Monster-to Corp. Sqeaks by Environmental Laws

TUESDAY JANUARY 6, 2009 :: Last modified: Thursday, January 1, 2009 6:05 PM MST

Idaho miners won't have to restore groundwater; Site is near Wyoming border

By JOHN MILLER
Associated Press writer

BOISE, Idaho -- Monsanto Co., Agrium Inc., and J.R. Simplot Co. will be able to mine phosphate without being forced to restore groundwater beneath their operations to its natural condition, according to a new rule awaiting approval by the 2009 Legislature.

The rule is backed by industry but opposed by environmentalists including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Idaho Conservation League, who say it gives mining companies near the Idaho-Wyoming border license to pollute forever.

It stops short of a 2007 draft proposal developed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality but never formalized. That would have required companies to clean up groundwater below their mines within eight years of ceasing activities.

According to the new rule, mining companies could pollute groundwater below their extraction, reclamation and tailing activities with high concentrations of naturally occurring elements such as selenium. They would be required to monitor groundwater at so-called "points of compliance" as close as possible to the mining area, to make sure the pollution stayed put.

Jack Lyman, a lobbyist with the Idaho Mining Association, said the new rule would protect groundwater outside mining areas without saddling companies aiming to build new mines or expand existing ones with onerous, unrealistic cleanup mandates.

"We have never asked for the right to mess up someone else's beneficial use of the groundwater," Lyman told The Associated Press this week. "The department came up with a rule they think is workable, without putting our industry into a difficult situation where we'd be unable to comply."

Efforts to revise Idaho's 16-year-old Groundwater Quality Plan began in 2007 after the Department of Environmental Quality, the mining industry and environmentalists agreed the exemption allowing mines to pollute groundwater in some instances was ambiguous. Mining companies feared uncertainty over cleanup requirements could stifle new projects; environmentalists said vagueness made it easier for companies to pollute.

After more than a year of wrangling, the proposed rule was approved by the Department of Environmental Quality Board earlier this year. It will be taken up by the 2009 Legislature when the session starts Jan. 12. Such rules are rarely rejected, especially after securing board support.

Justin Hayes, with the Idaho Conservation League, contends the state agency "caved in" to industry pressure. Environmental groups are fearful of mining pollution in eastern Idaho, especially after at least four horses and hundreds of sheep died in the late 1990s after drinking selenium-contaminated water from defunct phosphate mines and their waste piles near Soda Springs.

"By its very nature, groundwater doesn't stay in one place," Hayes said. "An aquifer is recharged by rain and snow water, then it moves somewhere else. Aquifers are in motion. Eventually, the contamination is going to move off site."

Lyman insists environmentalists are exaggerating the danger that mining pollution will migrate. He drew a comparison between the septic tank at his home near Caldwell and open-pit phosphate mines.

"I've never worried about anything I put in my sink showing up a quarter of a mile away on my neighbor's property," Lyman said, adding that just because groundwater below a mine is polluted "does not mean that's going to flow down into Soda Springs, Idaho."

Science Group: Biotech Regs Could Allow Drugs In Food

Science Group: Biotech Regs Could Allow Drugs In Food

Published: Monday, October 13, 2008 3:08 PM CDT
WASHINGTON — The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently denounced newly proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules governing genetically engineered crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed rules, UCS charged, would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from "pharma" crops and could allow drugs that it deems "safe" to enter the food supply. This contamination could occur through cross-pollination or seed mixing between pharma food crops and crops intended for consumption.

The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations.

Below is a statement by Jane Rissler, UCS's Food and Environment Program deputy director:

"Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.‚ If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry.

"The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs.

"In its rush to enact the proposed rules into law before the end of the Bush administration, the USDA has given short shrift to public participation. The department is allowing only 45 days for the public to analyze and comment on this major proposal, which will determine the government's approach to regulating genetically engineered organisms for years to come.

http://yankton.net/articles/2008/10/17/neighbors/doc48f3aaa2e5e9e984781507.txt#rate

http://snipurl.com/4gigv

The World According to Monsanto

The World According to Monsanto: A toxic tour from Toronto Star

RAIN, RAIN: GO AWAY!

It has been raining here for three days and nights. Not just rain, but downpours with high winds! Every tiny defect in the galvanized iron roofs of the people in Costa Rica has been exaggerated many fold. We've got big pots scattered all over the house and/or attic to collect the water from the leaks. It is impossible now to do any repairs because we haven't had even ten minutes of sunshine in which to work. This is a Central American country not far from the equator. And it has been COLD!

My wood-burning stove's chimney pipe burnt through a month ago, and I've been waiting for my neighbor and builder, Carlos, to finish another project so that he can come over here and make a new chimney. Now, with a big hole in the chimney pipe, I cannot use the stove to heat the house and dry out some of the air. And my solar hot water heater is no longer producing hot water. So no hot showers. I do have LP gas for my kitchen stove and we are only losing electricity sporatically (as usual) so no big problems with cooking or lights, etc. I have a huge back-up water tank holding potable water in case of national potable water service failures, but that doesn't look as though it will be a problem.

I have chronic sinus problems and now I've been having sinus bleeds and much pain for two days. A result of very low pressure systems over the country. Ouch!

But it could be much, much worse. We did have three little earthquakes a couple of days ago, but they caused no damage, thank goodness! Guanacaste Province in the north had been in the depths of a very serious drought! Cattle died and crops withered. Now they are suddenly dealing with major flooding.

