MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

Re: [MVCAC] PROPOSED ACTION ON COAL ASH TOXIC WASTE
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 02 Apr '10

02 Apr '10

I am fairly sure if this is a reference to the Coresco site. Here are some notes from the (unapproved) minutes I took for another organization when scientists Petra and John Wood came and spoke to us: Coresco Landfill - (Petra) - The strip mining occurring close to our home has a high acidic coal that in the past wouldn't have been mined, but now it is being performed with the justification that the alkaline substitutes from coal combustion waste (fly ash - fluidized bed and scrubber waste) that are being added, neutralizes the site. However, this has been shown to have associated problems like heavy metal leaching. We have become cognizant about how bad coal combustion waste issues can be, and EPA is slowly establishing regulations. Meanwhile, the Coresco site may be one of the largest in the Nation. This is a time bomb waiting to happen because of the leaching of heavy metals. (Jim Kotcon) ... Coresco would receive fly ash from a coalition of powerplants (Hatfield, Longview, etc). Coresco argues that they are exempt from certain landfill laws. Their landfill would be 500 feet tall on a 300 acre plot without any liner. Our argument is that DEP should wait until there are new landfill rules; DEP hasn't been very helpful and they are intent on allowing a permit to Coresco. ... Yes, I support this, and I am glad that MVCAC is on top of this. I suggest we invite the Woods to a public informational meeting. -Jonathan Reger-Nash, Bill wrote: > Duane et al, > > I support this proposed action. > > Be well and have a nice holiday weekend. > > Bill > Bill Reger-Nash, EdD > > Walk 30 minutes or more daily. > Feel the Power of Half an Hour. > > WVU Department of Community Medicine > Room 3812 E, Health Sciences South > One Medical Center Drive > Morgantown, WV 26506-9190 > 304-293-0763 > wreger <mailto:wreger@hsc.wvu.edu>@hsc.wvu. <mailto:wreger@hsc.wvu.edu>edu > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* mvcac-bounces(a)cheat.org [mvcac-bounces(a)cheat.org] On Behalf Of > Paula Hunt [pjhunt(a)xemaps.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:43 PM > *To:* mvcac(a)cheat.org > *Subject:* Re: [MVCAC] PROPOSED ACTION ON COAL ASH TOXIC WASTE > > Let's do it! > > - paula huntAt 3/31/2010 07:58 PM, you wrote: >> IT IS HEREWITH PROPOSED THAT THE MON VALLEY CLEAN AIR COALITION JOIN >> OTHERS REGARDING >> THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE SPREADING OF COAL ASH >> WITHOUT ADEQUATE >> SAFEGUARDS. COAL ASH FROM BOTH THE FORT MARTIN POWER PLANT AND THE >> LONGVIEW POWER >> PLANT ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR "BENEFICIAL USE" DISPOSAL IN NORTH >> WESTERN MONONGALIA >> COUNTY. THIS PLAN INVOLVES SPREADING THE ASH ON THE SOIL, CLAIMING >> TO NEUTRALIZE ACIDIC >> COMPONENTS IN THE SOIL, WITHOUT FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE DEPTH OF >> APPLICATION OR THE >> TOXIC ELEMENTS THAT WILL LEACH THEREFROM. >> >> PLEASE INDICATE BY APRIL 5TH WHETHER YOU SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED ACTION >> BY THE "MVCAC". >> >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, DUANE NICHOLS (DUANE NICHOLS, >> 304-216-5535) >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> *From:* Emily Enderle [ mailto:eenderle@earthjustice.org] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:10 PM >> >> *Subject:* Organizational CEO-level Sign on Letter to President Obama >> - Protect People from Toxic Coal Ash >> >> Dear Friends and Colleagues, >> >> Thank you all for your continued support on the coal ash issue. We >> hope your organizations will again join us in supporting another >> effort to protect people from this toxic waste. >> >> EPA committed to releasing a rule regulating the disposal of toxic >> coal ash, the second largest industrial waste in the U.S., by the end >> of 2009. EPA did its part by submitting the rule to the White House >> Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in mid-October. OMB has taken >> more than five months to review the rule—an extraordinary length of >> time. Durring this time, OMB has had more than 30 meetings with >> industry groups, providing industry with unprecedented closed-door >> access. Additionally, the White House itself