Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination

News

  • Line 5 Postcard Series
    February 17, 2017
      Announcing the hot new postcard series for the 2017 summer season! These attractive designs carry a powerful message. Download the pdf below. It works with Avery postcard 4 per page templates, or you can just print it onto card stock and cut it out yourself. Not rocket science. Use the postcards to write comments to your representatives, agencies accepting public comments, agencies not accepting public comments, Heidi’s house, wherever. We can’t tell you what to do. It’s open source.    Line 5 postcards 4/page PDF CACC Line 5 Postcard Series 1: anticopyright N©!2017 The publishers, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, humbly put this post card series at the disposal of those who, in good faith, might circulate, plagiarize, revise, and otherwise make use of them in the course of making the world a better place. Possession, reproduction, transmission, excerpting, introduction as evidence in court and all other applications by any corporation, government body, security organization, or similar party of evil intent are strictly prohibited and punishable under natural law.
  • Opposition to Highly Radioactive Liquid Shipments Continues
    February 3, 2017

    February 3 2017 – Washington D.C. 

    In spite of a disappointing ruling by a US Judge on Thursday afternoon, February 2, public opposition remains to an unprecedented plan to ship 23,000 litres (6000 gallons) of intensely radioactive liquid from Chalk River, Ontario, to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina – a distance of over 2000 kilometres. The liquid is an acidic solution of dozens of extremely radiotoxic materials such as cesium-137, strontium-90, and plutonium-239.

    The first armed convoy, in a series of 100-150 truckloads over a period of four years, had been put on hold pending the outcome of a legal challenge in US federal court. Plaintiffs had urged the court to either suspend the shipments, or to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with US environmental law (NEPA), because such highly radioactive material has never before been transported over public roads in liquid form.

    But on February 2 the court ruled against the Plaintiffs, deferring to the Department of Energy’s 2013 and 2015 claims that the transport of this dangerous waste in liquid form poses no more dangers than hauling it in solid form. So now, these unprecedented highly radioactive liquid waste shipments have been judged to have no legal obstacles, even without an EIS. Consequences of a spill and discussion of alternatives will not be available for scrutiny by the public or other agencies as a result of the ruling.

    The suit was brought by seven US organizations: Beyond Nuclear, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Savannah River Site Watch, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Lone Tree Council, Sierra Club and Environmentalists, Inc. Dozens of other organizations on both sides of the border support the plaintiffs in their opposition. All these groups will continue to challenge the plan to transport such dangerous liquid over public roads and bridges – a feat never before attempted, and one they consider to be entirely unnecessary as there are safer alternatives.

    Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch in South Carolina, said “Citizens here don’t want to be a dumping ground for Canada’s nuclear waste. Last year, Indonesia demonstrated a method called ‘down-blending’, carried out with DOE approval, that eradicates any need for shipping highly radioactive liquid. The same technique can be utilized at Chalk River. Down-blending and solidifying the waste in Canada would be cheaper, faster and safer than moving this dangerous liquid cargo through dozens of communities, then processing and dumping it into aging waste tanks at SRS.”

    Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., a mathematician with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D., a physicist with the US-based Nuclear Waste Management Associates, both filed technical declarations in support of the lawsuit.

    Dr. Edwards’ declaration based on published data from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency, showed that the toxicity of a few ounces of the Chalk River liquid would ruin an entire city’s water supply. “This liquid is among the most radiotoxic materials on earth,” said Dr. Edwards.

    Dr. Resnikoff’s statement pointed out that a severe sideways impact of the transport cask, or a prolonged diesel fire causing boiling of the liquid and over-pressure rupture of the containers, could spill the liquid contents into the environment. “The consequences of such realistic accident scenarios have not been adequately assessed,” said Dr. Resnikoff, adding that the containers have never been tested physically under such realistic conditions. The Judge disallowed the two expert declarations.

    Mary Olson, one of the plaintiffs in the law suit, said “Even without any leakage of the contents, people will be exposed to penetrating gamma radiation and damaging neutron radiation just by sitting in traffic beside one of these transport trucks. And because the liquid contains weapons-grade uranium there is an ever-present possibility of a spontaneous chain reaction giving off a powerful blast of life-threatening neutrons in all directions – a so-called “criticality” accident.”

  • Road salt changes sex ratios in frog populations
    December 16, 2016
    According to a new study co-led by scientists at Yale and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, salts commonly used to de-ice roadsurfaces can alter the sex ratios in nearby frog populations. The new research, published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, concluded that salt had a “masculinizing” effect that triggered a “sex reversal” mechanism during the early life of the frog. The researchers believe that sodium binds to the amphibian’s receptor cells, mimicking the actions of testosterone or estrogen and altering the sex of the frog. “There is a very small testosterone-like effect with one salt molecule,” said Max Lambert, who led the study. “But if you’re dumping lots and lots of salt on the roads every winter that washes into these ponds, it can have a large effect. “The health and abundance of females is obviously critical for the sustainability of any population because they’re the ones that make the babies, so if you have a population that is becoming male-based, the population might be at risk.” The team performed a series of experiments where frogs were isolated in tanks containing water with varying levels of road salt and leaf litter from maple and oak trees. Some tanks mimicked natural pond conditions. The natural tanks produced an average 63% female population. Significant presence of road salt reduced the proportion of female frogs reared in the 500-liter tank by one in ten. “You’re not only seeing fewer females but smaller females that may not be able to produce as many eggs, and the eggs are probably going to be lower quality,” said Mr Lambert. Co-author Rick Relyea added: “The potential consequences to amphibian populations are interesting, including the continual masculinzation of frog populations for many generations in habitats contaminated with high concentrations of road salt, which could potentially affect the abundances of frogs in these habitats.” What can you do?
    • Go easy on the salt at home. Learn more here
    • Contact your county road commission – Let them know you support reducing use of salt on your roads – Use the information in this article to articulate why
    • Take it to work! -Use less salt on the job -Tell the businesses you support to use less salt
    • Practice driving on ice!
  • EPA Finalizes Fracking Report
    December 13, 2016
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its scientific report on the impacts of fracking on drinking water resources on Tuesday. The report is intended to provide states and other entities the scientific foundation to better protect drinking water resources in areas where fracking is occurring or being considered. The report was requested by Congress and provides scientific evidence that fracking activities can impact drinking water resources. EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe. The report also identifies uncertainties and data gaps. These uncertainties and data gaps limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally. The oil and gas industry is, of course, highlighting these data gaps in it’s response to the report. These final conclusions are based upon the EPA’s review of over 1,200 cited scientific sources; feedback from an independent peer review conducted by EPA’s Science Advisory Board; input from engaged stakeholders; and new research conducted as part of the study. “The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation’s fragile water resources. EPA’s assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities,” said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA’s Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing.” EPA identified cases of impacts on drinking water at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Impacts cited in the report generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells. Impacts included contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable. As part of the report, EPA identified certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe, including:
    • Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
    • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
    • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
    • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
    • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
    • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
    For a copy of the study, visit www.epa.gov/hfstudy.