Monsanto’s Monstrous History!

Tags

1900's, 1930's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2, 2000, 4-D, Agent Orange, agriculture, brain disorders, caffeine, Cancerous, Carcinogenic, chemicals, control, corruption, crooks, crops, Deadly, dioxin, DNA, EPA, evil, FDA, Federal Government, flavoring, food, Food & Water Watch, food supply, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genocide, GM food, GMO seeds, GMOs, greed, harmful, hazardous, Health Problems, herbicides, History, horror, Indian farmers, insecticide, Lethal, List of Superfund sites in the United States, manipulation, monopoly, Monsanto, PCBs, pesticides, plastics, poison, poisonous, Political corruption, Polychlorinated biphenyl, power, power abuse, power-hungry, Roundup, rubber, saccharin, Satan, Sauget Illinois, seeds, sterilization, suicide, synthetic, technology, Toxic, U.S, United States, unsafe., vanilla, vanillin, Vietnam War

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

Monsanto controls our food, poisons our land, and influences all three branches of government.

Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I’m sure there’s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I’m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Monsanto’s pesticide product line includes a number of chemicals named as Bad Actors by Pesticide Action Network. They include Alachlor (a carcinogen, water contaminant, developmental/reproductive toxin, and a suspected endocrine disruptor), Acetochlor (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Atrazine (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Clopyralid (high acute toxicity), Dicamba (developmental/reproductive toxin), and Thiodicarb (a carcinogen and cholinesterase inhibitor).

Roundup: The Benign Herbicide?

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weedsthat have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio.

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

She also calls Monsanto “the poster child for the need for antitrust enforcement” – something that the Justice Department has yet to successfully deliver up. In fact, last November the government ended a three-year antitrust investigation of Monsanto.

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

Source:  http://www.alternet.org/food/how-monsanto-went-selling-aspirin-controlling-our-food-supply?paging=off

 

Sand Fracking Causes Lung Disease and Cancer!

Tags

AFL-CIO, Arkansas, Barack Obama, bribery, Canada, cancer, Carcinogenic, chemicals, Colorado, construction, contamination, corporations, corruption, cracks, Crystalline Silica, Deadly, Death, Dirty Fossil Fuels, disease, Drilling, Drinking Water, dust, Encana, Encana Corp., environment, environmental catastrophe, environmental disaster, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Eric Esswein, Esswein, experts, exposure, Federal Government, Federal Officials, fossil fuels, Frack Sand, fraud, gas industry, Glacier Sands LLC, greed, Hydraulic Fracking, hydraulic fracturing, Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking, Industry, Lethal, lung disease, machines, manufacturing, Mining, mining corporation, Minnesota, money, money laundering, nanoparticles, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, natural gas, North Dakota, Occupational safety and health, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, oil, oil industry, particles, Peg Seminario, Pennsylvania, poisonous, Political corruption, power-hungry, protection, regulations, respirators, Safety, safety violations, samples, Sand, Sand Fracking, Seven Sands LLC, Shale, Silica, Silica or Sand Fracking, silica sand, Silicosis, Texas, theft, Tim Hicks, tiny, Toxic, transportation, trucks, U.S, United States, unregulated, unsafe., vacuum, water, Well Water, White House, White House Office of Management and Budget, Wisconsin, workers

When workplace safety expert Eric Esswein got a chance to see fracking in action not too long ago, what he noticed was all the dust.

It was coming off big machines used to haul around huge loads of sand. The sand is a critical part of the hydraulic fracturing method of oil and gas extraction. After workers drill down into rock, they create fractures in that rock by pumping in a mixture of water, chemicals and sand. The sand keeps the cracks propped open so that oil and gas are released.

But sand is basically silica — and breathing in silica is one of the oldest known workplace dangers. Inside the lungs, exposure to the tiny particles has been shown to sometimes lead to serious diseases like silicosis and cancer.

Traditionally, silica exposure has been associated with jobs like mining, manufacturing and construction. But, as Esswein, a researcher with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other safety experts have started to realize, some workers in the newly burgeoning fracking industry may be at risk, too, because of their exposure to silica dust.

“When sand was handled — that is, when it was transported by machines on site, or whenever these machines that move sand were refilled — dust, visible dust was created,” Esswein says.

He was visiting fracking sites because he wanted to study the potential chemical hazards for oil and gas workers, and he initially figured he and his colleagues would probably assess workers’ exposures to chemicals like drilling fluids. But when he saw the plumes of dust coming off the sand-handling machines and surrounding workers, he realized it could be a real hazard. The government has long set limits on how much workers can inhale.

“Knowing what I know about silica and respirable dust, that was the particular chemical that we chose to look at,” Esswein says.

He and his colleagues visited 11 fracking sites in five states: Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas. At every site, the researchers found high levels of silica in the air. It turned out that 79 percent of the collected samples exceeded the recommended exposure limit set by Esswein’s agency.

There were some controls in place, says Esswein, who notes that “at every site that we went to, workers wore respirators.”

But about one-third of the air samples they collected had such high levels of silica, the type of respirators typically worn wouldn’t offer enough protection.

These unexpected findings have come just as federal safety officials are trying to set stricter controls on silica for all industries. Some proposed new rules have been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget for more than two years.

Peg Seminario, director of safety and health with the AFL-CIO, a group of unions that has been pushing for stronger silica regulation, says the situation with fracking is a wake-up call.

“Hopefully it will give some impetus for the need for the silica regulation — that there is a whole other population at risk and those numbers are potentially growing,” says Seminario.

Workplace inspectors with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration wouldn’t have been aware of this potential risk for fracking workers before this recent study because, unless they receive a complaint or there’s an accident, they generally don’t see the process of hydraulic fracturing. That part of setting up a well happens quickly — and once a well is up and running, contractors move on to the next one.

Government officials and the fracking industry say they’re now working together to reduce workers’ exposures. They started with quick fixes, like putting up warning signs and simply closing hatches on sand-moving machines.