has met with industry >> groups on this topic. The longer this rule drags out, the more time >> industry has to instill fear in lawmakers and the public by wildly >> exaggerating the costs and impacts of the regulation. In the >> meantime, as the Administration delays, our communities and >> environment are put at risk from the devastating impacts of unsafe >> coal ash disposal. >> >> In this letter, the CEOs of Earthjustice, NRDC, Environmental Justice >> Resource Center at Clark-Atlanta University, Physicians for Social >> Responsibility, Southern Environmental Law Center, Environmental >> Integrity Project and Sierra Club, are asking President Obama to >> stand by his Administration's principles - to allow science not >> industry to decide, provide a transparent process that enables the >> public to participate in a meaningful way, and protect people and >> their environment from toxic waste. >> >> Please have your organizations join us in signing on to the attached >> CEO-level letter (also pasted below). A fact sheet on the issue is >> attached. >> >> *To sign on, please email your* *CEO-level sign on information to >> Jeremy Graham at Earthjustice (jgraham(a)earthjustice.org >> <UrlBlockedError.aspx>) by Tuesday, April 6, 2010. Also, it'd be much >> appreciated if you'd circulate this to your networks. >> * >> CEO Name >> Title >> Organization >> City, State >> >> Thank you in advance for your help on this critical issue. >> Emily >> >> _____________________________________ >> Emily Ederle >> Legislative Associate >> Earthjustice >> 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW >> Suite 702 >> Washington, DC 20036 >> T: 202-667-4500 ext. 201 >> C: 202-253-2397 >> F: 202-667-2356 >> www.earthjustice.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >> >> >> April ____, 2010 >> >> >> President Barack Obama >> The White House >> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW >> Washington, DC 20500 >> >> Dear Mr. President: >> >> On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to >> protect communities across this nation from the widespread >> mismanagement of coal combustion waste that endangers public health >> and the environment – and for which there are no current federall >> regulations. >> >> Following the disastrous spill of more than 1 billion gallons of coal >> ash from the Tennessee Valley Authorityâ€™s Kingston Fossil Plant in >> December 2008, 109 directors of environmental groups called upon EPA >> Administrator Lisa Jackson to develop federally enforceable standards >> for regulating coal combustion waste. Shortly thereafter, >> Administrator Jackson pledged to publish a regulatory proposal by >> December 2009. In keeping with her commitment, Administrator Jackson >> submitted a draft coal ash rule to the White House Office of >> Management and Budget (OMB) in October 2009—but over five months >> later, this rule remaiins under review at OMB. The undersigned >> [number of] public interest groups ask you to side with the public >> and sound science to ensure a rule that protects people and the >> environment is released in April. >> >> Continued delay in the issuance of federal regulations for the >> disposal of the 136 million tons of toxic coal combustion waste >> generated annually is dangerous and unacceptable. Unmitigated harm, >> often to poor and minority communities, continues to threaten the >> lives and environment of millions of Americans. Communities near >> Americaâ€™s thousands of coal ash dumps are threatened with poisoned >> drinking water, polluted waterways, and life-threatening failures of >> decades-old dams. The failure to act makes another catastrophic >> failure, like the disaster in Kingston, ever more likely, and it >> makes the poisoning of additional water sources a near certainty. >> >> Releasing the draft rule would trigger the public process of >> rulemaking, thereby ensuring a fair and open process in which all >> stakeholders have an equal opportunity to address the complexities of >> the proposed rule. Until the draft rule is released for public >> comment, the debate occurs almost entirely behind closed doors. >> Industry groups that oppose mandatory federal standards have had more >> than 30 meetings with OMB on this rule – more than ever before on any >> single topic. These groups continue to present unfounded claims of >> power plant closures and exaggerated