Series of small earthquakes rock Oklahoma in record seismic activity

By Carey Gillam
Reuters: April 5, 2014

Earthquakes rattled residents in Oklahoma on Saturday, the latest in a series that have put the state on track for record quake activity this year, which some seismologists say may be tied to oil and gas exploration.

One earthquake recorded at 3.8 magnitude by the U.S. Geological Survey rocked houses in several communities around central Oklahoma at 7:42 a.m. local time. Another about two hours earlier in the same part of the state, north of Oklahoma City, was recorded at 2.9 magnitude, USGS said.

Those two were preceded by two more, at 2.6 magnitude, and 2.5 magnitude, that also rolled the landscape in central Oklahoma early Saturday morning. A 3.0 magnitude tremor struck late Friday night in that area as well, following a 3.4 magnitude hit Friday afternoon.

Austin Holland, a seismologist with the Oklahoma Geological Survey who tracks earthquake activity for the USGS, said the earthquake activity in the state is soaring.

[…]

“We have already crushed last year’s record for number of earthquakes,” Holland said.

Most earthquakes occur naturally. But scientists have long linked some small earthquakes to oil and gas work underground, which can alter pressure points and cause shifts in the earth.

Oil and gas exploration has increased in recent years across the country, spurred by U.S. efforts for energy independence. Modern hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is one particularly controversial technique.

For bigger quakes, so far this year the state has recorded 106 at 3.0 magnitude and above, according to Holland. For all of last year the state had 109 at 3.0 and above.

In November 2011, Oklahoma suffered a 5.6 magnitude quake that damaged more than a dozen homes and several businesses.

Wastewater disposal related to the fracking is suspected by many scientists to contribute to the earthquake activity. Millions of gallons of wastewater are typically trucked from a fracking site to wells where the water is injected thousands of feet underground into porous rock layers. That work, if done near a fault, can trigger larger quakes, according to several recent scientific studies.

Oklahoma recorded 278 earthquakes from 2008 through 2013 that have registered on the Richter scale at a magnitude of 3.0 or greater, a level that can shake objects inside a home.

Before that, from 1975-2008, the state on average recorded less than six earthquakes a year.

(Read the full article at Yahoo)

—-
Alterntaive Free Press – fair use –

Corporate Clout Chips Away at Organic Standards

By Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association: April 2, 2014

The Organic Consumers Association has a long history of defending the integrity of organic standards.

Last September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), under pressure from corporate interests represented by the Organic Trade Association, made our job harder.

They also made it more important than ever for consumers to do their homework, even when buying USDA certified organic products.

Without any input from the public, the USDA changed the way the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) decides which non-organic materials are allowed in certified organic. The change all but guarantees that when the NOSB meets every six months, the list of non-organic and synthetic materials allowed in organic will get longer and longer.

The USDA’s new rule plays to the cabal of the self-appointed organic elite who want to degrade organic standards and undermine organic integrity. For consumers, farmers, co-ops and businesses committed to high organic standards, the USDA’s latest industry-friendly move is a clarion call to fight back against the corporate-led, government-sanctioned attack on organic standards.

Old rules, new rules

The NOSB, a federal advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, decides what is allowed on the National List of non-organic materials approved for use in organic. Prior to last September’s new ruling, each non-organic material on the list had to be reviewed every five years, using what’s called the “sunset process.” Under this process, five years after a non-organic material was added to the National List, it would be automatically removed, unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB board voted to keep the material on the list.

The intent behind this process was clear. Maximize flexibility for the organic industry, minimize the use of non-organic materials in organic, and encourage continuous improvement of the organic standard.

But last September, the USDA reversed this process. Now, instead of automatically coming up for review after five years, each non-organic material will automatically—and indefinitely—stay on the National List unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB board votes to remove it. And that’s not likely to happen, given that the 15-member board of the NOSB is stacked with industry reps who consistently vote with industry against consumers.

Labels help, but . . .

Should you just give up on the organic label? Absolutely not. With all its flaws, USDA Organic is still the only credible and comprehensive certification program in the natural foods marketplace. The new rules mean you’ll have to scrutinize labels more carefully than ever. But even then, you won’t get the whole picture when it comes to non-organic substances in organics.

Certain non-organic or synthetic materials can be used in up to 5 percent of a “USDA Organic” product, and in up to 30 percent of a “Made with Organic” product.

Under the new rules, the list of non-organic or synthetic ingredients allowed at those percentages will likely grow. But here’s something most consumers don’t realize: The National List isn’t just about synthetic and non-organic ingredients that are allowed in food. The list also governs every non-organic material or synthetic material used in the production of organic food, from farm to fork. (Here’s the complete list). As that list, too, grows, organic standards will continue to erode. And as a consumer, you’ll have a difficult time identifying those materials as they won’t be listed on the product’s label.