Some oil and gas companies are also testing new technologies. Tim Hicks, a safety expert with Encana Corp., says they’ve been trying vacuum systems that attach to sand-moving machines and suck up the dust.

The results so far are encouraging, Hicks says, but his company is still testing to see how much of a reduction in airborne silica is reasonably achievable.

“We’d like to envision a site that, you know, we could handle sand and sequester it all, and perhaps someday not need to use respirators,” says Hicks.

He says he’s not sure whether that goal is possible, or how long it would take to get to that point. “But I can say that at the rate we’re going,” Hicks says, “we’re much more likely to hit that [target] than we were prior to this issue being recognized.”

Hicks says he has only been working in this part of the oil and gas business for a few years and couldn’t speculate as to why the industry didn’t recognize this potential health risk earlier. People, he says, seemed to think the dust was basically just dirt.

Source:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/29/175042708/Sand-From-Fracking-Operations-Poses-Silicosis-Risk

Please Help Wisconsin & The Open-Pit Mining Bill!

Tags

2013, America, American, Americans, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Big Oil, Carcinogenic, chemicals, citizens, Congress, cover-up, Deadly, deception, Dirty Fossil Fuels, earth, Economy, environment, EPA, failure, Finite Energy Source, fossil fuels, greed, Illinois, Iron Ore, Minerals, Mining, mining operations, natural gas, oil, Open Pit Mining Bill, Open-pit mining, Republicans, Scott Walker, tourism, U.S., U.S.A., unhappy, United States, United States of America, Voters, Wisconsin

Tell our legislators NO!! We are NOT happy with their environmentally destructive votes!!

Article To Note:  

Wisconsin’s open pit mine bill passed 17 – 16. Next stop: Court:  https://johnniesblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/wisconsins-open-pit-mine-bill-passed-17-16-next-stop-court/

 

100 Million+ Americans Exposed to Toxic Drinking Water!

Tags

2010, 2011, 2011 Study, agencies, America, Americans, best, buffer zones, California, cancer, cancer-causing, carcinogen, Carcinogenic, chemicals, children, chloroform, choramine, Clean Water Act, Conservation, consumers, contamination, Drinking Water, earth, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Working Group, EPA, EWG, failure, Failures, families, farmers, Federal Government, Federal Officials, fertilizer, filters, global, grandchildren, grandkids, guide, guides, Health Officials, Human, human carcinogens, Humans, incentives, kids, Lisa Jackson, manure, Municipal Water, nitrosamine, parents, pesticides, planet, pollution, protection, reform, reforms, soil, tap water, Toxic, Trihalomethane, U.S., U.S. citizens, U.S.A., United States, United States of America, unregulated, victims, Wastewater, Wastewater Treatment, water, water filtration, water filtration systems, water pollution, Water Treatment, Water Treatment Facilities, Well Water, wetland, world, Worthless

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

A new Environmental Working Group analysis of 2011 water quality tests by 201 large U.S. municipal water systems that serve more than 100 million people in 43 states has determined that all are polluted with unwanted toxic chemicals called trihalomethanes. These chemicals, an unintended side effect of chlorination, elevate the risks of bladder cancer, miscarriages and other serious ills.

“Many people are likely exposed to far higher concentrations of trihalomethanes than anyone really knows,” said Renee Sharp, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the analysis. “For most water systems, trihalomethane contamination fluctuates from month to month, sometimes rising well beyond the legal limit set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.”

Trihalomethanes are formed when chlorine, added to treated water as a disinfectant, reacts with rotting organic matter such as farm runoff, sewage or dead animals and vegetation. Their concentrations tend to rise when storms increase organic pollution in waters that serve as sources for tap water.

Scientists suspect that trihalomethanes in drinking water may cause thousands of cases of bladder cancer every year. These chemicals also have been linked to colon and rectal cancer, miscarriages, birth defects and low birth weight.

Only one of the systems studied by EWG—Davenport, Iowa—xceeded the EPA’s upper legal limit of 80 parts per billion of trihalomethanes in drinking water. Since that regulation was issued in 1998, a significant body of scientific research has developed evidence that these chemicals cause serious disorders at much lower concentrations. Among the research are two Taiwanese studies conducted in 2007 and 2012 that associated increased risks of bladder cancer and stillbirth to long-term consumption of tap water with trihalomethane contamination greater than 21 parts per billion. Some 168 of systems, or 84 percent of the 201 large systems studied, reported average annual concentrations greater than that level.

California public health officials reviewed the research around trihalomethane contamination in 2010 and determined that to reduce the risk of bladder cancer to no more than one in a million, the drinking water standard would need to be set at 0.8 parts per billion, which is 100 times lower than the current legal limit set by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“New science makes a compelling case for stronger regulations and a stricter legal limit,” Sharp said.

The EPA regulates four members of the trihalomethane family, the best known of which is chloroform, once used as an anesthetic and, in pulp detective stories, to knock out victims. Today, the U.S. government classifies chloroform as a “probable” human carcinogen. California health officials consider it a “known” carcinogen. The EPA does not regulate hundreds of other types of toxic contaminants formed by water treatment chemicals. Among these unregulated but dangerous chemicals are nitrosamines, which are formed when a chloramine, a chlorine compound used for water treatment, reacts with organic matter. In 2010, then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson launched a drinking water initiative that committed the agency to investigate nitrosamine contamination. The U.S. government considers some chemicals in the nitrosamine family to be “reasonably anticipated” to be human carcinogens.

Clean source water is critical to breaking this cycle. The EPA has found that every dollar spent to protect source water reduced water treatment costs by an average of $27 dollars.

“We must do a better job of keeping farm runoff, sewage and other pollutants from getting into our drinking water in the first place,” said Sharp. “By failing to do so, Congress, the EPA and polluters leave no choice for water utilities but to treat dirty water with chemical disinfectants. Americans are left to drink dangerous residual chemicals generated by the treatment process.”