cost estimates as â€œfact,â€? >> thereby fomenting widespread but unwarranted fear of EPA regulations. >> >> One of the issues industry is using to slow down the rulemaking >> process is the argument that the regulation of coal combustion waste >> will place a stigma on the recycling of fly ash. We believe this >> argument is overstated. Our groups support the beneficial use of fly >> ash. We do not expect the reuse of fly ash to decrease if the >> disposal of ash is regulated as hazardous waste. On the contrary, >> companies will be able to avoid the hazardous waste requirements by >> using coal ash beneficially. Therefore, we think coal ash regulation >> will promote more beneficial use. However, if the coal ash is not >> going to be reused or recycled, then it needs to be disposed of >> following tailored hazardous waste rules. >> >> The EPAâ€™s latest scientific findings lend urgency to the >> promulgation of federally enforceable standards. New EPA leach tests, >> specifically designed for coal ash, reveal that toxic chemicals such >> as arsenic, chromium and selenium, can leak from coal combustion >> waste in concentrations far exceeding the threshold that the EPA uses >> to identify hazardous waste. The EPA also found that the cancer risk >> for children exposed to arsenic in drinking water from unlined ash >> ponds is as high as 1 in 50, which is 2,000 times the EPA's goal of >> reducing cancer risk to 1 in 100,000 individuals. >> >> Further, leading coal combustion waste (CCW) scientists, with more >> than 100 years of combined research experience on the environmental >> fate and toxic impacts of coal ash, recommend federally enforceable >> standards. Drs. E. Dennis Lemly and Christopher Rowe, among others, >> recently submitted a letter to OMB stating â€œMake no mistake about >> it, CCW is a deadly poison to fish and wildlife, and a threat to >> human health when improperly managed.â€? They conclude: >> >> Some of the most destructive and pressing environmental problems with >> CCW are not â€˜in the distant pastâ€™ but are taking place NOW using >> â€˜state approvedâ€™ disposal practices. Threats and impacts are not >> being addressed by the coal power industry and they will not go >> away. They will be a recurring, escalating problem unless adequate >> regulatory controls are put in place. State efforts are >> inadequate….federall regulatory oversight is necessary. Experience >> shows that CCWâ€™s will need to carry a hazardous waste â€˜Câ€™ >> designation if they are to be regulated and disposed in a manner that >> will afford adequate protection to fish and wildlife, as well as >> humankind. >> >> We urge you to consider the EPAâ€™s latest scientific findings and >> the recommendations of scientific experts and put an end to further >> delay. >> >> Thus the undersigned [number] public interest organizations, >> representing several million citizens, respectfully ask the >> Administration to release the proposed coal ash rule for public >> comment this month and to ensure that the rule proposes federally >> enforceable standards that will protect all United States citizens >> and their environment from a truly toxic substance. >> >> Signed: >> >> >> Trip Van Noppen >> President >> Earthjustice >> Oakland, CA >> >> Eric Schaeffer >> Executive Director >> Environmental Integrity Project >> Washington, D.C. >> >> Dr. Robert Bullard >> Director >> Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University >> Atlantic, GA >> >> Frances Beinecke >> President >> Natural Resources Defense Council >> New York, NY >> >> Peter Wilk >> Executive Director >> Physicians for Social Responsibility >> Washington, D.C. >> >> Michael Brune >> Executive Director >> Sierra Club >> San Francisco, CA >> >> -- >> Ryan Rittenhouse >> Public Citizen Texas >> 1303 San Antonio St. >> Austin, TX 78701 >> 512-477-1155 >> www.CoalBlock.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >> >> "If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and >> exhausting it rapidly. >> This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be >> stopped in the interest of coming generations." >> - Nikola Tesla, 1915 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MVCAC mailing list >> MVCAC(a)cheat.org >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > MVCAC mailing list > MVCAC(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac

1 0

PROPOSED ACTION ON COAL ASH TOXIC WASTE
by duane330＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

IT IS HEREWITH PROPOSED THAT THE MON VALLEY CLEAN AIR COALITION JOIN OTHERS REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE SPREADING OF COAL ASH WITHOUT ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS. COAL ASH FROM BOTH THE FORT MARTIN POWER PLANT AND THE LONGVIEW POWER PLANT ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR "BENEFICIAL USE" DISPOSAL IN NORTH WESTERN MONONGALIA COUNTY. THIS PLAN INVOLVES SPREADING THE ASH ON THE SOIL, CLAIMING TO NEUTRALIZE ACIDIC COMPONENTS IN THE SOIL, WITHOUT FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE DEPTH OF APPLICATION OR THE TOXIC ELEMENTS THAT WILL LEACH THEREFROM. PLEASE INDICATE BY APRIL 5TH WHETHER YOU SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED ACTION BY THE "MVCAC". THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, DUANE NICHOLS (DUANE NICHOLS, 304-216-5535) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Emily Enderle [mailto:eenderle@earthjustice.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Organizational CEO-level Sign on Letter to President Obama - Protect People from Toxic Coal Ash Dear Friends and Colleagues, Thank you all for your continued support on the coal ash issue. We hope your organizations will again join us in supporting another effort to protect people from this toxic waste. EPA committed to releasing a rule regulating the disposal of toxic coal ash, the second largest industrial waste in the U.S., by the end of 2009. EPA did its part by submitting the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in mid-October. OMB has taken more than five months to review the rule—an extraordinary length of time. During this time, OMB has had more than 30 meetings with industry groups, providing industry with unprecedented closed-door access. Additionally, the White House itself has met with industry groups on this topic. The longer this rule drags out, the more time industry has to instill fear in lawmakers and the public by wildly exaggerating the costs and impacts of the regulation. In the meantime, as the Administration delays, our communities and environment are put at risk from the devastating impacts of unsafe coal ash disposal. In this letter, the CEOs of Earthjustice, NRDC, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark-Atlanta University, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Southern Environmental Law Center, Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club, are asking President Obama to stand by his Administration's principles - to allow science not industry to decide, provide a transparent process that enables the public to participate in a meaningful way, and protect people and their environment from toxic waste. Please have your organizations join us in signing on to the attached CEO-level letter (also pasted below). A fact sheet on the issue is attached. To sign on, please email your CEO-level sign on information to Jeremy Graham at Earthjustice (jgraham(a)earthjustice.org) by Tuesday, April 6, 2010. Also, it'd be much appreciated if you'd circulate this to your networks. CEO Name Title Organization City, State Thank you in advance for your help on this critical issue. Emily _____________________________________ Emily Ederle Legislative Associate Earthjustice 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036 T: 202-667-4500 ext. 201 C: 202-253-2397 F: 202-667-2356 www.earthjustice.org April ____, 2010 President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to protect communities across this nation from the widespread mismanagement of coal combustion waste that endangers public health and the environment – and for which there are no current federal regulations. Following the disastrous spill of more than 1 billion gallons of coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant in December 2008, 109 directors of environmental groups called upon EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to develop federally enforceable standards for regulating coal combustion waste. Shortly thereafter, Administrator Jackson pledged to publish a regulatory proposal by December 2009. In keeping with her commitment, Administrator Jackson submitted a draft coal ash rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in October 2009—but over five months later, this rule remains under review at OMB. The undersigned [number of] public interest groups ask you to side with the public and sound science to ensure a rule that protects people and the environment is released in April. Continued delay in the issuance of federal regulations for the disposal of the 136 million tons of toxic coal combustion waste