA's biosolids rules were developed, there was little concern about the problems caused by low-level exposures to the many unregulated chemicals. Nonylphenols are endocrine disrupting chemicals that enter surface waters as degradation products of detergents, shampoos, other cleaning agents and pesticide formulations. Their sublethal effects on fish and other aquatic life are of recent concern. Nonylphenol-based surfactants have been phased out in Europe, but they are still widely used in the United States. Surfactants are quantitatively the most important synthetic organic compounds in municipal waste water. Surfactants such as linear alkylbenzene sulphonates and nonylphenol polyethoxylates, although partially degraded under aerobic conditions, are lipophilic and not degraded anaerobically. They and their degradation products, such as nonylphenol, become highly enriched in sewage. At present there is neither monitoring nor regulation of nonylphenol concentrations in sludges in the United States. Phthalates are chemicals added to plastics to make them flexible. Because they are not chemically bonded to the plastic itself, they leach out of IV bags and many kinds of packaging materials. After disposal, they contaminate groundwater. Some phthalates have been identified as carcinogens, teratogens, and endocrine disruptors. Scientists in Puerto Rico recently found elevated levels of phthalates, but no other contaminants, in the blood of young girls diagnosed with premature puberty. Safer alternatives are available. Dioxin Dioxin is another contaminant of sewage sludge that was not considered when the EPA's sludge rules were written. A national inventory of dioxin sources, the EPA Dioxin Exposure Initiative, reported that a significant release of dioxin to the environment was from the "land spreading of waste water treatment sludge." This is a great concern because some crops grown on sludge-treated land are fed to animals, cows and other herbivores that ingest soil as they graze. The greatest route of human exposure to dioxin, a human carcinogen, is through consumption of meat and dairy products. In December 1999 EPA proposed a standard for dioxin levels in biosolids, a limit of 300 parts per trillion toxic equivalents for dioxins in biosolids that are recycled and applied to the land as fertilizer. The environmental and public health community provided testimony calling that number far too high to be protective. EPA has not yet issued a final dioxin limit for sewage sludge. Activists who believe sewage sludge seriously endangers public health have been sharing information on their web sites and bringing it to government officials. More of us need to inform ourselves and speak out. * For more information contact doris.cellarius@sierraclub.org IN BEAUTIFUL BC: Sludge Regs Ready to Roll BC's Sewage Sludge Regulations, innocently titled Organic Matter Recycling Regulation pose a new danger to the health of British Columbians. The regs have been written, and may or may not be issued shortly, depending on discussions within the new government. As well as the long overdue composting of farm and fish waste, the regulations set standards for the composting of municipal sewage sludge, and the land spreading of uncomposted "Class B" sludge. As it now stands, Organic Matter Recycling Regulation is problematic, and the problems are predictable: These regulations are based on toxics standards from the 1980s or even earlier. The allowable levels of heavy metals are many times higher than those allowed in Europe. The Regulation does not require testing for any of the industrial chemicals (such as dioxin, PCBs, PAHs and other chemicals recognized federally as toxic) or antibiotics, in modern urban sewage. Uncomposted sludge with up to 2 million fecal coliform per gram can be spread 30 metres from adjacent homes, lakes, streams, and wells. Land which receives sewage sludge is then exempted from Contaminated Sites Regulations! There are no limits to the amount of sludge per hectare, as there are in every sewage sludge regulation from other jurisdictions. The Ministry of Environment is unable to monitor or enforce compliance, according to the provincial Auditor General and the British Columbia Government Employees Union. Once this Regulation is proclaimed, citizens will have no legal recourse to challenge land spreading near their properties. * The BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation can be downloaded at: http://www.bc-environment-issues.com/organic_matter_recycling_reg_1.html * During the week of February 11, 2001, CBC Radio presented a series called Troubled Waters. The segment on sewage sludge spreading, "Soiling our Own Nest" is available at: http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/health/water_010211/troubledwaters_main.html * Contact: Jack Bryden, Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, phone: (250)387-9985. * Sources and Resources United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000, Office of Inspector General, March 20, 2000, Biosolids Management and Enforcement Audit Report. 2000-P10. www.epa.gov/oigearth/audit/list300/00P0010.pdf National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Regarding Health Risks from Exposure of Workers to Class B Sewage Sludge. July 2000. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2000-1580.87 www.cdc.gov/niosh/hid10.html Congressional Science Committee Hearing, March 22, 2000. Search for EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate? March 22, 2000 on the page www.house.gov/science/106_hearing.htm#Full_Committee Harrison, Ellen Z., Director, Cornell Waste Management Institute. Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, March 22, 2000. www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/Sludge/testimony.html or www.house.gov/science/harrison_032200.htm Environmental Working Group, Dumping Sewage Sludge On Organic Farms? Why USDA Should Just Say No, April 30, 1998. 