Author Archives: Eve6nx7b

Coastal cities are in serious jeopardy, new sea-level rise study shows.

Called “Build Back Better,” the plan focuses on providing immediate relief while also making the island’s energy infrastructure more resilient to future storms. That means fortifying the electric transmission system and bulking up defenses at power plants and substations.

The plan also envisions a Puerto Rico dotted with solar farms and wind turbines, linked by more than 150 microgrids. Of the 470,000 homes destroyed in Maria’s high winds, the report points out many could be built back with rooftop solar. New battery storage systems would allow hospitals, fire stations, water treatment plants, airports, and other critical facilities to keep the lights on without power from the grid.

Overall, $1.5 billion of the plan’s budget would go to these distributed renewable energy resources.

The plan was concocted by a bunch of industry and government groups working together, including the federal Department of Energy, Puerto Rico’s utility, several other state power authorities, and private utility companies like ConEd. If enacted, it would take the next 10 years to complete.

With a $94 billion Puerto Rico relief plan in Congress right now, it’s actually possible that $17 billion of that could go to building a renewable, resilient energy system for the future. It’d be a steal.

See the article here:

Coastal cities are in serious jeopardy, new sea-level rise study shows.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, solar, Uncategorized, Wiley, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coastal cities are in serious jeopardy, new sea-level rise study shows.

Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

If you’re a tree frog or an ovenbird in mating season and you happen to live in the 83 percent of the continental United States that lies within 3,500 feet of a road, bummer for you. Not only are you more likely to collide with an SUV, but you’re going to have a harder time finding a mate. Research suggests that human-generated noises also mess with nesting behavior, predator-prey dynamics, and sleep patterns. In other words, wildlife gets stressed out by noise.

So do we, it turns out—and the world is getting louder. Scientists define “noise” as unwanted sound, and the level of background din from human activities has been doubling roughly every three decades, beating population growth. Road traffic in the United States has tripled over the last 30 years. By 2032, the number of passenger flights is expected to be nearly double the 2011 figure—at peak hours, planes are even audible overhead 70 percent of the time in the remote backcountry of Yosemite National Park. And while that’s obviously a nuisance for animals and visitors seeking a restorative experience, this growing anthropophony (a fancy word for the human soundscape) is also contributing to stress-related diseases and early death, especially in and around cities.

By evolutionary necessity, noise triggers a potent stress response. We are more easily startled by unexpected sounds than by objects that come suddenly into our field of vision. Our nervous systems react to noises that are loud and abrupt (gunshots, a backfiring engine), rumbling (airplanes), or whining and chaotic (leaf blowers, coffee grinders) by instructing our bodies to boost the heart rate, breathe less deeply, and release fight-or-flight hormones.

But the physical responses that helped save our asses from predators back on the veldt (and still might prove useful at a busy intersection) have obvious downsides in the middle of a school lesson or while you’re trying to get some sleep—especially if, like me, you live near a major airport. On the flip side, positive sounds like chill music, pleasing birdsong, and the voices of loved ones stimulate the brain’s emotional centers, bringing feelings of joy, calm, and well-being.

To learn more, I paid a visit to biobehavioral psychologist Joshua Smyth, who studies human responses to stress at his Pennsylvania State University laboratory. An affable guy who resembles a younger Al Franken, Smyth first hooked me up to a portable heart monitor and had me spit into a test tube to measure my baseline cortisol levels before giving me what was essentially a personality test to see how sensitive I am to unwanted sounds like, say, a roommate’s loud music. While the results suggested I am neither neurotic nor particularly introverted—both of which can predispose a person to noise annoyance—I scored a high 5.2 (adults average 4, college students 3.5), which put me near the 88th percentile.

Then came the fun part. To see how different types of sound affect my ability to recover from life’s ordinary stresses, Smyth first had to stress me out: Cue public speaking. He asked me to deliver a short extemporaneous speech in front of a large mirror, behind which, Smyth told me, sat a panel of judges. Several times during the five-minute speech, a lab technician interrupted and told me to speak up.

This gauntlet of misery is called the Trier Social Stress Test, and even though I knew there was no “panel of judges,” I exhibited a textbook response. My heart rate climbed from the mid-60s to the mid-90s, and my cortisol, an imperfect but suggestive marker of stress, almost doubled.

Next, Smyth assigned me one of three recovery exercises he uses: a video of a pretty summer meadow featuring chirping birds and a blue sky. As I watched, my heart rate fell to its mid-60s baseline range. A couple of minutes into the video, the abrupt rumbling of a truck engine upped my heart rate by 10 clicks. It took me a while to recover, but the soothing nature scene eventually coaxed my heart rate into the mid-50s—that is, until the sound of a propeller plane shot it up again, though not as high as the truck had. At this point, my cortisol was 8.2 nanomoles per liter—1.5 points over baseline—and the variations in my heart rate indicated similar patterns of stress.

My results were typical of Smyth’s findings, which support complementary psychological theories most of us would recognize as common sense. Namely, that pleasing natural sights and sounds are good for the heart and mind—our human cacophony, not so much. “Your recovery was clearly disrupted,” Smyth told me. “Those noises are violating your experience. It’s half as stressful as doing the speech task. Those aren’t trivial effects.”

It all adds up to a dagger twice thrust: Not only does background noise interfere with our much-needed ability to recuperate, but in the places where we live and play, we have increasingly fewer havens from the onslaught.

Even if you think you’re immune to city noise, it may well be affecting your health. The best research on this comes out of Europe. In one study of 4,861 adults, a 10-decibel increase in nighttime noise was linked to a 14 percent rise in a person’s likelihood of being diagnosed with hypertension. Health experts studying more than 1 million people in the vicinity of Germany’s Cologne Bonn Airport found that people subjected to background noise of greater than 40 decibels were at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, kidney failure, and dementia compared with those who lived farther from the flight paths, where things were quieter. (For perspective, the legal nighttime noise limit in Washington, DC, is 55 decibels.)

Another study examined how the opening of a new airport in Munich affected nearby children. In the 18 months after flights commenced, the researchers observed soaring levels of stress hormones in their subjects. The children’s epinephrine levels rose 49 percent, their norepinephrine more than doubled, and their systolic blood pressure, on average, went up by five points.

Yet another depressing study examined the cognition of 2,800 students in 89 schools across Europe. Published in The Lancet in 2005, it found that aircraft and road noise had significant impacts on reading comprehension and certain kinds of memory. The results, adjusted for family income, the mother’s education, and other confounding factors, were linear. For every five-decibel noise increase, the reading scores of British children dropped by the equivalent of a two-month delay, so that kids in neighborhoods that were 20 decibels louder than average were almost a year behind.

This was no fluke: “To date, over 20 studies have shown a negative effect of environmental noise exposure on children’s learning outcomes and cognitive performance,” notes a 2013 paper in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. “Studies have demonstrated that children with chronic aircraft, road traffic or rail noise exposure at school have poorer reading ability, memory, and academic performance on national standardised tests.” There’s science behind the saying “You can’t hear yourself think.”

You can probably guess which communities face the greatest sonic barrage: the same ones stuck with the worst air, the shoddiest housing, and so on. Noise as a social justice issue is just beginning to gain traction. But as diseases and cognitive problems are increasingly chalked up to chronic stress, it makes sense to look at all the contributing factors to that stress. Much of what we know about urban noise in the United States actually comes from National Park Service researchers, who have spent the last 14 years collecting 1.5 million hours of ambient sound from loca­tions ranging from remote wilderness areas to urban street corners. What they’re finding is that noise may well be the most pervasive pollutant in America.

Now researchers can estimate people’s noise exposure down to the level of individual city blocks, says Peter James, a researcher at the Harvard school of public health whose team is using Park Service data to explore whether excessive noise is partly responsible for disparities in “cardiovascular outcomes” in disadvantaged communities. People living in such neighborhoods are also the least likely to have access to the restorative benefits of nature, and the granular noise data could help city planners, policymakers, and activists plan accordingly. Groups like Outdoor Afro and NatureBridge—which aim to get urban kids out into natural settings—are already springing up in cities nationwide.

A healthy soundscape, James says, “is not a wishy-washy amenity. It’s a potential public health factor we need to understand to make sure everyone has the same opportunities.” Smyth offers this advice: “We should think about soundscapes as medicine,” he told me. “It’s like a pill. You can prescribe sounds or a walk in the park in much the way we prescribe exercise. Do it 20 minutes a day as a lifetime approach—or you can do it as an acute stress intervention. When you’re stressed, go to a quiet place.” I’m ready.

Taken from:  

Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

Florida Governor Refuses to Admit That His Own Investigators Have Cleared Planned Parenthood

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Good news! Florida regulators have finished their investigation of Planned Parenthood and concluded that there were no problems with their handling of fetal tissue. But you might not know that if you read their press release about the investigation. It turns out that Florida governor Rick Scott preferred to keep this under wraps:

Emails between the governor’s office and AHCA, obtained by POLITICO Florida through a public records request, show the agency prepared a press release that same day noting that “there is no evidence of the mishandling of fetal remains at any of the 16 clinics we investigated across the state.”

Scott’s office revised the release to exclude that sentence, an email sent by Scott’s communications director, Jackie Schutz, shows. Additionally, the revised release noted the AHCA would refer physicians who worked at the clinics to the Board of Medicine for possible disciplinary action.

Kinda reminds you of a half-bright middle schooler who thinks he has a genius idea, doesn’t it?

From: 

Florida Governor Refuses to Admit That His Own Investigators Have Cleared Planned Parenthood

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Florida Governor Refuses to Admit That His Own Investigators Have Cleared Planned Parenthood

Voter Fraud Literally Less Likely Than Being Hit By Lightning

Mother Jones

Justin Levitt has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years. “To be clear,” he says, “I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.” So far, he’s found 31 cases representing around 200 individuals. If every one of them turns out be a genuine case of fraud, that’s a fraud rate of:

Of course, Levitt might be off by an order of magnitude. Or maybe even two or three orders of magnitude. That would put the fraud rate at 0.02 percent. On the other hand, these are just allegations. If past performance holds true, nearly all of them will turn out to be clerical mistakes, which means we’re back to 0.00002 percent. This compares to many thousands of voters who have been turned away from the polls for lack of ID in just the past few years.

Also worth noting: every single one of these cases involves just one or a few people. There’s not a single credible case in the past 15 years of any kind of organized voter impersonation scam of the kind that might actually affect the outcome of an election. There’s just no there there.

Link:  

Voter Fraud Literally Less Likely Than Being Hit By Lightning

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Voter Fraud Literally Less Likely Than Being Hit By Lightning

Lindsey Graham Introduces 20-Week Abortion Ban in the Senate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a bill that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The legislation, titled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” is a close companion to the bill that the House passed this June.

Political observers see the bill as a sop to conservative voters in South Carolina, where Graham faces uncertain reelection prospects. A recent poll shows that the two-term incumbent leads his Republican primary challengers with 51 percent of the vote. The bill he has introduced is predicated on the popular anti-abortion argument—which has no medical basis—that a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain.

Continue Reading »

Read this article – 

Lindsey Graham Introduces 20-Week Abortion Ban in the Senate

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Lindsey Graham Introduces 20-Week Abortion Ban in the Senate

Obama points out economic downsides of Keystone XL

Obama points out economic downsides of Keystone XL

President Obama doesn’t seem sold on the economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry carbon-intensive tar-sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export.

The White House

In his most extensive public comments to date on Keystone, made during an interview with The New York Times, he stressed the neutral or negative economic aspects of the proposed project.

First, he pointed out that Keystone would create few permanent jobs:

Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in a economy of 150 million working people. … that is a blip relative to the need.

In fact, the draft environmental impact statement released by the State Department in March estimates that the pipeline would create just 35 permanent jobs [PDF]. As of June 2013, there were 11.7 million Americans unemployed. After Keystone’s built, we’d be 0.0003 percent of the way toward solving that problem.

Second, Obama noted that the bulk of the oil that would travel through the pipeline would be shipped abroad, providing no benefit to Americans.

[T]hat oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.

Yep. Earlier this month, a report from the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog found that Keystone could raise gas prices by as much as 40 cents a gallon in the Midwest. A report released last year by the Natural Resources Defense Council and two other groups also found that the pipeline would raise gas prices for North American drivers.

As for the climate impacts of the project, Obama’s message was more muddled.

NYT: … You’ve said that you would approve [Keystone] only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?

MR. OBAMA: … there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.

NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?

MR. OBAMA: We haven’t seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.

There’s that word again, “significantly,” the same word Obama used in his big climate speech a month ago, when he first said that climate would be a factor as his administration decides whether to approve the pipeline. At that time, he said he would only OK it “if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” That statement can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways. As our David Roberts wrote, it “has proven a kind of Rorschach blot for the energy world.” Obama’s new comments do nothing to de-Rorschach the matter.

It’s notable that the president is trying to counter the GOP’s rah-rah rhetoric about how Keystone will create tens of thousands of jobs and make the U.S. more energy secure. It shows, if nothing else, that Keystone opponents are making their case heard and changing the debate.

Maybe Obama is laying the groundwork for putting the kibosh on Keystone. Or maybe he’s not.

Bottom line: We still don’t know what he’s going to decide. And we probably won’t know for months.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original: 

Obama points out economic downsides of Keystone XL

Posted in Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama points out economic downsides of Keystone XL