generated annually is dangerous and unacceptable. Unmitigated harm, often to poor and minority communities, continues to threaten the lives and environment of millions of Americans. Communities near America’s thousands of coal ash dumps are threatened with poisoned drinking water, polluted waterways, and life-threatening failures of decades-old dams. The failure to act makes another catastrophic failure, like the disaster in Kingston, ever more likely, and it makes the poisoning of additional water sources a near certainty. Releasing the draft rule would trigger the public process of rulemaking, thereby ensuring a fair and open process in which all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to address the complexities of the proposed rule. Until the draft rule is released for public comment, the debate occurs almost entirely behind closed doors. Industry groups that oppose mandatory federal standards have had more than 30 meetings with OMB on this rule – more than ever before on any single topic. These groups continue to present unfounded claims of power plant closures and exaggerated cost estimates as “fact,” thereby fomenting widespread but unwarranted fear of EPA regulations. One of the issues industry is using to slow down the rulemaking process is the argument that the regulation of coal combustion waste will place a stigma on the recycling of fly ash. We believe this argument is overstated. Our groups support the beneficial use of fly ash. We do not expect the reuse of fly ash to decrease if the disposal of ash is regulated as hazardous waste. On the contrary, companies will be able to avoid the hazardous waste requirements by using coal ash beneficially. Therefore, we think coal ash regulation will promote more beneficial use. However, if the coal ash is not going to be reused or recycled, then it needs to be disposed of following tailored hazardous waste rules. The EPA’s latest scientific findings lend urgency to the promulgation of federally enforceable standards. New EPA leach tests, specifically designed for coal ash, reveal that toxic chemicals such as arsenic, chromium and selenium, can leak from coal combustion waste in concentrations far exceeding the threshold that the EPA uses to identify hazardous waste. The EPA also found that the cancer risk for children exposed to arsenic in drinking water from unlined ash ponds is as high as 1 in 50, which is 2,000 times the EPA's goal of reducing cancer risk to 1 in 100,000 individuals. Further, leading coal combustion waste (CCW) scientists, with more than 100 years of combined research experience on the environmental fate and toxic impacts of coal ash, recommend federally enforceable standards. Drs. E. Dennis Lemly and Christopher Rowe, among others, recently submitted a letter to OMB stating “Make no mistake about it, CCW is a deadly poison to fish and wildlife, and a threat to human health when improperly managed.” They conclude: Some of the most destructive and pressing environmental problems with CCW are not ‘in the distant past’ but are taking place NOW using ‘state approved’ disposal practices. Threats and impacts are not being addressed by the coal power industry and they will not go away. They will be a recurring, escalating problem unless adequate regulatory controls are put in place. State efforts are inadequate….federal regulatory oversight is necessary. Experience shows that CCW’s will need to carry a hazardous waste ‘C’ designation if they are to be regulated and disposed in a manner that will afford adequate protection to fish and wildlife, as well as humankind. We urge you to consider the EPA’s latest scientific findings and the recommendations of scientific experts and put an end to further delay. Thus the undersigned [number] public interest organizations, representing several million citizens, respectfully ask the Administration to release the proposed coal ash rule for public comment this month and to ensure that the rule proposes federally enforceable standards that will protect all United States citizens and their environment from a truly toxic substance. Signed: Trip Van Noppen President Earthjustice Oakland, CA Eric Schaeffer Executive Director Environmental Integrity Project Washington, D.C. Dr. Robert Bullard Director Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University Atlantic, GA Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council New York, NY Peter Wilk Executive Director Physicians for Social Responsibility Washington, D.C. Michael Brune Executive Director Sierra Club San Francisco, CA -- Ryan Rittenhouse Public Citizen Texas 1303 San Antonio St. Austin, TX 78701 512-477-1155 www.CoalBlock.org "If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations." - Nikola Tesla, 1915