Environmental Working Group (EWG) is calling on federal officials to:

• Reform farm policies to provide more funds to programs designed to keep agriculture pollutants, such as manure, fertilizer, pesticides and soil out of tap water.
• Renew the conservation compliance provision by tying wetland and soil protection requirements to crop insurance programs and requiring farm businesses who receive subsidies to update their conservation plans.
• Strengthen and adequately fund conservation programs that reward farmers who take steps to protect sources of drinking water.
• Fund more research on the identity of and toxicological profiles for hundreds of water treatment contaminants in drinking water.
• Reevaluate the measurement of water treatment contaminants so that consumers cannot be legally exposed to spikes of toxic chemicals.
• Expand source water protection programs to prevent and reduce pollution and to conserve land in buffer zones around public water supplies.

To reduce exposure to trihalomethane and many other pollutants in drinking water, EWG recommends consumers use a water filter system. EWG has released its online water filter guide, which helps consumers figure out which filter is best for themselves and their families.

Source:  http://ecowatch.org/2013/americans-exposed-toxic-water/

Dark History of DuPont, Monsanto’s ‘Other’ Competition!

Tags

Bayer, chemicals, corporations, Dow Chemical, Dupont, evil, GMOs, Monopolies, Monsanto, poisonous, seeds, Syngenta

Dark History of Dupont

Have you heard the difference between rain forest and a jungle? Well rain forest has a PR while a jungle is just a jungle. That’s the difference between Monsanto and DuPont where DuPont is the rain forest. DuPont is an American chemical company and the world’s third largest producer of chemicals, agrochemicals, polymers, safety materials, electronics and genetically modified seeds. DuPont has its facilities in 70 different counties. After ExxonMobil and Dow, DuPont is the third largest producer of chemicals in the United States.

 

DuPont was established in 1802 by Eleuthere Irenee Du Pont. Eleuthere Irenee Du Pont ran away from the French revolution and few years after founded DuPont in US by the money he brought from gunpowder machinery from France. By 1811 DuPont was the largest supplier of gunpowder for US military and positioned itself as being the largest supplier of gunpowder during the U.S. Civil War. From 1902 to 1912 DuPont expanded quickly into production of smokeless powder and dynamite. During WW1 40% of explosive used by world powers was supplied by DuPont. Along the way DuPont purchased smaller chemical companies but in 1902 the government took DuPont to court and declared that it was a monopoly that DuPont was dominating the explosive business. Based on the court ruling DuPont had to create both Atlas Powder Company and Hercules Powder Company. DuPont also founded the first two industrial laboratories and improved its military Rifle. In 1914 DuPont invested and got largely involved in automobile industry. From 1920 to 1935 DuPont discovered the first synthetic rubber, nylon, Teflon and polyester.

During WW2 from 1941 to 1945 DuPont was the largest producer of war supplies. DuPont also played an important role in Manhattan Project and production of the first atomic bomb during WW2 that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the same war DuPont produced 4.5 billion pounds of explosive for military. However the horrors of war made DuPont huge profit. From 1950s to 1970s DuPont came up with developing new raw materials like Dacron, Mylar, Lycra, Corfarm and Corian. In 1981 DuPont got into a bidding war with Seagram Company who owned some shares in Conoco to purchase Conoco Inc. Conoco was a major American oil & gas producer and acquisition of Conoco made DuPont one of the top ten US producers of oil and gas. In 1999 DuPont sold its shares to Philips Petroleum Company.

In 1999 DuPont became the largest seed company and producer of hybrid seeds that is used for production ofgenetically modified corn and soy. DuPont is among the four top biotech companies that produce 100% of genetically modified seeds and 60% of world pesticides. The other three biotech companies are Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer. These top biotech companies are also the largest producers of pesticides in the world. The farmers get subsidy to produce soybeans and corn from the government. Most of these genetically modified cornand soy is used to feed the livestock to fatten them up. 60% of genetically modified corn and 47% of genetically modified soybeans produced in US are fed to livestock.

DuPont pays millions of dollars to food lobbyist to defend its policies; last year DuPont spent $4.8 million for lobbying. However most of these food lobbyists who aggressively peruse the policies of DuPont & Monsanto have worked or are working for the government. In 2007 presidential campaign Obama mentioned that the department of agriculture wasn’t department of agribusiness and promised to put people’s need ahead of financial interests. However some officials in charge of USDA or FDA have been defending, lobbying or working for biotech companies like Monsanto and DuPont:

– Michael Taylor: Former VP in Monsanto who is now the FDA deputy food commissioner

– Tom Vilsack: Former pro-biotechnology governor of Iowa that was assigned as USDA secretary.

– Roger Beachy: Former director of Monsanto who is now director of USDA

– Elena Kagan: Took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in Roundup Ready Alfalfa case and is now nominated to Supreme Court

– Rajiv Shah: Former director of pro-biotech Gates Foundation who served as USDA secretary

– Linda Strachan: Monsanto’s and DuPont’s representative who is assistant secretary for Department of Agriculture and EPA

– Islam Siddiqui: Former DuPont and Monsanto VP who is now the representative of agriculture negotiator for US trade

– Ramona Romero: Corporate console to DuPont that now is nominated as General Counsel for USDA In 2002 based on the Institute of Political Economy Research DuPont was marked the number one among 100 of contributors to air pollution in the US.

Over the last decade DuPont has been involved in polluting the environment, air and water. In 2002 the residents of Wood County in West Virginia were informed by the spokesman of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection that their air was contaminated by DuPont’s plant producing toxic chemical called C8 (PFOA). In 2011 researchers found out that there is a correlation betweenhigh blood pressure in pregnant women and C8. This high blood pressure epidemic is usually combined with protein leakage into urine that can cause pre-eclampsia that can threaten the health and life of both mother and baby.

Mid-Ohio valley residents’ water was also contaminated with C8 as a result of nearby DuPont’s plant. Medical studies show that three out of four residents’ of Mid-Ohio Valley have signs of pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia due to high exposure to C8. Teflon cookware and other nonstick products are made from PFOA or C8. Although DuPont insist that exposures to C8 chemical known as PFOA doesn’t cause any health issues, studies show that exposure to C8 by consuming food in Teflon cookware that contain C8 over a period of time can cause immune system disorder, thyroid, liver problems and higher cholesterol rate in children.