What non-organic materials should you look for on food labels? Here are a few of the worst ones:

• Carrageenan, an additive linked to gastrointestinal inflammation and higher rates of colon cancer. More here: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/…

• Synthetic nutrients, including DHA and ARA which have been linked to severe gastrointestinal distress, prolonged periods of vomiting and painful bloating.

• Sausage casings made from processed intestines

What won’t you find on food labels, but should be aware that the NOSB has approved for organic? And because of the new rule, likely won’t revisit?

• Synthetic methionine: In 2001, the NOSB approved the synthetic version of methionine, a sulfur-based essential amino acid, for use in livestock feed—but only, as the Rodale Institute points out, after organic poultry farmers realized the substance was already in the feed they were using. As long as synthetic methionine remains on the list of approved substances in organics, organic farmers can continue to keep chickens confined. Why? Because, again according to the Rodale Institute, synthetic methionine keeps confined chickens healthy. Take the synthetic out of the feed, and you have to allow the chickens access to outdoor pastures in order to maintain their health. But wouldn’t that be a good thing?

• Genetically engineered vaccines: Genetically modified organisms, and the genetic engineering process itself, are not allowed in certified organic products. But there’s one exception. Genetically engineered vaccines can be used in organic livestock production, on the condition that the vaccines are included on the National List. So which genetically engineered vaccines did the NOSB approve for the National List? All of them. Instead of reviewing the safety of each vaccine individually, as the law clearly intends, the NOSB included all genetically engineered vaccines on the list, as a single group of “synthetic substances.” Now that the sunset process has been weakened, what are the chances of getting genetically engineered vaccines off of the list of approved substances? Next to none.

• Antibiotics: Under organic standards, antibiotics can’t be used in animals. But there’s a little-known loophole, applicable only to poultry, that says the standard doesn’t take effect until “the second day of life.” So as it turns out, the eggs that hatch into organic chickens are routinely injected with an antibiotic called gentamicin, which is also used to treat bacterial skin infections in humans. Because of the loophole, the use of gentamicin in organic poultry production has never been subject to the NOSB’s sunset process. The process does, however, govern the use of antibiotics sprayed on apple and pear trees to control something called fire blight. Under the old rules, the NOSB voted to end the use of those antibiotics—tetracycline and streptomycin—as of October 21, 2014. But industry is fighting that ruling. If it succeeds, and the NOSB ever re-lists those antibiotics, the changes to the sunset process will make it more difficult than ever to get tetracycline and streptomycin off of the National List of approved substances.

• Mutagenesis: There’s another loophole in the “no genetic engineering in organics” standard. It’s called mutagenesis. In 2011, the NOSB approved synthetic DHA and ARA for use in organics. As mentioned above, these synthetic nutrients, used in baby formula, are linked to side effects. But what you won’t learn from reading the labels on baby formula, or any other product containing DHA or ARA, is that these synthetic nutrients are derived from mutated microorganisms, created through a process called mutagenesis. We believe mutagenesis is a form of genetic engineering, and others support http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/search/ our position. But when Martek Biosciences Corp., the manufacturer of synthetic DHA, argued that mutagenesis should be allowed because the process is nothing more than a form of classical seed breeding, the NOSB sided with the company. So while consumers can see DHA and ARA on product labels, few will know that they are produced using a technique that has dangers similar to genetic engineering.

Defending organic standards

The NOSB meets again April 29-May 2, 2014. For the first time, it will be operating under the new rule. The USDA didn’t give the public an opportunity to comment on its change to the sunset process, but that doesn’t mean the agency is immune to public outcry. Starting with President Obama and USDA Secretary Vilsack, we need to press USDA leadership to reverse this disastrous new rule.

Please sign and share our petition: here

(originally published at The Organic Consumers Association

—-
Alternative Free Press – fair use –

Miyoko Sakashita
Huffington Post: March 26, 2014

Nearly four years after the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion dumped more than 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the slate has been largely cleared for BP — the EPA ban on federal contracts has been lifted, and the company is free once again to bid on federal oil and gas leases.

But as a new study published this week makes clear, we’re only beginning to understand the spill’s devastating long-term implications for the region’s sea life.

Released on the 25th anniversary of Alaska’s Exxon Valdez oil spill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led study found that young bluefin tuna and amberjack exposed to oil samples collected during the Gulf skimming operations after the spill are showing a range of disconcerting abnormalities.