1 0

US EPA priorities
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Mar '10

22 Mar '10

MESSAGES FROM THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR: WHY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY GO HAND IN HAND AND WHAT EPA'S SEVEN PRIORITIES ARE EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson spoke at the National Press Club on March 8 on how environmental protection and economic prosperity go hand in hand to build a healthier, more prosperous nation, that "…economic opportunity is not possible without sustainability," and that "Without clean energy, the global economy will be running on empty within our lifetimes." _Full text of her remarks_ (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/7…) . She also spoke earlier to EPA employees about EPA's seven priorities for EPA's future: * Taking Action on Climate Change * Improving Air Quality * Assuring the Safety of Chemicals * Cleaning Up Our Communities * Protecting America's Waters * Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice * Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships _Read Administrator Jackson's memo_ (http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-futu…) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

[PSC Docket] ORDER on PSC Case 08-1521-E-C(Barbara Born, et al. v. Longv...
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Mar '10

18 Mar '10

____________________________________ From: docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us To: duane330(a)aol.com Sent: 3/18/2010 3:11:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: [PSC Docket] ORDER on PSC Case 08-1521-E-C(Barbara Born, et al. v. Longview P The case 08-1521-E-C (Barbara Born, et al. v. Longview Power, LLC) has had the following activity : Activity Date: 03/18/2010 Activity Description: Commission Final Order dismissing the complaint as it did not show non-compliance by Longview; directing Longview to file copies of all PA permits obtained as part of this project; etc. Case Final. Removing from open docket. _Click here to view associated document._ (http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…'servicelist'&Ca seServiceListID=31397) This is an automated message. Do not respond to this message. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not accept electronic filings, you will receive a hard copy in the mail. If you wish to respond to the enclosed document, you may do so in writing. Please send your response to the Executive Secretary at the address below. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. About this Notice: You are receiving this notice at duane330(a)aol.com as part of the PSC Service List for this case. If you have received this notice in error, please contact the _Docket Officer_ (mailto:caseinfo@psc.state.wv.us) at: Public Service Commission Of West Virginia P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 304-340-0384 or Toll Free 1-800-344-5113 ext 384 Fax: 304-340-0325

1 0

The Globe is Warming
by Duane330＠aol.com 07 Mar '10

07 Mar '10

Proof of Man-Made Global Warming Grows 'Stronger' LONDON (March 5) -- Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper that says the case for man-made global warming is now "stronger than ever." An international team of scientists led by Britain's Met Office -- the country's national weather service -- has spent the past year reviewing 110 studies published since 2007 that tracked changes in the earth's climate. Their paper, _published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change_ (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123310513/abstract) , concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels. "The science reveals a consistent picture of global change that clearly bears the fingerprint of man-made greenhouse gas emissions," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office Hadley Centre for climate research. "Our climate is changing now, and it's very likely human activity is to blame." Public confidence in climate science has been knocked by a succession of scandals over the past six months. Revelations that the 2007 report from the _U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change_ (http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/un-admits-error-in-overstating-himal…) contained several unverifiable claims, and that the influential climate unit at the University of East Anglia apparently withheld data from skeptics, have led many people to doubt the theory of man-made climate change. Stott says the new Met Office report isn't an attempt to counter this growing wave of skepticism, as the team started work a year ago, long before those so-called Climategate scandals broke. But it is an unashamed attempt to refocus the public debate on the actual science of climate change, rather than claims made about individual scientists in the media. "I hope people will look at that evidence and make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence," _he told the Guardian_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/met-office-analysis-clima…) . His team put together the new set of evidence by comparing computer models of possible causes of climate change, both human and natural, to actual measured changes in air and sea temperature, Arctic sea ice cover, global rainfall patterns and other factors. This forensic technique, known as "optimal detection," reveals how much an observation can be explained by natural changes, such as volcanoes or El Niño, and how much it's attributable to atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The study found that the climate system had changed in ways that closely followed the pattern of man-made climate change predicted by computer models. Human activity, it states, is almost certainly the only explanation for climatic variations recorded across the world -- such as the increase of rain in the northern countries and the decrease in the south, or the retreat of Arctic sea ice. Stott dismissed a popular idea put forward by many skeptics that changes in the solar radiation (or "global brightening") could be behind the shifts. "There hasn't been an increase in solar output for the last 50 years," he said, "and solar output would not have caused cooling of the higher atmosphere and the warming of the lower atmosphere that we have seen." _http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/evidence-of-man-made-global-warming-gr ows-stronger/19384663?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aol news.com%2Fworld%2Farticle%2Fevidence-of-man-made-global-warming-grows-stron ger%2F19384663_ (http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/evidence-of-man-made-global-warming-gr… ://www.aolnews.com/world/article/evidence-of-man-made-global-warming-grows-s tronger/19384663)

