The Environmental Defense Fund's blogs cover environmental health, climate, energy, and policy, including PFAS, lead in water, and hydropower emissions.
HN commenters cite its posts on lead in hot water heaters and PFAS in food and plastic containers, and its posts on US energy policy.
>It is very obviously not. I'm just pointing out that your 'bird' analogy doesn't work because the government makes laws and policy that affect how existing property owners can use their land all the time.
Yes it does, but there is obviously a legal line which can be crossed and be considered a government seizure of property.
The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 [1] is the example for groundwater usage, currently being litigated all over the state.
It doesn't change groundwater rights, but sets up agencies with the power to allocate usage in penalties which ignore the groundwater rights or seniority of rights. A farmers who have been somewhere for a 100 years can and are being prevented from using water, while recently developed communities or other stakeholders get a pass.
>Water rights aren't god given like the Central Valley farmers would like you to believe. They fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the United States of America.
What does that mean in this context? All of your property and even your life fall under legal jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the state can ignore the laws it has established and take them away without due process.
Where established groundwater rights exist, this is clearly the case of the house being demolished to make way for the freeway, not making rules for the color of your paint. It is taking something that is recognized property of one person who is using it, and then using it for…
I strongly dispute Cohen's claims on available uranium. US government estimates are that there's a ~80 year supply of uranium as a small fraction of present total electrical generation. That falls to 6 years if all global energy is to be supplied from extant uranium reserves. Claims that uranium can be feasibly extracted from seawater are interesting, and though I waive final judgement, I'm not convinced.
I've addressed a 62,000 year supply estimate for thorium. The author makes a massibe substantive underestimation of present total energy consumption. Correcting for this, using his abundance and reserves estimates the supply is good for 42 years: http://redd.it/23nvqs
NB: Thorium is not present in seawater at any appreciable concentration, and the uranium seawater trick doesn't apply.
Climate change and sea level rise are non issues since nuclear power will be widespread before those things cause any problems.
There's a baked-in several-degrees rise already, and a very significant lag in concentrations and climate effects. We'll be seeing the consequences, it's a matter of how much and for how long. I've seen estimates of 300 - 1000 years for the atmospheric CO2 balance to return to preindustrial levels even if all human emissions cease. See: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/26/ghg_lifetimes/
There's also the problem that a large portion of carbon emissions aren't due to fossil fuel…
The EU is, typically, doing a far better job of researching this than the FDA. The latter of which seems almost entirely driven by corporate interests at this point. There's a paper from the EU here [1] which is far too verbose, but offers some interesting data:
- For PFOS and PFOA, ‘Fish and other seafood’ was the most important contributor to the mean exposure, followed by ‘Eggs and egg products’, ‘Meat and meat products’, and ‘Fruit and fruit products’. For PFOA, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’ and ‘Drinking water’ were also important contributors. For several of the other PFASs, ‘Fish and other seafood’, ‘Fruit and fruit products, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products’, ‘Drinking water’, as well as ‘Starchy roots and tubers’ were the most important food groups.
- Diet is the major source of PFAS exposure for most of the population, but other routes such as dust ingestion and indoor air inhalation may also contribute substantially
- PFASs are transferred from soil to plants. In general, transfer rates are higher for the short chain PFASs and decrease from roots to leaves to fruits.
- In food producing animals, PFASs transfer from feed to animal derived food like milk, eggs and meat, with clear differences between species and the type of PFAS. This is also relevant for soil ingestion by foraging farm animals
---
I think the conclusion is that everything is potentially exposed, so the individual source is more important than the type of medium. Another somewhat…
from the article: The economic and practical reality of trying to root out phthalates, which can be found in many parts of the food manufacturing process, could be daunting.
The chemicals could enter the food in many places along the supply chain, including at the farm, where flexible plastic tubes carry milk from the barn, or in the making of the cardboard container that holds the noodles. The chemicals tend to collect in foods with a high fat content, such as cheese.
Committing to purge phthalates from the manufacturing of one food type raises questions about the chemical content of the myriad other products made with similar flexible plastic equipment.
Here's a little more background on the FDA reviewing petitions from consumer health orgs and responses lobbyist group Flexible Vinyl Alliance:
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/29/fda-ortho-phthalates-food-anyones-guess/
If your water system has been doing corrosion control, you’re fairly well (but not 100% protected) against lead exposure from your old copper pipeworks.
The big risk is new lead-soldered piping and leaded (largely pre-2014 USA brass plumbing but [1]) fixtures, because even with corrosion control, it takes a while (months to years) to build up that protective layer.
What people get wrong with pasta is they think they need a strong boil. While the steam is hotter than the liquid, most pasta is in contact with the water and your energy is going into evaporating more water off. Just use a spoon to stir occasionally and use a pot cover to condense the steam back in.
[1] http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/06/nsf-61-lead-from-a-new-lead-free-brass-faucet/
Hydro is tough for a lot of reasons. It's pretty ecologically devastating, flooding large regions and turning fish into mulch. It can also produce as much climate impact as a fossil fuel plant - or more - largely due to methane and CO2 emissions from the newly flooded land. [1] I'm not 100% sure where the Quebec hydro mix actually lands due to the significant variability on a plant-by-plant basis, and I don't know if that's factored in or how it was amortized in the StatsCan link - this wholistic analysis is fairly new afaik.
I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made.
[1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-considered-a-clean-energy-source-hydropower-can-actually-be-bad-for-climate/