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009. www.ewg.org/pub/home/Reports/SludgeMemo/sludge.html Renner, Rebecca: Sewage Sludge Pros and Cons: The United States and the European nations are far apart on their views of what constitutes safe management, Environmental Science and Technology, October 1, 2000/ Volume 34, Issue 19. Pgs. 430 A - 435 A. Ewing, Richard: Diminishing Returns: Salmon Decline and Pesticides, Oregon Pesticides Education Network. Feb. 1999. www.pond.net/~fish1ifr/salpest.htm Blount, Benjamin C., et al.: Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 108, Number 10, October 2000. Pennsylvania Environmental Network: www.envirolink.org/orgs/pen/issues/sludge/index.html * Published with the assistance of the Friends of Cortes Island Watershed Sentinel Fund IN ONTARIO: A Guide to Action on Sewage Sludge by Maureen Reilly The sludge comes from a waste water treatment plant, which filters sewage until the water is clean enough to return to a river or lake. The remaining 'sludge' is what is deemed 'biosolids.' Biosolids is just a nice new name for sewage sludge. The treatment plant has a Certificate of Approval (CoA) from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MoE) that sets out standards the plant must meet, such as how many days the sludge has to stay in the digester. Some municipalities put their sludge in a landfill, some incinerate, some land apply. The municipality pays a hauler approximately $100 per dry tonne to haul the sludge away to put on farm fields. The hauler must apply to the MoE for a CoA, a legally binding document which sets out how the sludge is to be spread. It is called a "Provisional Certificate of Approval to Operate a Waste Management System" (but there is nothing 'provisional' about it). Once the hauler has this CoA, they can start signing up farms to spread. Each farm site then needs a CoA as an 'Organic Waste Disposal Site,' which states which fields will be spread, and must indicate all water courses, wells, slopes, residences, etc. There must be a signature from the landowner (not just a tenant farmer or cash cropper) permitting sludge to be applied. If you request a CoA for a site, be sure to ask for the Operating CoA as well as the site CoA. These are public documents. Often the MoE will fax them, or mail them, or you can go to the office and pick up a copy. Unless it is specified in the CoA, there is no requirement to notify neighbours, and no right of appeal. Municipality: Some Certificates require that sludge entering a township or county from a different community must have a motion of concurrence from council that the municipality has 'no objection' to the sludge spreading. The municipality can also set out conditions that then become part of the Certificate of Approval and are enforceable by the MoE. For instance, a municipality can require that sludge be incorporated into the soil, or that they receive notification of all sites, or that each site must observe the Guidelines for the Use of Biosolids in all of its recommended provisions. The municipality can pass by-laws to manage sludge - zoning, hours of operation, road use, odour and noise, etc. Biosolids Guidlelines: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3425e.pdf These Guidelines set out recommendations and requirements for sludge spreading. There are many more recommendations than requirements. The Guidelines are only enforceable if written into a CoA. Biosolids Utilization Committee: http://res2.agr.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/buc.html This is a group of 22 people, including industry representatives, who provide advice to the ministries of environment and agriculture. The Committee has been in place for more than 20 years under one name or another. Health Unit Local Medical Officer of Health: The Health Unit has an obligation to respond to health complaints. The Health Act requires it. Note all health concerns or complaints to the Health Unit. Preferably in writing. Police: If the spreaders are violating their Certificate of Approval, you can call the police. Or call Crime Stoppers. Or the Spills Action Centre. Charges in Ontario In June, the Ontario Ministry of Environment laid 14 charges against PowerGrow, a sludge disposal site. The charges, based on practices from May 1999 to June 2000, include putting sewage sludge and paper sludge on 'organic soil Conditioning Sites' in excess of 164 tonnes per hectare and putting the sludge on sites without a Certificate of Approval. As well, the company is cited for compost that failed to achieve the temperatures required for pathogen reduction. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/051101.htm How Do You Take Action? Find out if your municipality has permitted sludge to enter your community. Get residents together to ask municipality to rescind its motion of concurrence. Get a copy of the hauler's Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of Environment. See what provisions must be followed. Report ALL violations to the Ministry of the Environment (preferably in writing, but phone ins are ok) Copy to the municipality, copy to the Environmental Commissioner, copy to your MPP. Meet your MPP and complain. Call the media. Tell them in detail what is happening. Check your well water. Check before spreading, and check after. Report any and all health effects to the local health unit. Require them to respond. Check to make sure the land owner is aware of the sludge spreading. Report violations to the MoE. Hold a public meeting to discuss concerns among yourselves. Report on all problems; then confront the MOE and your MPP. Don't stop. FEATURE Beyond the 2 Percent Solution Energy isn't scarce. What's scarce is the wisdom to use it wisely. by Paul Hawken There is a Sufi story about the Mulla Nasrudin who is crawling on all fours late at night under a street light outside his house. A friend wanders by and asks him what he is doing and Nasrudin tells him he is looking for his lost house keys. After joining the fruitless search for some time, his friend turns to him and asks him exactly where he lost them. Nasrudin