1 0

Latest news ...........
by Duane330＠aol.com 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The EIA has a monthly report on electricity usage in the US at _http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html_ (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html) The latest one shows electrical usage dropping 4.6% in 2009 vs. 2008 and coal-generated electricity decreasing a whooping 12.4%. Factor in a recession, but this is still very good news.

1 0

Science March 5th Issue--This is huge
by Duane330＠aol.com 04 Mar '10

04 Mar '10

Little Things Do Matter Gas-phase sulfuric acid is important during atmospheric particle formation, but the mechanisms by which it forms new particles are unclear. Laboratory studies of the binary nucleation of sulfuric acid with water produce particles at rates that are many orders of magnitude too small to explain the concentration of sulfuric acid particles found in the atmosphere. Sipilä et al. (p. _1243_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=3901.451668.654.0r2V29Nui) ) now show that gas-phase sulfuric acid does, in fact, undergo nucleation in the presence of water at a rate fast enough to account for the observed abundance of sulfuric acid particles in the atmosphere. These particles, which contain 1 to 2 sulfuric acid molecules each, were not detectable previously, owing to their small size, with diameters as small as 1.5 nanometers. ____________________________________

1 0

New web-site at dep.wv.gov
by Duane330＠aol.com 03 Mar '10

03 Mar '10

To: MVCAC. Try the new WV-DEP web-site at _www.dep.wv.gov_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Air _Division of Air Quality Home_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/Pages/default.aspx) _Air Quality Index_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/air-monitoring/Pages/AirQualityIndex.aspx) _Open Burning Regulations_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/CandE/Pages/OpenBurning.aspx) _Air Monitoring Data_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/air-monitoring/Pages/dataprocessing.aspx) _Permit Application Forms_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/permitting/Pages/default.aspx) _Policies_ (http://www.dep.wv.gov/daq/General/Pages/Policies.aspx)

1 0

Secondhand Smoke & public health
by Duane330＠aol.com 25 Feb '10

25 Feb '10

Noted Secondhand Smoke Expert to visit WVU Tuesday March 2 Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., Professor of Cardiology from the University of California San Francisco, will present a public health grand round entitled “ Secondhand Smoke and Cardiovascular Health – It’s Even Worse than you Think” at noon in room 1905, HSC Learning Center. Dr. Glantz is considered an international authority on secondhand smoke and has authored over 200 scientific publications. Glantz’s recent analyses confirming reductions in heart attacks among non-smokers were published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association and Journal of the American College of Cardiology in September of 2009. Glantz has appeared in film and television programs including the PBS Series, Frontline. He is one of the founders of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. His visit is sponsored by the Department of Community Medicine and the Translational Tobacco Reduction Research Program as part of the Current Clinical Concepts in Tobacco Treatment Series and Public Health Grand Rounds. For information on Continuing Education and webcast access, visit: _http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/ophp/grandRounds.asp_ (http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/ophp/grandRounds.asp) Lunch will be provided for those who RSVP by February 26th to _ophp(a)hsc.wvu.edu_ (mailto:ophp@hsc.wvu.edu) For additional dates and topics in the Current Clinical Concepts in Tobacco Treatment Series, please view the attached “Save the Date” flyer.