The exposed fish suffered from finfold deformities, dramatic reductions in eye growth and, most concerning of all, heart defects likely to limit the open water food-catching abilities key to their survival.

The study’s findings are significant, but hardly surprising. There’s no doubt that for years to come we’ll be learning the spill’s true cost to wildlife in one of our world’s most important spawning grounds for imperiled bluefin tuna.

Four years after the spill, officials have no idea how many fish were killed or the extent of the long-term damage to the Gulf. But with only 25 percent of the spilled oil recovered and nearly 2 million gallons of toxic oil dispersants sprayed into the Gulf’s waters, we know the toll on wildlife will be measured in decades, not years.

An analysis projecting the true wildlife toll based on documented strandings suggests the spill likely harmed more than 80,000 birds, 25,000 marine mammals and 6,000 sea turtles as well as doing untold damage to marine invertebrates such as coral lobsters, crabs, oysters, clams, zooplankton and starfish.

Despite the ongoing carnage, little has been done to tighten oversight necessary to prevent similar spills in the future.

The name of the agency overseeing offshore drilling changed, but little else. Environmental review is still waived for many drilling projects in the Gulf. And though there are already nearly 4,000 offshore oil and gas operations in the Gulf, the expansion of risky deepwater wells continues.

(Read the full article at Huffington Post)

—-
Alternative Free Press – fair use –

Michael Snyder
The Truth: March 27, 2014

A Canadian high school student named Bronwyn Delacruz never imagined that her school science project would make headlines all over the world. But that is precisely what has happened. Using a $600 Geiger counter purchased by her father, Delacruz measured seafood bought at local grocery stores for radioactive contamination.

What she discovered was absolutely stunning. Much of the seafood, particularly the products that were made in China, tested very high for radiation. So is this being caused by nuclear radiation from Fukushima? Is the seafood that we are eating going to give us cancer and other diseases? The American people deserve the truth, but as you will see below, the U.S. and Canadian governments are not even testing imported seafood for radiation. To say that this is deeply troubling would be a massive understatement.

In fact, what prompted Bronwyn Delacruz to conduct her science project was the fact that the Canadian government stopped testing imported seafood for radiation in 2012…

Alberta high-school student Bronwyn Delacruz loves sushi, but became concerned last summer after learning how little food inspection actually takes place on some of its key ingredients.

The Grade 10 student from Grande Prairie said she was shocked to discover that, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped testing imported foods for radiation in 2012.

And what should be a major red flag for authorities is the fact that the seafood with the highest radiation is coming from China…

Armed with a $600 Geiger counter bought by her dad, Delacruz studied a variety of seafoods – particularly seaweeds – as part of an award-winning science project that she will take to a national fair next month.

“Some of the kelp that I found was higher than what the International Atomic Energy Agency sets as radioactive contamination, which is 1,450 counts over a 10-minute period,” she said. “Some of my samples came up as 1,700 or 1,800.”

Delacruz said the samples that “lit up” the most wereproducts from China that she bought in local grocery stores.

It is inexcusable that the Canadian government is not testing this seafood. It isn’t as if they don’t know that it is radioactive. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of the mackerel

• 91 percent of the halibut

• 92 percent of the sardines

• 93 percent of the tuna and eel

• 94 percent of the cod and anchovies

• 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?

Someone out there needs to answer some very hard questions.

Meanwhile, PBS reporter Miles O’Brien has pointed out the extreme negligence of the U.S. government when it comes to testing seafood for Fukushima radiation. The following comes from a recent EcoWatch article…

O’Brien also introduces us to scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who have been testing waters around the reactors—as well as around the Pacific Rim—to confirm the levels of Fukushima fallout, especially of cesium.

These scientists are dedicated and competent. But they are also being forced to do this investigation on their own, raising small amounts of money from independent sources. They were, explains lead scientist Ken Buesseler, turned down for even minimal federal support by five agencies key to our radiation protection. Thus, despite a deep and widespread demand for this information, no federal agency is conducting comprehensive, on-the-ground analyses of how much Fukushima radiation has made its way into our air and oceans.

In fact, very soon after Fukushima began to blow, President Obama assured the world that radiation coming to the U.S. would be minuscule and harmless. He had no scientific proof that this would be the case. And as O’Brien’s eight-minute piece shows all too clearly, the “see no evil, pay no damages” ethos is at work here. The government is doing no monitoring of radiation levels in fish, and information on contamination of the ocean is almost entirely generated by underfunded researchers like Buesseler.

It is the job of the authorities to keep us safe, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster was the worst nuclear disaster in human history.

So why aren’t they doing testing?

Why aren’t they checking to make sure that this radiation is not getting into our food chain?

(Read the full article at The Truth)

—-
AlternativeFreePress.com – fair use –

Crude Journalism

By Thor Benson
Vice: March 26, 2014

Richmond is tucked into California’s western tricep, a former wine town with a population just over 100,000. Under the administration of Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, the town is the largest city in the United States with a Green Party mayor. It’s also an oil town—in 1901, Standard Oil set up an operation and tank farm, choosing the location for its easy access to the San Francisco Bay. Soon after, a western terminus of the Santa Fe Railroad was built in Richmond to handle the outflux of crude. Over the course of the 20th century, Standard Oil became the Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL), and later, Chevron.

Throughout the 90s, the Richmond refinery was fined thousands of dollars for unsafe conditions, explosions, major fires, and chemical leaks, as the plant oozed chlorine and sulfur trioxide into Richmond’s atmosphere. In August of 2012, the Richmond refinery exploded after Chevron ignored the warning of corroding pipes from the local safety board. The disaster was linked to aging pipes, which were simply clamped instead of replaced altogether. 15,000 residents in the surrounding area were forced to seek medical treatment, and Chevron’s CEO, John Watson, got a $7.5 million dollar raise.

Now that some time has passed, Chevron has decided to modernize the refinery, and has simultaneously sponsored the creation of the Richmond Standard, an online newspaper that is decidedly positive about anything the company does. The paper, whose name is a sly reference to the company that Chevron grew out of, covers minimally reported local stories on crime, public meetings, and sports. It also features a section called “Chevron Speaks,” which works as a place for the company to put forth its ideology. According to SF Gate, “the idea of the nation’s second-largest oil company funding a local news site harkens back to an era of journalism when business magnates often owned newspapers to promote their personal, financial, or political agendas. Now that mainstream newspapers are struggling to survive, online news sites are testing ways to fund their operations.”

The founding of the Standard coincides with a modernization initiative at the Richmond plant, which would allow the facility to process fuel with higher percentages of sulfur, the key to the corrosion that resulted in the 2012 plant explosion. “They’re planning on doubling the sulfur content of the crude,” Andres Soto, the Richmond Community Organizer at Communities For a Better Environment, told me.

According to Andres, Chevron wants to go from 1.5% sulfur content to 3%. Outside of the fear of another explosion, there is a serious environmental problem with the modernization and the refinery in general. “They’re publically claiming there will be no net increase in emissions,” he says. “Our suspicion is they plan on releasing more greenhouse and particulate emissions, here in the local arena, in exchange for cap and trade.”

For those of you unfamiliar with cap and trade, it’s essentially when you let one of your refineries pollute above the federal limit in exchange for another refinery polluting below the federal limit. The differentials from “caps” are traded so that in the end everyone is supposed to be meeting requirements, on average. “It’s the single largest refinery on the West Coast of the United States. As a facility, it’s the single largest emitter of green house gases in California,” Andres says. He believes the refinery will cause serious pollution to the Bay Area, and that the company will start using the port of Richmond to export tar sands to China that aren’t legal for fuel in the United States because of the sulfur content.

As you may have heard in relation to the Keystone Pipeline proposals, tar sands are semi-solid petroleum and sand mixtures that are being harvested in Alberta, Canada. The process of extracting the petroleum wastes a lot of water, and a Yale article reported last year that a company extracting petroleum used 370 million cubic meters of fresh water in 2011. Chevron could export the sands to China for their needs and save Americans time and resources, but Andres points out the emissions from shipping and the emissions China will create will circle back to America with the winds.

Chevron is attempting to convince the public that the refinery is a good idea in the pages of the Richmond Standard, typically using the promise of more jobs and money. Andres says the company is buying every billboard in town. The billboards often depict people of color, likely in an effort to convince minorities that they can trust a multinational oil conglomerate.

(Read the full story complete with links to sources at Vice)

—-
AlternativeFreePress.com

WHITING, Ind. (AP) — BP says it is assessing how much crude oil entered Lake Michigan following a malfunction at its northwestern Indiana refinery.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says crews have placed booms across a cove at the company’s Whiting refinery where workers discovered the oil spill Monday afternoon.

Dean says BP believes the oil released during an oil refining malfunction has been confined to that cove.

He says the oil entered the refinery’s cooling water system, which discharges into the lake about 20 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.

(View the full article at Yahoo)

Check out this related recent report: 25 Years After Exxon Valdez, BP Was the Hidden Culprit
—-
AlternativeFreePress.com