points to the back yard of the house. His friend is incredulous and wants to know why they have been searching in the front yard near the street. Nasrudin says, "Because this is where the light is." The purpose of Nasrudin's tale is to reveal how the mind creates illusions, which then pass for reasonable behavior. In the US there is the illusion du jour: We are running short of energy and need more. Not only has California hit the wall, but there are ominous warnings from New York City and right across the country that we may have entered a new period of energy deficits with all the suffering that will entail: inflation, economic stagnation, and joblessness. Perish the thought; let's drill for oil. The end of the Oil Age is inevitable. The proposals to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), though it is one of the world's most climatically hostile locations, seem "reasonable" in this light. If it is scarcity that determines something's value, then what is scarce is not oil or even energy, but the wisdom to use them wisely. If that wisdom could be found in an oil well or vein of coal, America would be the wisest country in the world. Instead, we are the most profligate with respect to energy use. How wasteful are we? Imagine a water tank that supplies a growing town in an arid region. The water is filled by a well that draws from an aquifer, but the tank is old and leaky, as are the pipes that carry the water into the hamlet. For every hundred gallons of water that goes into the tank, only two gallons get to the village's inhabitants. The rest is lost at the tank or on the way. With new houses being built and more families arriving, the town is running out of water, and people are complaining. The mayor proudly announces that he is going to dig a new well a thousand miles away and pump it across the desert to their water tank, and calls on his city council to appropriate the needed funds so the town does not suffer economically. Everyone applauds. He is a hero. This is the way we deal with energy in the US. Measurements of energy--calories, BTUs, kilowatt-hours--are ways to indicate the amount of work a given amount of oil, gas, or electricity can accomplish. In the US, for every 100 units of energy that we introduce into our economic system, nearly 98 units are wasted. That's right, we are 2 percent efficient. Building a pipeline in the fragile environment of the Arctic Circle to deliver oil that will not arrive for another 10 years from now, and that would supply 180 days of total US consumption, will only do one thing: satisfy the senators of Alaska and the CEOs of oil companies. It will do nothing for US energy security. If you doubt the 2 percent figure, consider two common energy devices: your car, and a light bulb. After a century of engineering, the modern car is still in the Iron Age. Of the energy consumed, about 80 percent is lost, mainly in heat and exhaust. Of the 20 percent that gets to the wheels, only 5 percent moves the driver. Five percent times 20 percent equals 1 percent, a level of inefficiency that means cars burn their weight in gasoline each year. In the case of incandescent light bulbs, 100 percent of the energy input to the lamp becomes heat; only 8 percent becomes light en route to heat, then the emitted light is absorbed and heats the room too. It is essentially a space heater that glows. When you consider that power plants providing the electricity are, on average, 33 percent efficient, and line losses from transmission trim another 7 percent, we are talking about 8 percent of 30.7 percent, or 2.5 percent resource efficiency for our favourite form of illumination. If you drive 45 minutes to work, are stuck in a traffic jam, or sit with your engine idling, efficiency plunges to zero. Likewise, a light bulb left on in a room with no one in it is 100 percent inefficient. The solution to such gross inefficiency is not more energy, and energy conservation doesn't mean lowering the thermostat and shivering. It means increasing energy productivity. People are not clamouring for habitat destruction--what they want is a more intelligent energy policy. What President Bush has completely overlooked are the proven alternatives that greatly increase the productivity with which energy is used. There is now a plethora of innovative productivity techniques that can reduce energy consumption fifty-fold greater than the purported supply of oil in ANWR, and they are cheaper, more effective, and create more jobs. If the estimates are correct, ANWR will provide about 292,000 barrels of oil or about 156,000 barrels of gasoline a day for 30 years, starting in 2011. That would run about 2 percent of the cars in the US for three decades. Improving fleet mileage 0.4 miles per gallon in our light vehicles would accomplish the same objective, with the important bonus that it would cost consumers less. These savings are just the tip of the iceberg. US fleet mileage is currently 24 mpg, a 20-year low. Hybrid electric cars now appearing in show rooms will triple that figure. Current models such as the Toyota Prius get 48 mpg city/highway combined. There are now over 350,000 on the road here and abroad. VW is already selling a car that gets 78 mpg, and may have a 200 mpg car available in 2003. The Big Three are testing family sedans that exceed 70 mpg, that will head for production in the next three years. Another way to think about this is that we can create the equivalent of about 30 Arctic Refuge oilfields in Detroit, with good engineering. It takes bad politics to exploit only one. Before we get a drop of ANWR oil, we will be driving electric cars powered by fuel cells. These cars, which emit drinkable hot-water vapour from the tail pipe, have an extraordinary secondary use: they are mobile power plants with the capacity to provide 5 to 10 times the total power output of all our nuclear and coal plants. Parked cars can feed electricity into the grid, thereby forever eliminating the need for dirty, large, centralized power plants. In buildings--manufacturing, processing, and construction--similar savings abound. The mind set that made cars with 1 percent energy efficiency created our buildings and cities too. With relatively low-tech methods, including new glazing, proper siting, efficient lighting, and passive heating and ventilation, we can create quiet, thermally comfortable buildings that are a visual delight. These buildings save 30 to 50 percent over conventionally built structures that are too hot, too cold, too drafty, too noisy, and not so great to work in. Integrating green buildings with new urbanist planning and layouts can further reduce traffic, noise, energy, and waste by equal amounts. In industry, huge cost and energy savings can be attained as we shift away from the petrochemically dependent reactive chemistry that has produced a witch's brew of compounds that permeate our environment with toxins. New enzymatic techniques not only promise safer compounds, but low-temperature manufacturing that can reduce energy cost by 90 percent. The possibilities for energy efficiency in all aspects of industry are almost overwhelming in their diversity and possibility. The good news is, these savings are made from tools, products, and services that can be created everywhere in the US. They do not depend on oilfields, large capital outlays, or putting critical environments at risk. President Bush's energy policy will reward what a few senators and oil executives want, but not what the American people want. People are not clamouring for the destruction of a sensitive Arctic habitat, more greenhouse gases, climatic instability, or the wanton disregard of the traditional home of the Gwich'in (native) people. What Americans want is security, jobs, stable prices, and an intelligent energy policy. Ignoring the leaky water tank on the hill cannot attain this. No system is 100% efficient. That is impossible, according to physical laws. But America could have a goal of 10% efficiency, an objective that would allow robust economic growth while reducing overall energy use by two-thirds in the next 20 years, a goal that would lead us away from the Oil Age, an age whose end is inevitable. The Oil Age, including combustion processes, which threaten the very stability of life on earth, is ending, not because we are running out of oil, but because we have a better idea. The Stone Age never ran out of stones either. We are on the threshold of a profoundly different economy with respect to energy use. The continued governmental subsidy of coal and oil, whether in Alaska or Virginia or Kentucky or any other state whose senators have seniority, is a sure fire way to hobble America's competitiveness. We can continue to be the most profligate nation in the world with respect to energy, or we can begin to become the most brilliant and innovative. We lead in so many areas of technology ... we can do it with energy, too. Mark Twain said, "You can't see if your imagination is out of focus." To focus the imagination of a nation, a country that is economically strong and environmentally conservative requires just one thing: leadership out of the Oil Age, not halting, backward steps into it. * February 2001 * Paul Hawken is a business leader, environmentalist, and author. He is considered one of the leading architects and proponents of corporate reform with respect to ecological practices. He has founded several companies, and has written such best selling books as The Ecology of Commerce and Growing a Business. The latter became the basis of a PBS series that has aired in 115 countries. He helped found The Natural Step in the United States and internationally, and advises many major companies on sustainability issues. * A version of this article was originally published on Tidepool: News for the Rain Forest Coast, www.tidepool.org To drill or not to drill on BC's Raincoast There has never been commercial extraction of oil and gas off Canada's west coast. Both the provincial and federal governments have a moratorium in place that prohibits the development and extraction of offshore oil and gas from the coast of BC. All projected oil and gas reserves are speculation; none have been confirmed. No environmental inventories or acceptable-risk studies have been made. Provincial government: On Nov. 6, 2000, BC Premier Ujjal Dosanjh publicly confirmed his intention to maintain the moratorium on offshore oil and gas in BC. The premier announced that his government would maintain the moratorium "until science is able to address the dangers from earthquakes and potential spills to safeguard our coastal waters." While this was good news for those of us who care about the ocean, concern remains about what will happen under a new government. BC Liberals have expressed interest in lifting the moratorium. Federal government: In 1971, the federal government placed a moratorium on offshore oil and gas on the coast of BC that is still in place today. In order for offshore oil and gas development to occur, both the federal and provincial governments would need to agree on the lifting of the moratoria. The federal government does not seem to be taking any lead or initiative in pushing this issue, but there is no guarantee that it will not go forward. First Nations: Many First Nations would be affected by the development of an offshore oil industry on the coast of BC. First Nations have unresolved territorial land claims including inside and offshore waters, in the areas thought to contain oil and gas. But there have been no public consultations with First Nations governments. Industry: Although it is hard to know for certain, as far as we have been able to determine, the only company interested in opening up the coast to offshore oil and gas development is Chevron. Shell is the main leaseholder on the coast, but has farmed out the majority of its leases to Chevron. A spokesperson for Chevron says once the moratoria are lifted, they would be interested in setting up on the coast. Other interests: A group of Prince Rupert businessmen continues to pressure the governments to lift the moratoria, claiming this industry will provide jobs for coastal communities. Research: The Living Oceans Society has completed research on the ecological, social, and economic impacts of the offshore oil and gas industry. According to its research, developing this industry would harm our coastal environment and way of life. The Living Oceans Society believes any move to lift the moratorium would be a step in the wrong direction. Contact the Living Oceans Society by e-mail at oonagh@livingoceans.org or phone (250)973-6580. What Causes Breast Cancer? Prevention is ignored if it doesn't promise to produce big profits. by Peter Montague Breast cancer kills 46,000 women in the US each year. On average, each of these women has her life cut short by 20 years, for a total loss of about a million person-years of productive life each year. Of course this huge cost to society is heaped on even greater burdens, the personal anguish and suffering, the motherless children, the shattered families. The medical establishment pretends the breast cancer epidemic will one day be reversed by some miracle cure, which we have now been promised for 50 years. Until that miracle arrives, we are told, there is nothing to be done except slice off women's breasts, pump their bodies full of toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells, burn them with radiation, and bury our dead. Meanwhile, the normal public health approach, primary prevention, languishes without mention and without funding. We know what causes the vast majority of cancers: exposure to carcinogens. What would a normal public health approach entail? Reduce the burden of cancer by reducing our exposure to carcinogens. One key idea, prevention, has defined public health for more than 100 years. But with cancer, everything is different. The prevention of cancer has been banished from polite discussion. Now a new, fully-documented book, Life's Delicate Balance: The Causes And Prevention Of Breast Cancer (New York and London, Taylor and Francis, 2000, ISBN 1-56032-870-3) by physician Janette D. Sherman, poses a fundamental challenge to all the doctors and researchers and health bureaucrats who have turned their backs on cancer prevention. "If cancers are not caused by chemicals, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and ionizing radiation, what are the causes? How else can one explain the doubling, since 1940, of a woman's likelihood of developing breast cancer, increasing in tandem with prostate and childhood cancers?" Dr. Sherman asks. And if exposures are the problem, then ending exposures is the solution. "Actual prevention means eliminating factors that cause cancer in the first place." Sherman is a practicing physician who has treated 8000 patients over 30 years. Unlike most physicians, she possesses an extensive knowledge of chemistry. Furthermore, she has become a historian by examining a large body of medical and public health literature dating back to the 19th century. It is this unique combination--of historical view, knowledge of chemistry, deep personal experience as a physician, and an ethical clarity that primary prevention is the proper policy--that makes this book important and compelling. The book begins with two chapters emphasizing the similarities among all living things that are made up of cells including humans, animals and plants. Cells in every creature can go awry and start to grow uncontrollably, a definition of cancer. Because all cell-based creatures are so similar, what we learn from one can often tell us something useful about another. For example, when we learn from the Smithsonian Institution that sharks get cancer from swimming in waters contaminated with industrial chemicals, we learn (or should learn) some thing useful about our own vulnerability to exotic chemicals. Turning to breast cancer, Dr. Sherman lists the known "risk factors," the common characteristics shared by many women who get breast cancer: early menarche (age at which menstruation begins); late menopause (age at which menstruation ends); late childbirth and the birth of few or no children; no experience breast-feeding; obesity; high fat diet; being tall; having cancer of the ovaries or uterus; use of oral contraceptives; excessive use of alcohol. "What is the message running through all of these risks?" Sherman asks. "Hormones, hormones, and hormones. Hormones of the wrong kind, hormones too soon in a girl's life, hormones for too many years in a woman's life, too many chemicals with hormonal action, and too great a total hormonal load." Sherman then turns her focus to the one fully-established cause of breast (and other) cancers--ionizing radiation, from x-rays, and from nuclear power plant emissions and the radioactive fallout from A-bomb tests. These, then, are the environmental factors that give rise to breast cancer: exposures to cancer-causing chemicals, to hormonally-active chemicals, and to ionizing radiation in air, food and water. How do we know the environment--air, food, water and ionizing radiation--plays an important role in causing breast cancer? Because when Asian women move from their homelands to the US, their breast cancer rate soars. There is something in the environment of the US and other western industrial countries causing an epidemic of this hormone-related disease. The medical research establishment likes to call it "lifestyle factors" but it's really environment. Air, food, water, ionizing radiation. With this basic information in hand, Sherman then describes historically and today the exposure of women to a flood of carcinogenic and hormonally active chemicals, plus ionizing radiation. Take common pharmaceutical products, for example. Canadian researchers have demonstrated enhanced cancer growth in mice given daily human-equivalent doses of three commonly used antihistamines, which are sold under the trade names Claritin, Histamil and Atarax. Two years earlier the same researchers had reported breast cancer promotion in rodents fed clinically-relevant doses of antidepressant drugs, which are marketed as Elavil and Prozac. Millions of women are taking these drugs today. At least five million women in the US are currently taking Premarin, the most-often-prescribed form of estrogen (female sex hormone), to ease the transition through menopause. This is called hormone replacement therapy, and it is routine, recommended medical practice in the US and Canada. A review of 51 studies of women taking hormone replacement therapy showed that those who never took hormones had a breast cancer rate ranging from 18 to 63 per 1000 women. Those who took hormones for five years experienced an additional two breast cancers per 1000 women; after 10 years of hormone therapy, the additional in breast cancers rose to six per 1000. The danger largely disappears five years after discontinuing use. Hormones are big business. Despite evidence that synthetic hormones caused cancer in rodents and rabbits, American drug companies began selling synthetic hormones in 1934 in cosmetics, drugs, food additives, and animal feed. The best-known is DES (diethylstilbestrol), but there were and still are many others. The National Cancer Institute in 1938 published a study showing that DES caused breast cancer in rodents. Three years later, in 1941, they published a second study confirming that DES caused breast cancer in rodents. That year the US Food and Drug Administration approved DES for commercial use in women. DES is 400 times as potent as natural estrogen and can be made for pennies per pill. It was therefore phenomenally profitable and researchers aggressively sought new uses. DES soon was being used to prevent miscarriages, as a "morning-after" pill to prevent pregnancies, and as a breast-enlargement cream. It wasn't long before researchers discovered that they could make chickens, cows and pigs grow faster if they fed them hormones, and a huge new market for hormones opened up. As early as 1947, a hormonal effect was reported among US women who ate chicken treated with growth hormones. Between 1954 and 1973 three quarters of all beef cattle slaughtered in the US grew fat on DES. In 1971, human cancer from DES exposure was confirmed and in 1973 DES was banned from meat, so other growth hormones were substituted. Most recently, the US Food and Drug Administration has allowed the US milk supply to be modified to increase the levels of a growth hormone (called IGF-1) known to stimulate growth of breast cells in women. [Bovine Growth Hormone has not yet been approved for use in Canada. - Ed.] Still, today most US beef, chickens and pigs are intentionally contaminated with growth hormones which is why Europeans refuse to allow the import of US beef. European scientists are asking the same question that Sherman raises: "Hormones are administered to meat animals to promote growth and weight gain. Why should humans expect to not respond similarly to such chemical stimuli?" Then, of course, there are dozens, probably hundreds of hormonally active household chemicals and industrial byproducts--pesticides, cleansers, solvents, plasticizers, surfactants, dyes, cosmetics, PCBs, dioxins, and such--that interfere with, or mimic, naturally occurring hormones. We are awash in these, at low levels, from conception until death. How many growth-stimulating and cancer-promoting hormones can we ingest or absorb through our lungs and skin before we feel the effects? No one in authority is asking that crucial question, but Janette Sherman is asking it, pointedly, and armed to the teeth with scientific evidence. Then there is radioactivity. In 1984, a study of Mormon families in Utah downwind from the nuclear tests in Nevada reported elevated numbers of breast cancers. Girls who survived the bombing of Hiroshima are now dying in excessive numbers from breast cancer. Dr. John Gofman has reviewed 22 separate studies confirming unequivocally that exposure to ionizing radiation causes breast cancer. [See Rachel's Environment & Health News #693. - Ed.] Janette Sherman does a good job of summarizing ecological studies showing that women living near nuclear power plants suffer from elevated numbers of breast cancers. These studies, by their nature, are suggestive and not conclusive. But there is ample reason to believe that all nuclear power plants leak radioactivity routinely into local air and water and that any exposure to ionizing radiation increases a woman's danger of breast cancer. The only way to prevent this problem is to end nuclear power permanently. Why has the US turned its back on the preventive approach to cancer? Sherman returns to this question throughout her book. For example, in a devastating chapter on Tamoxifen (a known cancer-causing chemical now approved by the US and Canada for use in women), she asks, "Why is our primary well-funded National Cancer Institute not devoting its efforts to primary prevention? Has breast cancer, like so many aspects of our culture, become just another business opportunity?" In the end, Sherman concludes, "There is a massing, in a few hands, of the control of production, distribution and use of pharmaceutical drugs and appliances; control of the sale and use of medical and laboratory tests; the consolidation and control of hospitals, nursing homes, and home care providers. We are no longer people who become sick. We have become markets. Is it any wonder that prevention receives so little attention? Cancer is a big and successful business!" And, finally "Reflecting on the purpose of the corporation to sell products and services and maximize profits, it becomes apparent that prevention cannot be in the interest of the bottom line." "What a sad and bitter realization," she concludes. Despite this sad and bitter conclusion, this is a powerful upbeat book about what citizens can and must do to end the epidemic of cancer that is sweeping the western world. If the truth shall set us free, this book is an important part of our collective liberation, freeing us from lies and deceptions, the false promises of cancer cures always "just around the corner." Cancer is caused by exposure to carcinogens. The way to solve the cancer problem is to prevent exposures. This means we must end nuclear power, and demand clean food, water, and air. Janette Sherman's contribution has been to give us powerful evidence on which to act. Now it's up to us. * Peter Montague, Rachel's Environment & Health News #723, April 26, 2001. * See also: Beef Hormones this issue * Rachel's Environment & Health News is published as a free electronic service, but contributions (tax deductible in the US) are welcome. Send your donation to the Environmental Research Foundation, Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036, USA; ph: 1(888)2RACHEL, or (410)263-1584; fax (410)263-8944. To subscribe, e-mail listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS and your full name. Food Cans Leach Hormones A new British study shows that the estrogen-mimicking compound bisphenol A (BPA), used to line tin cans, is leaching into canned food in major quantities. BPA enlarges the prostate gland in mice, advances the onset of puberty in females and reduces fertility in rats. Nearly two thirds of tinned food, from beans to tuna to fruit cocktail, contained BPA. It is also found in white dental fillings. In the survey, scientists examined 62 samples of canned food or drink from UK supermarkets. BPA was detected at up to 0.07 parts per million (ppm) in over half the samples and at 0.35 to 0.42 ppm in three additional cans. The European Community safe consumption level is 3 ppm. The British have concluded that these levels of BPA are no danger to health, although some studies have reported estrogenic impacts at very low doses. * Reuters, May 2001 Sun Screens Deliver More Than Advertised In March, Environmental Health Perspectives published a study on endocrine disrupting chemicals in sun screens. These chemicals have recently found to be long-lasting and bioaccumulative in animals. Five out of six chemicals tested--[enzophenone-3, homosalate, 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor, octyl-methoxycinnamate, and octyl-dimethyl-PABA] -- increased cell proliferation in breast cancer cells. The chemicals also had other endocrine effects. For example, camphor increased uterine weight when applied on the skin of rats. The researchers conclude, "Our findings indicate that UV screens should be tested for endocrine activity, in view of possible long-term effects in humans and wildlife." * In Vitro and in Vivo Estrogenicity of UV Screens, Margret Schlumpf et al., Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 3, March 2001. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p239-244schlumpf/abstract.html LETTERS - Our Readers Respond . . . Our ecospiritual crisis I sure admire and respect your faithfulness, constancy, and dedication to the cause. The Sentinel never ceases to inform and surprise, and is always good quality. I am working as a child-care worker/youth advocate in the public school system in Bella Coola. Getting involved in environmental issues has, unfortunately, meant taking one side or the other in a First Nations political fight. If you are white, and living and working on the reserve, you can only do so by serving without taking sides. I am convinced our fight is not an environmental crisis. It will not be solved by science or technology or politics or organizing. It is an ecospiritual crisis. Until man redefines himself in relation to his world (and he won't, until forced to by the threat of death), we will continue until extinction. I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful, and still ready and willing to work. * Gerhard Gross, Bella Coola, BC Renewed interest A number of years ago I had a subscription to Watershed Sentinel but let it lapse because the news was always so bad that ultimately I put your magazine aside after reading only a story or two. Nevertheless, I admired what you were doing. Recently I was reintroduced to the Watershed Sentinel by my daughter and thoroughly enjoyed the two issues she had on hand. Though I have given my about-face much thought, I can't be certain what has caused it. I think that possibly I perceived the issues you discussed to be too overwhelmingly daunting that your tiny voice of protest was futile, and though, like you, I am a fighter for justice and logic, I could not see the profit in continuing to read about the terrible abuses of the environment, especially when almost every article caused my stomach to knot in anger. What is different today? Here again I'm uncertain, but think the change in me is brought about by what I see is a gathering tidal wave of public support for environmental issues. * Robert Pulsford, Black Creek, BC Efforts appreciated I just want you to know how much I appreciate what you are doing. I read every word. Please continue. * John Rosser, Sointula, BC Leadership lacking Here's my donation to your excellent magazine. There's much to do. A complete idiot is running the most polluting nation on the globe and wants to see it get worse. And there's no leadership in this country. It's up to me and thee. * Richard Betts, Vancouver, BC Inadequate protection Re: Canada Not Safe From Disease I read this article on mad cow and similar diseases in the Watershed Sentinel, April/May 2001. My reaction was one of horror and disgust because, if the data which you present is accurate, there has been a tremendous moral disintegration in Western European and North American society. So, my first job is to check the accuracy of your research. I have come across an article in the Chronicle of Neurology & Psychiatry concerning scrapie infection. Investigators at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin note "the pathogenesis of scrapie infection is not well understood." The article goes on to state that "chemokine levels in brain and in cerebrospinal fluid are potentially useful in the differential diagnosis of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies." It is so unnatural to feed animal tissues to domestic animals which are herbivores that I am thunderstruck at your article documenting the duration and extent of this practice! The failure of Canada's Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to act aggressively to protect Canadians comes as no surprise. Our Federal Government is not noted for its protection of the Canadian nation and people in many of its activities. Nor will it become protective until we citizens demand it of them. In the meantime my thanks for your article and any suggestion you can give in terms of my acting on this information would be appreciated. * William N. Downe, MD, FRCP (C), Victoria, BC Please say Thank you! to our Sustaining Subscribers and Patrons It’s their help that keeps the Watershed Sentinel publishing. Sustaining Subscribers donate $50 a year to the Watershed Sentinel. If desired, we send two copies of each issue, one for a friend. Alberni Environmental Coalition, Port Alberni BC • BC Spaces for Nature, Gibsons BC • W. Bertow, Winfield AB • Les & Joan Cartwright, Courtenay BC • Richard & Sandi Chamberlain, Manson's Landing BC • A. Clayson, Fanny Bay BC • Betty Fairbank, Hornby Island BC • Sue Frazer, Port Alberni BC • Ralph Garrison, Manson's Landing BC • Elaine Golds, Port Moody BC • Colin Graham, Sidney BC • Wendy & Hubert Havelaar, Whaletown BC • Willem J. Havelaar, Courtenay BC • Sheila Hawkins, Burnaby BC • Hollyhock, Cortes Island BC • Shirley & Harry Holmes-Holman, Denman Island BC • Robyn Budd & Erika Kellerhals, Heriot Bay BC • Ruth Ozeki and Oliver Kellhammer, Whaletown BC • Yvonne Kipp, Manson's Landing BC • Kyuquot Community Association, Kyuquot BC • Hannah Main, Victoria BC • Garth & Dianna Malcolm, Gananoque ON • Hugh McNab, Surge Narrows BC • Norske Skog, Elk Falls, Campbell River BC • Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, Port Alberni BC • Monica Oldham, Victoria BC • Maggie Paquet, Port Alberni BC • Tom Pater, Kyuquot BC • Jo Phillips, Sooke BC • Joe Prochaska, Nashville TN • Shivon & Bill Robinsong/Weaver, Victoria BC • Michael Rooksby, Victoria BC • Barbara Scott, Victoria BC • Faith Slaney, Saltspring Island, BC • Charlotte & Leo Smith, Heriot Bay, BC • Sprague Assoc. Ltd., Saltspring Island BC • Sutil Point Planning, Cortes Island BC • Mike Thomsen, Victoria BC • Bill Turner, Victoria BC • Milo & Virgina Wilcox, Whaletown BC • Susan-Marie Yoshihara, Denman Island BC • Ruth and Fred Zwickel, Manson's Landing BC •ihara, Denman Island BC • Ruth and Fred Zwickel, Manson’s Landing BC And Those Who Wish To Remain Anonymous Patrons of the Watershed Sentinel Patrons donate $100 or more to the Friends of Cortes Island Watershed Sentinel Fund, so we can make a better magazine. Your generous donations are tax deductible. Frances Astor, County Dublin, S. Ireland Richard Betts, Burnaby BC Louis & Vera Broten, Edmonton AB Douglas S. Brown, Vancouver BC Jilly & Lew Carlino,Whaletown BC Coast Mountain Expeditions, Surge Narrows BC Cortes U-Brew, Whaletown BC Marna Disbrow, Heriot Bay BC Endswell Foundation, Vancouver BC Alison Graves, Nanaimo BC Barbara Graves, Lantzville BC Greenpeace Vancouver Anthony Grinkus, Vancouver BC Olga Grinkus, Vancouver BC Happy Planet Foods, Salish Coast David & Ann Hiatt, Whaletown BC Peter & Sue Johnston/Wheeler, Lasqueti BC Robin Keller, Whaletown BC Paula Khan, Victoria BC Judith Lawrence, Hornby Island BC Paul MacGillivray, Delta BC Mountain Equipment Co-op Reid & Sakiko Neufer, Kobe, Japan Stefan Ochman, Bamfield BC William Paterson, Vancouver BC Pinchot Family, Bainbridge Island.WA Nina Raginsky, Saltspring Island BC Peter Rowlands, Smithers BC Paul Sanborn, Prince George BC Aaron Smeeth, Campbell River BC Ronni Solbert, Randolph VT Vera Soudek, Kingston ON Roger Sweeny, Vancouver BC Bruce Torrie, Victoria BC Seymour Trieger, Ladysmith BC Cordula Vogt, Saltspring BC Dear Readers: It is a compliment when readers send us letters and articles for publication. We are sorry we cannot publish all the material we receive. Deciding what to put in/what to leave out is a tough call. In order to present a broad range of topics, many good items are shelved and then become dated. You can help by ensuring that your articles are researched, documented and topical. Don't be discouraged. Your next article may trigger a polar shift. Watershed Sentinel Watershed Sentinel Box 39, Whaletown, BC Canada V0P 1Z0 http://www.rfu.org/wss ph/fax: (250)935-6992 email: wss@rfu.org web master: Yendor yendor@rfu.org Publisher and Editor Delores Broten Associate Editor Don Malcolm Computer Edition Yendor Editorial and Production Gloria Jorg, Jay Cates, Liza Morris Artwork Lisa Gibbons, Robyn Budd Cover Delores Broten Special Thanks to Norberto Rodriguez dela Vega, David Cadman, John Werring, Michelle Larstone, Sabina Leader-Mense, Mae Burrows, Marinus Lutz, David Shipway, Guy Dauncey, Colin Graham, Oonagh O'Connor, FrancisToms, Gloria Jorg, Jay Cates, Susan Yates, Peter Ronald, Miranda Holmes, Kathy Smail, the writers, advertisers, distributors, and especially all who send information. This magazine would not happen without you. Print Run 3500 Circulation est. 7,000 Published six times per year Subscriptions $20 one year, $30 two years Canada, $26 US one year Distribution by news stand sale through Disticor (Toronto), by subscription, and to members of Friends of Cortes Island and Reach for Unbleached! Free at Vancouver Island and Vancouver area libraries. For reproduction rights, contact CANCOPY, 6 Adelaide St. E., Ste. 900, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1H6 Member British Columbia Association of Magazine Publishers Canada Post Agreement No. 1384570 PAP Registration No. 09057 ISSN 1188-360X About us Reach for Unbleached! started in 1991 as a grass roots organization in British Columbia, Canada in response to fishing closures due to dioxin contamination from chlorine-bleaching kraft pulp mills. We are now a national foundation, and a Canadian registered charity with a focus on consumer education and pulp mill monitoring. Home | About us | Search | Library | Advertise | Subscribe | Join Us!