1 0

<CRU> Climate Change Data Sets Are Huge
by duane330＠aol.com 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

Science 19 February 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5968, p. 934. [DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5968.934] News of the Week, Newsmaker Interview by Eli Kintisch Embattled U.K. Scientist Defends Track Record of Climate Center Phil Jones is at the center of a swirling controversy over e-mails stolen or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, which he has directed since 2004. In the 3 months since those messages came to light, Jones has been battered by criticism that the e-mails reveal a failure to share climate data publicly and an effort to prevent certain papers from being cited in international climate change reports. He's stepped down temporarily from his job to allow for an independent inquiry, and he's been treated for depression. But Jones hasn't walked away from the battlefield. "I've got no agenda here. I'm not a politician. I'm just a scientist," he told Science during an interview last week from the University of East Anglia. Jones declined to talk about allegations concerning the hacked e-mails, citing the ongoing investigation. But he forcefully defended the quality of the center's efforts to create a global temperature database, which points to an average 0.1°C warming of Earth's land areas per decade since 1900. That work earned him a 2002 medal from the European Geosciences Union, among other acclaim. Here are some highlights from the interview. Q: If the CRU data set were set aside, are there other data that corroborate your findings about rising temperatures? P.J.: There's the two other data sets produced in the U.S. [at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. But there's also a lot of other evidence showing that the world's warming, by just looking outside and seeing glaciers retreating, the reduction of sea ice ... overall, the reduction of snow areas in the Northern Hemisphere, the earlier [annual] breakup of sea ice and some land ice, and river ice around the world, and the fact that spring seems to be coming earlier in many parts of the world. Q: Critics say that your producing the same trends as the NASA and NOAA data sets is insignificant given that you start with the same raw data. CREDIT: UEA P.J.: There are differences. The two American sets use a larger number of [temperature] stations than we do. They both use about 7200 stations, and we use about 5000 stations. But we look at that data in different ways and have different techniques for deciding whether the stations are used or not. Q: One of the real challenges is going from the available raw data to the final temperature sets that you release. Do you feel that you have released enough information that someone could repeat that exercise? P.J.: Yes, I feel they have. [Our papers] have been peer-reviewed; we've been doing this work for almost 30 years now. [NOAA] has something called the Global Historical Climatology Network, and people can download the station data—it's essentially the same data, it may not be exactly the same—they could go and take that data, make their own choices about what stations to use, ... they could reproduce their own gridded temperature data. A lot of the people at the moment criticize what we do but [are not doing] anything constructive and new. Q: A sticking point with some of your critics has been how much of the data isn't available. P.J.: We've been putting up more of the data online on the U.K. Met Office site [covering] 80% of the stations we use. You can download the data and you can download the program we use to produce the data sets. Q: One concern is whether there are adequate procedures in place to assure the quality of this data. P.J.: That's the sort of work we've done in the past and published in the papers. Q: You've emphasized that you have a small staff. Would more people checking these data be a useful thing? P.J.: It could be useful, but then we've got to bring them up to speed in terms of what we're looking for. ... The national meteorological services [which provide the raw numbers] are doing quality control on this data before it even reaches us. Q: When during your career has pressure from outsiders to criticize or, as you would put it, "distort" your work become significant? P.J.: In 2007, [as] the blog sites started then. I had responded to some of these people in years earlier but had given up. ... I just didn't have the time to respond. They didn't seem to want to understand. Q: One of the skeptics who wanted station data was Warwick Hughes. What did you mean when you wrote in an e-mail to him that "even if WMO [World Meteorological Organization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work." P.J.: I'd rather not go there. It was an e-mail written in haste. Q: When did the pressure become severe? P.J.: In July 2009, we received 60 Freedom of Information requests in a few days—each request was for five countries' worth of data. We probably should've responded to these requests in a different way. We stand by the science that we were doing. Maybe we need to be more proactive and open about releasing data. But the 60 requests were just too much to deal with at that one time. Q: Do you have any regrets about how you handled the chapter you've co-authored in the 2007 IPCC report? P.J.: No regrets, but I don't really want to go talking about IPCC. I stand by that chapter. Q: Why are you speaking out now? P.J.: It just seems like the right time. It was too difficult back in November and December. Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online) "that's my story and I'm sticking to it"

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC