East Coast Sea Level Is Rising Much Faster Than the World Average

It is not news that sea levels are expected to rise as global warming melts ice and causes water to expand.  It is not unusual that the rise in sea level is not uniform worldwide as factors such a water temperature and ocean currents come into play.

Nevertheless, the rate of sea level rise on the U.S. East Coast is surprising.  In parts of the East Coast, the level of the sea is rising at three to four times the average global rate.  The area in question is roughly from Cape Hatteras, NC to the Boston area.  In this area the level of the sea climbed at the rate of 2 to almost 4 millimeters per year between 1950 and 2009.  Global average sea level rise was about 0.6 to 1 millimeter during the same period.

The situation puts cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York at much higher risk of flooding.

In these areas gradual sea level rise could cause rapid retreat of shoreline and significant loss of wetland habitats. Also to be expected are more frequent floods.

The cause of the exceptionally rapid sea level rise on the East Coast is debatable.  Some say that fresh water from Greenland’s melting ice is disrupting North Atlantic currents, slowing the Gulf Stream and causing East Coast sea levels to rise.  It is also argued that the rise is part of a 100 to 200 year natural cycle.

The Gazette does not believe, as some have asserted,  that the rise in waters is related to gay marriage rates. Nor do we believe that North Carolina laws requiring that future state sea level forecasts be based on only past patterns will cause Mother Nature to reverse her course.

 

More from National Geographic

Tar Sands Mining Is a Sticky Issue in Water-Poor Utah

Bitumen, a black sticky substance that native Americans used to call “rocks that burn,” is now commonly called tar sands oil. In Utah there is a lot of it. Enough, it is estimated, that if it is mined for oil extraction it could supply US energy needs for three full years. That’s 25 billion barrels of oil.

As with most mining and oil production operations, however, there is a down side. One, the area in Utah where a Canadian company is planning to establish a bitumen mine, is water poor, and tar sands mining is a very water intensive endeavor. Second, water tar mining also uses chemicals that aren’t easy to get rid of, and waste products from the mining process present disposal problems that haven’t been fully addressed.

The proposed mine is expected to use 116 gallons of water per minute on a 24-hour basis. The company,  U.S. Oil Sands,  estimates that as much as two barrels of water will be used for each of the 2,000 barrels of bitumen it expects to produce each day. (Converted into gallons, that means the company needs as much as 168,000 gallons of water to produce 84,000 gallons of bitumen.)

The oil sands region gets only 10 to 12 inches of rain a year and Utah is the second driest state in the nation, behind only Nevada.

The U.S. Oil Sands operation is built around an extraction process that uses d-Limonene (pronounced de-lie-mo-neen),  a liquid with a lemon-like smell made of oils pressed from the skins of oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruits. Small quantities of d-Limonene give cookies and candy a fruity taste. It’s also used as an industrial solvent in removing asbestos shingles and cleaning concrete.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has run limited tests on d-Limonene and includes the substance on its Generally Recognized as Safe List. But its report on d-Limonene says that determination was based on small quantities used to flavor foods. In large doses, laboratory rats got sick when exposed to the chemical.

The company says that its technology is proprietary and refuses to discuss d-Limonene or explain how it is used to process oil sands. In documents filed before for the mining commission, U. S. Oil Sands stated that d-Limonene should not be discharged into surface waters and “may be toxic to aquatic organisms.”

Tar sands mining poses many unanswered questions.

For much more information on the tars sands controversy in Utah, see the Inside Climate News.

 

 

 

Savage Shark Eats Man’s Arms Then Throws Him on the Beach to Writhe and Die

As we all know, sharks are savage creatures. Since 1580, there have been approximately 2500 confirmed unprovoked attacks of sharks on humans.  Of those, 475 or so were fatal. That’s more than one person killed by a shark every year!

Humans, a far more advanced species, kill around 100,000,000 sharks each year.

A large percentage of sharks are killed now for the purpose of cutting off their fins to make shark fin soup. Shark fin soup is a Chinese delicacy that is also enjoyed in other parts of the world, including the US. Many of the fins come from endangered species.

The fins are usually removed before the sharks are thrown back into the water alive. The process is known as  “finning”  and it consists of the removal and retention of shark fins and throwing the carcass back into the sea. The shark is most often still alive when it is tossed back into the water. Unable to swim, the shark slowly sinks toward the bottom where it is eaten alive by other fish.

Shark finning has increased over the past decade due to the increasing demand for shark fins (for shark fin soup and traditional cures), improved fishing technology, and improved market economics. Shark specialists estimate that 100 million sharks are killed for their fins, annually.

One pound of dried shark fin can retail for $300 or more. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. The worst part is that shark fin soup is largely a status dish–something that people eat not because it is nutritious or because it tastes good, but because it costs a lot.

 

B. Bea Sharper on Swimming

 

Gazette Numerical Wizard B. Bee Sharper Reveals the Numerical Facts About Swimming that Harper’s Missed

 

Percentage of swimming worldwide that involves water — 100%.

Percentage of Americans who are afraid of swimming pools — around 50%.

Approximate number of drowning deaths that occur each year — 3800.

Approximate number of these drowning deaths that occur in pools –700.

Approximate number of pool-related emergency department treated injuries that occur each year — 5700.

Percentage of Americans who are afraid of deep, open bodies of water, like lakes — around 66%.

Percentage of Americans who are afraid of the deep end of a swimming pool — 46%.

Percentage of American men who say that they are unable to swim — 21%.

Percentage of American women who say that they are unable to swim — 51%.

Percentage of Americans who say that they are unable to swim — 37%.

Percentage of African Americans who say that they are unable to swim — 62%.

Percentage of Caucasian Americans who say that they are unable to swim — 32%.

Percentage of Asian Americans who say that they are unable to swim — 47%.

Percentage of Hispanic Americans who say that they are unable to swim — 44%.

Rank of drowning as cause of unintentional injury and death in children 1 to 19 — 2.

Factor by which 5 to 19 year old African American children are more likely to drown in a swimming pool than their peers — 6 times.

Percentage reduction in drowning of 1 to 4 year old children which can be attributed to formal swimming lessons –88%.

Reference Source: “More Swimmers Will Result in a Healthier Society, Fewer Drownings and Reduced Healthcare Costs, ” by Thomas Lachocki,  Ph. D..  Paper commissioned by the National Swimming Pool Foundation and reprinted in Water Conditioning and Purification Magazine, August, 2012,

Editor’s Note:   B. Bea Sharper, a big swimming pool fan,  wasn’t bothered that the numerical facts for this piece came from the National Swimming Pool Foundation, but the whole thing seemed a bit awkward to me.  The point being made, if I understood the article,  is that you should get  yourself a swimming pool so  you can learn  to swim so you won’t drown in a swimming pool.  Or that African Americans  especially should get a pool because their children are six times more likely than “their peers” to drown in a pool.  Isn’t this a little like saying you should get your child a gun so he will learn how to handle it and will be less likely to kill  himself with a gun? And as for the 46% of Americans who are afraid of the deep end of a swimming pool, they need to put in a pool so they can overcome their fear of the deep end of the pool. There’s a lesson here somewhere, but I’m missing it. –Hardly Waite, Pure Water Gazette.

 

 

 

 

Budget Cuts Lead to Pay Cuts which Lead to Worker Shortages which Lead to Public Danger and Greater Expense

In San Jose, CA, a rash of resignations driven by recent pay and benefit cuts has left the city’s massive wastewater treatment plant severely short-handed, raising the risk of a catastrophic sewage spill and forcing the city to pay top dollar for contract workers and overtime staff to keep it running.

A recent auditor’s report said, “Fewer people with less experience are now working more hours to operate and maintain the plant.” The reason given is below market compensation for skilled, experienced employees.

The San Jose plant has lost 90 workers — 43 percent of its workforce — in the past three years, according to a city management report that said the shortage has required costly overtime for remaining employees. The city is now considering a very pricey solution: Hiring contract workers.

Contract workers not only cost considerably more but are seldom as skilled as the regular workers they are replacing.

As water treatment and wastewater treatment plants age, cities are increasingly burdened with costly upkeep. Taxpayers seem unwilling to pay for services, creating a very dangerous situation. Political will is usually lacking when it comes to raising utilities prices to reflect the real cost of water because Americans have been conditioned by years of artificially low prices to believe that water should be free.

We must start paying a fair price for the water we use. Water is an area where austerity costs more in the long run.

More information about the Weepy Seepy dilemma.

Missouri Residents Are Angry Because They Weren’t Warned of TCE Contamination

 

Residents at Elmwood, MO in St. Louis County expressed justifiable anger upon learning that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been aware of serious contamination of their water since an industrial spill in 1988 but has not told them about it until now.

The DNR has been working on the issue since at least 1994,  but residents who have been using the tainted water were not informed of the 1988 spill until August of 2012. The EPA has recently been called in to aid in the investigation. The investigation seems to be mainly concerned with who is responsible for the spill and, therefore, financially responsible for the cleanup. The current occupant of the building where the spill occurred was not the tenant at the time.

The contaminant in question is Trichloroethylene (TCE). It is most commonly used as a degreaser for metal parts.  It can lead to chronic disease and cancer.  Levels once considered safe are now considered unsafe.  Trichloroethene is a manufactured, volatile organic chemical. It has also been used as a paint stripper, adhesive solvent and as an ingredient in paints and varnishes. The chemical can affect the nervous system.