In 2005 Glenn Evers, the former top DuPont scientist revealed that at least by 1981 DuPont was aware of the health side effects of using paper chemical coating used for food packaging. This dangerous chemical is like C8 that accumulates in people over time and has adverse side effects. In 2006 officials of the United Steelworkers revealed a report that showed DuPont’s safety program called STOP is based on the idea that all injuries are caused by workers. However Mike Wright head of Health Safety and Environmental Department reveals that the last 20 year of investigation shows the root of many catastrophic incidents in DuPont has been related to unsafe hazards, conditions, workplace and failure to file industrial accidents report to OSHA. Based on Ken Test head of USW DuPont Council many of DuPont workers and retirees suffer from being exposed to dangerous toxic substances and chemicals. DuPont and Monsanto are both doing a very good job deceiving the public opinion and covering up their lies, crimes and misdeeds and so far they have been contaminating our environment, air and water with their dangerous chemicals and substances.

Although DuPont and Monsanto agreed to work with each other on sharing their biotechnology on production of genetically modified seeds and crops, Monsanto is now suing DuPont for violation of license agreement between the two companies in 2002. At the same time DuPont is suing Monsanto for its monopoly and restricted agriculture policies that engage no competitors and illegally holding to the details of federal patent about Roundup Ready. DuPont created its own genetically modified soy bean product called Optimum GAT that was meant to compete with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM soy product. However the Optimum GAT failed to perform and DuPont added Monsanto’s Roundup into its own existing Optimum GAT. So Monsanto is taking DuPont to court for failing to establish license agreement between the two. However if Monsanto’s patent is enforceable and deemed void anyone could start using Roundup Ready which would be a huge victory for food freedom.

Jeffrey M. Smith:  The GMO Threat (One hour long – HD video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oPvkZv5MfRw

Source:  http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/dupont-history/#Teflon

*Editing Note:  Dow Chemical is another biotech company not listed in this article!

 

Five Effects of Fracking You Have To Read To Believe!

Tags

America, Animals, Carcinogenic, chemicals, cover-up, cover-ups, diesel, Drinking Water, earth, Economy, environment, failure, fracking, fraud, gas, global, Humans, hydraulic fracturing, Infrastructure, Jobs, natural gas, panic, poisoning, poisonous, pollutants, Poor, Public, Rivers, Sand Fracking, secret, technology, Texas, U.S., U.S. Government, United States, Wisconsin

5 Weird and Frightening Effects of Fracking You May Not Know About

We know fracking has environmental and health damages, but there are other terrifying consequences.

October 20, 2012  |

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Boule

This article was published in collaboration with GlobalPossibilities.org.

What comes to mind when you think of fracking? Perhaps it’s images of tap water being lit on fire or stories of families suffering health problems after nearby wells are fracked. Indeed, the health andenvironmental impactsof fracking are being documented, but it’s important to know that fracking is a catalyst for widespread negative consequences. This list includes five effects of fracking you may not have heard about.

1. Methane Geysers

This past June, a methane geyser was found in Pennsylvania’s Tioga County. Yes, a geyser — shooting methane-infused water 30 feet up in the air.

Once the geyser was discovered, the county immediately turned to Shell, which was drilling in three nearby locations. Shell and the Department of Environmental Protection began investigating, and it was correctly suspected that an abandoned well from the 1930s contributed to the problem. Last week, a new report confirmed that Butters well, drilled in 1932, was part of the chain reaction that triggered the geyser. But the main problem was Shell’s fracking, as it displaced methane pockets underground, which then moved into Butters well and shot up to the surface.

Improperly abandoned wells, like Butters well, are hard to uncover, as they were drilled long before permits were required or any kind of records were kept. With as many as 300,000 wells drilled in Pennsylvania over the past 150 years, it’s unknown how many abandoned wells there may be that could be dangerous. For example, the DEP informed Shell of Butters well, but there was no information on whether or not it had been plugged. Meanwhile, regulators don’t requiredrilling companies to search for, inspect and plug abandon wells.

Though abandoned wells provide an easy pathway for methane to reach the earth’s surface, once displaced by fracking, the harmful gas can also make its way upward through cracks in the ground. Methane is an odorless, flammable gas that can cause breathing problems at high concentrations and is more than 20 times more effective in trapping heat and contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide.

2. Stolen Land

What happens if you’re a land owner who lives on a profitable mineral site, but doesn’t want corporations fracking on your land? Well, apparently, they will maneuver a way to frack your land anyway.

In a new report published last week, Reuters explored oil and gas companies’ nationwide land grab. The report focused on Chesapeake Energy Corporation, which has become the leader in petitioning state agencies when land owners refuse to sign over their land to fracking or oil drilling companies. In Texas, since 2005, Chesapeake had made 1,628 requests to drill on land that owners refuse to lease— nearly twice as many sought by its rival Exxon Mobil — and the state has only rejected five of them.

Chesapeake has made land-leasing one of its top priorities, controlling 15 million acres and spending more than $31 billion to acquire drilling rights. Playing the land grab game allows corporations to attain prospective drilling locations while locking out competition. With such a profitable opportunity, Chesapeake is making sure it’s getting its way by any means necessary. One employee was even caught saying on tape: “If properties don’t want to sign, if we have 90 percent secured of the well that we need, we have the power to put these people in the lease without their permission. …We can do whatever we want.”

When it comes to profit, property rights just don’t seem to matter. And a mix of money in politics, as well as a desire for profit, has weakened regulation.

“I don’t think the state should be able to take a landowner’s rights to generate a profit for a private company,” said David Conrad, an Ohio resident who opposes fracking, but will soon have a Chesapeake well under his home.

However, as Reuters reported:

In its petition, Chesapeake told regulators its proposed drilling unit could produce 4.5 million barrels of oil and 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas — if the plots of the 49 land owners who didn’t lease their property to Chesapeake were included.

If not, Chesapeake said, the unit would be 75 percent less productive and would miss out on an additional $71 million in revenue, according to its application. That math carried the day.