Ten homes in Elmwood were recently tested for TCE contamination and all ten tested positive. Three homes had elevated TCE levels.

Standard water treatment for removal of TCE is activated carbon filtration or reverse osmosis.

The moral: If you’ve been trusting regulatory authorities to assure that your home’s water is safe, it may be time to rethink this.  Every home supplied by a municipality should probably have a good, whole house carbon filter and a reverse osmosis or high quality carbon drinking water system.

More about the Elmwood TCE Issue.

More about TCE.

Dr. Mercola Reports on Yet Another Study Indicating That

the US Is A Backward Country

According to the popular mercola.com website, fluoride is in 2012 still being added to 70 percent of public drinking water supplies in the US ostensibly as a cavity preventer.

According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, “This benefit is dubious at best, as there is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.

“Yet, while fluoride in drinking water does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay, numerous studies show that this chemical has a wide array of devastating health effects – one of them being lowered IQ.”

A review of brain studies involving the use of fluoride has concluded that one of the adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children is damage to their neurological development.  According to the Harvard researchers, children who lived in high-fluoride areas had “significantly lower IQ than those in low fluoride areas,” with the authors noting: ” The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.“

This adds to the mounting evidence demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland. The results of one study looking at children’s intelligence in two towns – one with fluoridated water and one without – were particularly revealing, with about 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scoring as “bright, normal or higher intelligence” compared to only 8 percent in the high-fluoride area.

Further, 15 percent of children in the high-fluoride city had signs of mental retardation, compared with only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. And the study even accounted for other potential variables, such as lead exposure, iodine deficiency or a history of brain disease or head injury. There have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage.

Read Dr. Mercola’s full account.

How to Keep Your Well Healthy

 

by Chris Carl

Reprinted from Care2.

Gazette Introductory Note:  This excellent overview of water well health is reprinted as a service to our readers.  The author points out basics that every well owner should be aware of.  Well owners have a responsibilty to themselves and to others.  When you punch a hole down to the water table, you open an avenue for contaminants to enter the ground water.  –-Hardly Waite, Gazette Senior Editor. 

“Wellhead protection, whether a dug well or artesian, is a top priority in having a healthy well,” said Bart Cushing, owner of Cushing & Sons Dependable Water Wells in Keene, New Hampshire. “Wellhead protection will also solve about eighty percent of any problems you might run into as well,” he added. In the past few decades, wells have gone from being dug two to three feet wide to the more modern six-inch inch width and are primarily artesian and capped with cement.

Your first consideration when contemplating a well on your property is finding a well drilling business that has experience and references. Cushing said that people sometimes think they are saving money by hiring a contractor who is inexpensive and uses cheap, possibly hazardous materials. “I’ve had a lot of business during the recession fixing a lot of these mistakes,” said Cushing.

Once you’ve hired a reputable company you will need to consider:

*Where is the ground water?

*Is the proposed well away from sources of contamination?

*Is the location convenient to power and the building being supplied with water?

*Is the location assessable for drilling and pump installation?

Protecting your well from contaminants

Cushing advised having your well tested at least once a year, suggesting the late spring as the best time to test as that is when there is the most run-off from melting snow.

Cushing said he has been very surprised over the years regarding some of the things people don’t understand about keeping the water in their well healthy. “For example, if gasoline is spilled within one hundred feet of a well and there is enough of a gradient, sure enough, there will be petro chemicals in your well,” said Cushing. Though he added the chemicals could take two to three days to seep into the well.

 Atrazine Is Still Widely Used in The US

The herbicide atrazine is a fairly common ingredient of city tap water in the United States.  Atrazine is banned in the European Union,  but corporate-friendly US regulating agencies still allow it to be used.

Atrazine is one of the regulated chemicals that cities have most difficulty keeping within the EPA required limits.

The Huffington Post recently reported that  the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to notify the public about data showing that atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. Atrazine has been studied for its potential link to breast cancer, prostate cancer, and birth defects, and the EPA considers it to be a potential endocrine disruptor.

Removing atrazine is a costly undertaking for cities, requiring expensive carbon filtration equipment.  To recover the cost of filtering atrazine, water companies in six states are preparing a lawsuit against the makers of atrazine, the Swiss company Syngenta.  (Lots of luck.)

The case of atrazine and other herbicides clearly underlines the need for point of use treatment.  Atrazine can be removed with relative ease with a high quality carbon drinking water filter, but it is very expensive for city water suppliers to provide high quality carbon filtration for water that is going to flush toilets and water golf courses.

More on city water chemicals from the Huffington Post

 

U.S. Lags Behind China and India, Ranking Third in Overall Water Consumption