3. Waste-Filled Wine

If you don’t hate fracking already, what if you learned that it can affect wine? Furious? Me too.

Vineyard owners in California are growing increasingly wary of fracking as gas companies begin preliminary operations. Venoco has started exploring Monterey Shale for both oil and gas drilling. Last year, the company filed an application for drilling permits in Monterey County, according to Simon Salinas, a member of the county’s Board of Supervisors, and it already holds hundreds of thousands of acres in the formation, has drilled more than 20 wells and has invested $100 million in oil exploration.

With vineyards and farmlands covering 200,000 acres of Monterey that help make up an $8 billion agricultural business, Salinas told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Anything that can taint our water and food supply could be devastating to our economy.”

Paula Getzelman, a grape-grower in Monterey, said, “If you don’t have a good water supply, your land is worthless.”

Besides fears of contaminated water, Salinas also mentioned that when residents realize the fracking process uses millions of gallons of water that they need for their crops, they will be quite upset.

But even if these threats don’t come to fruition, residents are still concerned that fracking will have a negative effect on their marketability. After all, with cities like Napa and Sonoma not too far away, who’s going to want Monterey’s fracking wine?

Across the country, in Brooklyn, NY, a winery with similar fears about fracking in the Marcellus shale, recently hosted an anti-fracking benefit.

The winery stated on its Web site:

The potential for fracking affects Brooklyn Winery, as we source grapes for our wine from a number of vineyards in New York state and many of our wine bar’s seasonal menu items include ingredients grown on upstate farms.

4. Dairy Cows At Risk

Got milk? Maybe not for long. According to research from Penn State University, fracking has been found to reduce dairy production.

The university researchers set out to uncover how fracking in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region is affecting dairy farming, the state’s top agricultural sector. The researchers examined dairy cow numbers, milk production and fracking activity among various counties in Pennsylvania between 2007 and 2010. They found that counties with 150 or more Marcellus Shale wells saw a 19 percent decrease in dairy cows, while counties with no wells saw only a 1.2 percent decrease. In a similar fashion, milk production in these counties with 150 or more wells declined by an average of 18.5 percent, while counties with no wells had about a 1 percent decline.

This research seems to challenge the popular narrative that farmers use the money they receive from fracking companies through leasing their land to improve their farms. The researchers note that additional research is needed to figure out the exact cause of the decrease of dairy production. One researcher wondered whether farmers were taking the money they received from their leases and going into a new occupation, or if they are being forced out of farming due to fracking’s environmental effects or a decrease in their farm’s marketability.

5. Contaminated Food, Stillborn Calves and Poisoned Animals

Imagine fracking fluid seeping out of your next burger — not appetizing? It may be a reality as more and more livestock are raised near fracking sites. Hundreds of animals have already been affected after coming into contact with fracking fluid. Last year, 28 beef cattle in Pennsylvania were exposed to the fluid. Only three of the 11 calves these cattle gave birth to survived. In Louisiana a few years ago, 16 cows dropped dead after drinking fracking fluid.

As New York Governor Cuomo soon decides whether or not to frack in the state’s economically struggling areas, Rita Yelda of Food & Water Watch recently wrote a commentary urging him to consider fracking’s detrimental effects on food.

She wrote:

New York is a national leader in a variety of agricultural products, and about 25 percent of the state’s land area is used for food production. This space may end up being shared with thousands of air polluting drill rigs, and could also be affected by soil contamination from leaks, flares, explosions, fires and experimental waste disposal methods.

Definitely doesn’t sound delicious.

Alyssa Figueroa is an editorial fellow at AlterNet. She is a recent Ithaca College graduate who double-majored in journalism and politics. Follow her on Twitter@alyssa_fig.

How to Dismantle Frac Sand Industry Rhetoric

Tags

America, Carcinogenic, chemicals, cover-up, cover-ups, diesel, Drinking Water, earth, Economy, environment, failure, fracking, hydraulic fracturing, Infrastructure, Jobs, natural gas, poisoning, poisonous, pollutants, Poor, Public, Rivers, Sand Fracking, secret, technology, Texas, Toxic, U.S., U.S. Government, United States, Wisconsin

How to Dismantle Frac Sand Industry Rhetoric: Notes on the Resource Exploitation Framework

Friday, October 12, 2012

By Thomas W. Pearson, University of Wisconsin-Stout

A controversial issue such as frac sand mining is commonly seen as something “under debate,” with at least two sides facing off and the truth lying somewhere in the middle. However, the two sides often talk past each other. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that at least two very different conversations are taking place (if not more). Each conversation represents a unique set of taken-for-granted assumptions and values, a conceptual or normative “framework” through which people view the world.

One such normative framework was on display at the Conference on Silica Sand Resources of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I’ll call this framework, which is represented by the frac sand industry and its supporters, the resource exploitation framework. Held October 1-3 at the Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Park, MN, the conference was organized by the Precambrian Research Center of the University of Minnesota-Duluth and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, and sponsored by dozens of private corporations that operate in the mining and energy sectors. The first evening featured a keynote presentation by a retired ConocoPhillips executive, and a series of technical sessions were held the second day, attended by several hundred people. The third day was a regional tour of silica sand deposits, active mines, and other infrastructure. I attended the technical sessions on Day 2.

Deconstructing industry “framing” devices

The technical presentations I attended addressed such issues as the geological origins of silica sand, commercial uses of silica sand, including use in hydrofracking and drilling for oil and gas, and silica sand mining, processing, transportation, permitting, regulation, reclamation, and economic impacts.

Across these presentations, it became clear that most speakers used a common rhetoric and operated within a shared conceptual framework that guided their view of frac sand issues. What I mean by conceptual framework is an underlying set of shared beliefs and values that remain tacit, never fully articulated, but which guide and organize a person’s view of the world. These are filtering lenses, so to speak.We all rely on such frameworks, sometimes referred to as our cultural belief system or worldview, to help us make sense of the complexities of the world around us. Conceptual frameworks are often supported by and embedded in specialized language or rhetoric. The language itself can work to “frame” or structure one’s perspective, setting boundaries around what is talked about and how. Since these frameworks are usually unstated or taken-for-granted, one of the tasks of the social sciences is to identify their key elements, to raise them to the surface, so to speak, for discussion and critical analysis.

So what are some of the elements that constitute the resource exploitation framework?

The citizen-deficit frame

One of the most widely held but unstated framing devices used by the frac sand industry is the “citizen-deficit” frame, which shapes how industry deals with public officials and local communities. Most speakers simply assumed that concerned citizens lack accurate information, that their concerns and opposition to frac sand mining stem from misunderstanding, fear, and lack of knowledge. It is assumed that if citizens had more information, they would support frac sand mining or at least not oppose it.

Most of the speakers took the citizen-deficit frame for granted, as part of “the nature of things,” but it was most clearly illustrated by a presentation delivered by a private consulting company. The Consultant (as I’ll call the speaker) has a background in geology, but was asked to give a presentation about the economic aspects of frac sand mining. He began by emphasizing the extensive research he did to prepare for his presentation, suggesting he sought out hard data about the economic costs and benefits of sand mining. The Consultant concluded that the “economic benefits are pretty huge,” including such things as jobs and the “pretty obvious” tax revenues. He stated that these benefits are “quantifiable” and “verifiable,” yet he didn’t bother to cite any data or sources to support his claims. He didn’t even try. And this is a key aspect of how conceptual framing devices operate: the accuracy of the frame is not the issue, the issue is what meanings are carried by the frame and how the frame sets parameters around what is discussed, by whom, and with what consequences.

Making no effort to hide his disdain for critics of mining, The Consultant then asserted that claims about negative economic impacts are “estimated” and “assumed.” “There’s no proof, it’s all allegations,” he stated. He flatly asserted that “there is no data” on the negative economic impacts. He then went on to say that the biggest cost he has identified stems from local moratoriums and restrictions on mining. “People are shooting themselves in the foot,” he said, they are turning down jobs, taxes, and economic benefits. “These people,” said The Consultant, as if talking about some foreign Other, drawing lines between us and them, “are moved by emotions and fear,” and “their sources of information are social media,” “where misinformation dominates.” “What drives them is not clear,” he stated. They succumb to “Not In My Backyard, or NIMBY, syndrome,” and “feed off of fear mongering, as if miners are boiling kittens in hot oil.” His comments were gleefully received by most of the audience, who applauded enthusiastically at his unfounded assertions.

Most, if not all, of what The Consultant said was untrue. But the point is not the accuracy of his comments, rather how he sought to frame the issues and the people involved. The citizen-deficit framework begins with the assumption that the public is lacking adequate information and simply incapable of understanding “technical” or “specialized” issues related to mining. This framework does not even allow for viewing citizens, communities, and the public on equal terms with so-called “industry experts.” It casts citizens and opponents as misinformed and motivated by emotion and fear (as opposed to reason and science, presumably represented by The Consultant and other industry experts). It also stigmatizes citizens as selfish and narrow-minded, helplessly overcome by a “NIMBY” affliction (as opposed to making a rational determination that it’s probably not good to have open-pit strip mining and associated industrial operations near your home or in your community).

Sadly, most speakers operated within this conceptual framework, suggesting a much larger pattern for how the frac sand industry relates to citizens, local communities, and the general public. From the standpoint of industry, citizens are not allowed a legitimate voice within this framework. Rather, it functions to close off discussion and debate before it can even get started.  It is assumed that the questions raised by citizens are invalid, their concerns unfounded. The standpoint of “citizen” or “the public” is dismissed as lacking authority and legitimacy, and the focus of industry is to figure out ways to appease the “fears” of citizens, overcome local opposition, or navigate around regulations. Interaction with community members is simply a “public relations” or marketing issue.

It’s not at all surprising, then, that the conference organizers made no effort to include representatives of community groups.

“Can you imagine your life without silica sand?”

Other rhetorical strategies were deployed throughout the day to frame the conversation and close-off potential avenues of question and critique. Many of these frames revolved around the assertion that sand is an integral part of our society. I’ve come across these claims numerous times over the past several months, and many were mobilized during the conference as part of a promotional video produced by Fairmount Minerals (Wisconsin Industrial Sand), screened for us by a V.P. of marketing.

The flashy, sophisticated video portrayed happy middle-class families engaged in mundane activities, using everyday products that have some connection to sand. The theme of the video was “people, planet, prosperity.” Some of the key framing devices included:

• Sand is mundane. The video emphasized that silica sand constitutes 43% of the earth’s crust.
• Sand is everywhere. The video emphasized that sand is used by various industries as a raw material to produce lots of stuff, such as glass, metal casting, roads, golf courses, fiberglass insulation, and so on.
• Sand is timeless. The video emphasized that sand has been used and mined for hundreds, no, thousands, of years.
• Our civilization was built on sand. The video flatly stated: “For thousands of years, sand has been a critical component of our civilization.”

These framing devices seek to insulate the current frac sand industry from critique. They do so by framing industrial frac sand mining as pervasive, inevitable, timeless, natural, even the linchpin of civilization. Why bother questioning or opposing such an activity? From this perspective, it seems contradictory to raise questions about frac sand mining, because we use so much sand. It’s also apparently treasonous, since to question sand is by implication to question civilization as we know it. Pretty serious stuff.

What these frames conveniently ignore is that people are not opposed to the mere existence or commercial use of silica sand. People are concerned about the rapid and haphazard growth of industrial mining activity, suddenly concentrated in a fairly small region of the country. The frac sand industry generates short-term wealth for a few people and for large, usually out-of-state corporations, while leaving the rest of us to worry about the consequences: destruction of existing landscapes, new environmental health problems related to silica dust and water quality, new safety hazards on our roads, and uncertain economic impacts.

But within the conceptual framework adopted by the frac sand industry, there is little if any opportunity to articulate these concerns. Such concerns are dismissed, stigmatized, and cast as irrational or unthinkable.

Disguising private interests

As has been widely noted by concerned citizens, the Conference on Silica Sand Resources was misleadingly promoted as a balanced effort to examine the various questions, concerns, and issues related to frac sand mining. The conference description even states that: “In the face of this rush to expand current operations and develop new mines, there is an urgent need among the public, media, government regulatory agencies, and energy and mineral resource industries for credible information about this industry. This conference seeks to answer many of the questions various stakeholders have raised about the development of this resource.”

One would assume that all of the actors listed — the public, media, government, and industry — would be represented at the conference. And indeed, there were a few speakers affiliated with other universities and state regulatory bodies. But a quick glance at the conference schedule reveals that the list of speakers is overwhelmingly dominated by private corporations and people interested in promoting frac sand mining. Non-industry speakers merely provided basic background information about regional geology and existing silica sand resources, or about the regulatory process at state, county, and local levels. No one representing community or citizen perspectives was included, nor were researchers who raise legitimate questions about social, economic, environmental, or health concerns. Yet the conference was portrayed as if “all concerns” and “all perspectives” had a seat at the table.

The conference sought to advance the interests of the mining industry, disguised as a “neutral,” “fact-based” endeavor. The conference webpage was hosted by the University of Minnesota-Duluth and prominently displays the logo of the Precambrian Research Center. On the surface, the conference drew on the aura of a public university and widely-held expectations about academic research (such as use of empirical evidence, consideration of multiple viewpoints, peer review, and prioritizing of the public interest, among other expectations). This was a shallow effort to lend the legitimacy associated with a public university to what was ultimately a private industry affair.

Concerned citizens sniffed this out early on, and organized a demonstration to protest the narrow focus of the conference and to raise awareness about their concerns. More than 50 protesters greeted attendees of the conference on the first night, chanting, displaying signs and banners, and scrawling messages in chalk on the sidewalk. Then, on the third day, a smaller group of protesters climbed on top of a bus that was to shuttle conference attendees on a regional silica sand tour. They delayed the tour by more than 90  minutes until police arrived, and unfurled a banner over the windshield of the bus that read “Our tragedy is not your tour.”

Community empowerment or corporate power? 

Resource extraction industries such as frac sand mining have arrived in Wisconsin and Minnesota to exploit and profit from a natural resource currently in high demand for use in hydraulic fracturing, an equally questionable and controversial activity that has caused social and environmental turmoil in rural communities throughout other parts of the country. The Conference on Silica Sand Resources was largely an industry exercise to develop strategies for overcoming local democratic control over land use, natural resources, and community development.

Concerned citizens and critics of industrial frac sand mining are not motivated by fear or misunderstanding. By contrast, they are motivated by an acute realization that our region is undergoing a dramatic transformation, one that is potentially permanent and fundamentally unfair. Throughout the region, neighbors and community members are organizing, educating themselves, and pushing for transparency and informed decision-making. This the heart of local democracy, a process that we should work to enable and empower, not silence.

Damning Evidence Against Fracking! (Five Articles)

Tags

Animals, Aubrey McClendon, cancer-causing, Carcinogenic, chemicals, cover-up, deception, Drilling, early days, environment, environmental catastrophe, EPA, fracking, fraud, gas boom, Groundwater Contamination, health hazards, Humans, hydraulic fracturing, illegal dumping, natural gas, New York Times, poisonous, pollutants, Rolling Stone, Sand Fracking, States, Texas, U.S. Government, Virginia, Water Well Contamination, widespread damage, Wisconsin

DANGER! TOXIC!!

Here are some damning articles about Fracking:

Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling
http://www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-ga\
s-drilling-426

EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds fracking compounds in
environmental monitoring wells
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=epa-finds-fracking-compound-wyo\
ming-aquifer

A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May Be More
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?_r=2

False Promises and Hidden Costs: The Illusion of Economic Benefits from Fracking
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/false-promises-and-hidden-costs-the-i\
llusion-of-economic-benefits-from-fracking/

The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon’s Gas Boom
It’s not only toxic – it’s driven by a right-wing billionaire who profits more
from flipping land than drilling for gas
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behin\
d-the-gas-boom-20120301

What is So Hard About Figuring Out How Bad “Fracking” Is?!! – An Enlightened Conversation

Tags

1%, Animals, Cancerous, Carcinogenic, CEOs, chemicals, Death, Destroyed, Disasters, Elite, environment, Finite Energy Source, Fra, fracking, Glacier Sands LLC, Groundwater, harmful, Humans, hydraulic fracturing, Lakes, Minnesota, natural gas, poisoning, Ponds, Rich, Rivers, Sand Fracking, Streams, Texas, Twin Cities, Twin Cities Daily Planet, Wasteful Spending, Water Well Pollution, Wisconsin

This Was Sent To Twin Cities Daily Planet:  Local News For Global Citizens:  http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/

I thought you might find this entertainingly interesting at least!  😉  This is a email from me to my county’s board on

their decision to table “fracking” in my area that you covered (see links at end of message) due to me contacting various local/regional news sources to get this story covered for the sake of humans, animals and the environment!  If the environment goes, which it will if they start “Sand Fracking” and/or Hydraulic Fracturing or Hydraulic “Fracking,” there will be nothing left to report!  Human existence is at stake here due to the extremely damaging effects of both types of “Fracking!”  The U.S. Government report attached is legitimate and virus-free.  You can Google it!  Enjoy the read! 🙂

Sincerely,

Johnnie Loeffler Schmeckpeper

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Johnnie Schmeckpeper <jelo1317@yahoo.com>
To: Del Twidt <del.twidt@buffalocounty.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Upcoming August Agenda re: Your Decision on Glacier Sands LLC w/Overwhelming Negative Evidence

Johnnie Loeffler Schmeckpeper

Fountain City, WI 54629

jelo1317@yahoo.com

https://twitter.com/jelo1317

I was curious as to why your board tabled the Glacier Sands Fracking Proposal when it appeared that you embarrassed yourself and the Buffalo County Board of Adjustments enough.  Truth speaks volumes, however when I only have three tiny minutes to make my point, I make it very clear!  It seemed obvious to me that this is not just a scam regarding Ike and Ryan Thomas, a father-son team from Granbury, Texas listed in the 1st weblink, but also a environmental disaster of catastrophic proportions just waiting to happen!  Not to mention the overwhelming facts, statistics from residents who do not want fracking in their area (Town of Milton at 94%?!), and ignoring a call for a simple county vote on fracking or no fracking!  What are you thinking or not thinking?  You are making yourself, the board & us residents look bad by allowing seven farms who were monetarily manipulated into starting up Glacier Sands LLC by Ike and Ryan Thomas in an attempt to scheme as much money out of brain-washed local farmers who think it’s a good idea to ruin their land and environment for everyone else for a so-called payout by Ike and Ryan Thomas, known schemers, all over the need for their greed and power hungriness with no regard for any form of safety except for their employees and their pocket-books!  Do something about this before you manage to piss even more people off, and I was the one who invited all of the media attending!  I have enough damaging evidence in this first article for you to read to make you re-think tabling this again or voting in favor of Glacier Sands LLC; otherwise, I will stir up a major media storm & campaign starting with a referendum to remove the current Buffalo County Board of Adjustments over your negligence to protect the citizens of Buffalo County, including myself!  I’m sure you will LOVE the negative media attention you will receive, and maybe even a class-action lawsuit against Ike and Ryan Thomas, Glacier Sands LLC (all seven farms) and the Buffalo County Board of Adjustments for Gross Negligence as a warm-up!

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/07/09/frac-sand-or-farmland-wisconsin-farmers-face-showdown-rescheduled-august-9

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/08/14/seven-sands-frac-sand-mine-permit-postponed#comments

P.S. These articles are being spread all over the internet right now.  Have a good day! 🙂

Oops!  I forgot one:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article_003df3fa-68c9-11e1-a6e1-0019bb2963f4.html

---

From: Del Twidt <del.twidt@buffalocounty.com>
To: Johnnie Schmeckpeper <jelo1317@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jacob Sedivy <jacob.sedivy@buffalocounty.com>
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: Upcoming August Agenda re: Glacier Sands LLC

Mr. Schmeckpeper,

Thank you for the document.  The Board of Adjustment meeting will be held Thursday, August 9, 2012 beginning at 5:30 p.m. at the Alma Public School, in the gymnasium, which is about 2 miles north of Alma directly on Highway 35.

Thanks again for your input.

Del

From: Johnnie Schmeckpeper [mailto:jelo1317@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:49 PM
To: Del Twidt
Subject: Re: Upcoming August Agenda re: Glacier Sands LLC

Hi!

I do not know where your meeting is at.  Please inform.  I have attached a U.S. Govt. document (long), so you and the board can review it before the meeting.  I will make sure to sign in to speak before the meeting, plus I need to know not only where it’s at but when/what time.  I’m new to the area! It’s beautiful here, by the way!

Thank you,

Johnnie Loeffler Schmeckpeper

---

From: Del Twidt <del.twidt@buffalocounty.com>
To: Johnnie Schmeckpeper <jelo1317@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jacob Sedivy <jacob.sedivy@buffalocounty.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Upcoming August Agenda re: Glacier Sands LLC

Mr. Schmeckpeper,

Please sign in at the meeting next Thursday to speak to the Board of Adjustment during the public comment section of the meeting.  In the meantime, if you have any documents you would like the Board members to receive before the meeting, please forward them to me or the Zoning Dept. and we will forward them to the Board members.  Thanks.

Del

From: Johnnie Schmeckpeper [mailto:jelo1317@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Del Twidt
Subject: Upcoming August Agenda re: Glacier Sands LLC

08-01-2012

Dear, Del D. Twidt
Acting County Administrator:

Hi, I am John.  I am new to Buffalo Co. as of May 1, 2012.  I was born and raised in La Crosse, WI.  I am a big advocate for protecting

the environment in our area and in general.  I made one person on your board aware of what Glacier Sands LLC’s intentions are for

Buffalo Co., and it is a grim situation, before the Buffalo Co. Board of Adjustments unanimously decided to vote down GS LLC’s proposal

a week and a half ago.  Do you have a meeting coming up Aug. 9th where Glacier Sands reps. will be present?  I have

some environmental and groundwater destruction material that was sent to the U.S. House of Representatives last year regarding

hydraulic fracturing or fracking.  I can effectively end this shoddy businessman’s bid to ruin the environment here with five minutes

of direct testimony regarding the serious dangers posed by fracking, to include earthquakes, via handout materials that I would like

to present to GS LLC’s attorney(s).  I am also the one who knows about the very brief history of this company (formed in August of 2011),

the fact that a Minnesota businessman operated or still operates using a P.O. Box address in Wisconsin, and his ties to big fracking

businessmen (think CEOs) in Texas where they literally have one fracking site on top of another down there.

I think the citizens of our area deserve to hear the truth, and I would like to have five minutes of the Buffalo Co. Board’s time to present

my case (no, I’m not an attorney) as to why Glacier Sands LLC is a potentially massive for-profit, anti-citizen and anti-environmental company

that does NOT work for the best interests of all Buffalo Co. residents!

Sincerely,

Johnnie Loeffler Schmeckpeper

Fountain City, WI 54629

jelo1317@yahoo.com

 

1 Attached file|

1. Hydraulic Fracturing Report 4.18.11 (1) U.S. House of Reps. Comm. on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff April 2011
   

Download

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking”

Tags

alcohol, chemicals, Drinking Water, fracking, harmful, hydraulic fracturing, known carcinogens, natural gas, poison, pollutants, rock, well contamination

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking”

652 chemicals being pumped into the ground with 1.8 million gallons of water to break apart rock, and release natural gas.  Homes near fracking sites have unsafe water for any use due to natural gas contamination along with many of these 652 known carcinogens and pollutants!  I don’t think anyone wants  diesel, lead, formaldehyde, boric acid, or kerosene in the drinking water, do you?