I have just learned that this nasty weather system has been declared a tropical storm and is moving toward Nicaragua where it is expected to make landfall. Poor Nicas! The economy of Nicaragua is in shambles and Costa Rica is flooded with illegal immigrants fleeing starvation and seeking some kind of income to send to families in Nicaragua. So that poor nation certainly doesn't need more troubles! The tiny isthmus called Central America doesn't need more trouble. It has been plagued by war, disease, hunger, floods, earthquakes, and dictatorships! Costa Rica and Panama are making some progress toward a better life for its citizens, but the rest of Central America still has a long, long way to go.

Does it seem that this year has already been one of the most devastating in memory for natural disasters worldwide? Or am I seeing things with a jaundiced eye?

It is hard for people who have enough and more than enough security to carry them through any rough times to realize what the reality is for the people caught in the aftermath of a natural disaster. It is worse than a return to the stone age in terms of living day to day. It is surviving a minute at a time in constant fear and post-traumatic stress without enough food, water, or shelter and with the menacing possibilities that even worse tragedies lie ahead for survivors. We lucky few in this world who never have to live for months without bathing, with only enough water to sip a bit at a time, with scavenging for food, with cold, wet, and hunger gnawing at their bodies while grief and fear and anger battle in their souls - we lucky few cannot begin to imagine the true horror of these disasters.

And I wonder if this is not just a fluke of nature, but the beginning of the end. Is it too late to save life on this planet? Are we now facing another great extinction such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs?

Don't just sit there shrugging! Do something useful! It's now or never, Folks!

FAMINE! IN YOUR FUTURE?

Are bio-fuels as much of a disaster as the use of petroleum and coal? Many think the answer is definitely. And, say many experts, it will be coming to YOUR country soon! Even the United States is vulnerable. Add the rush to produce corn and soy for the making of ethanol (which really doesn't do much in the way of lowering dependence on petroleum) which is not of food grade plus the introduction of genetically modified crops controlled by a very small handful of huge international corporations, and we can easily see the people world-wide losing the ability to produce their own foods! The dangers are so significant and so insidious that we can truly consider world-wide Super Famine (with its attendant diseases) killing even middle income families in the United States - and soon!

If no food is available at affordable prices, people will starve. Fact. It has happened many times in the past in many countries. But never before have we been faced with a Super Famine that will kill the majority of the population in every country, in every city, in every town. and in every neighborhood as we do NOW! The seeds (literally) of our destruction are now being planted.

What can YOU do to protect your family? Consider that the name of the game is short-term profits and politics. Consider that unless governmental bodies are forced to deal with reality and with the very real future consequences of current policies, we are all doomed. Every animal depends on plants ultimately for survival. Predators depend on herbivores. Herbivores depend on plants. When the loss of variability in food and feed crops is assured by GM crops and when not enough food is being grown to feed the ever-expanding population, a small disruption in agricultural production by weather, natural disasters, or the inevitable development of new crop diseases, will drop the entire planet into chaos.

What happens when people are starving? They are driven to do whatever they need to do to survive. Crime, war, murder, migration! Those are not unnatural human acts. Those are the realities with which humankind has been dealing for as long as their were humans. Survivalists think that by arming themselves and building defensible communities and growing their own food they will be safe from the coming calamity. Nothing could be further from the truth. They will be the targets first of governments and then, as governments crumble, of desperate ungoverned people with nothing to lose. What's more, even the super survivalist cannot predict the exact nature of the crisis to come. For how long can food, water, and other necessities be stock-piled? For how long can fearful people within the "family" be controlled? What happens when the children are the first to die and the population of a community drops below that which can sustain the community? How many of us can or are willing to live on starvation rations hidden in a cave and alone?

The only way to truly try to protect YOUR family is to become an activist for environmental stability and sustainable living styles. You can start by setting an example for others. You can join with others to increase your clout politically and economically. You MUST let your voice be heard! Every day brings us ALL closer to the catastrophe looming before us. And we must realize NOW that what affects people on the other side of the globe also affects us.

Check out a few of these links:
http://heidiallen.com/heartfire/energy.htm
http://www.enn.com/
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12196737&postID=2174804809549948203
http://w3chi.blogspot.com/2008/05/deadly-gift-from-monsanto-to-india.html
http://www.loe.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
http://www.toxicnation.ca/
http://www.edf.org/

It CAN be done! Toward a greener future

Norway island stores wind power for still days

by Nina LarsonTue May 13, 7:27 AM ET

How to keep the lights on when all is still and the local windmill won't budge? A small Norwegian island testing a way to store wind-generated energy for calm days may have found the answer.

The tiny, windswept island of Utsira, situated off Norway's southwestern coast, is home to what is said to be the world's first full-scale system for cleanly transforming surplus wind power into hydrogen.

Perched atop a 40-metre-high wind turbine on a perfectly windstill day, technician Inge Linghammer explains that at times like this or on days when the gales whipping the unsheltered island get too strong the windmill shuts down and stops pumping out power.

"You need to have back-up power when this happens," he says, nodding towards the motionless blades.

On a good day, the island's two wind turbines, planted on a small hill overlooking several red-painted wooden houses, produce more energy than the 210 people living here can use.

When they are down however, most of Utsira, which measures only six square kilometres, is furnished with electricity from the mainland.

But 10 households receive clean, wind-generated electricity regardless of the weather conditions, thanks to a pilot project launched here in July, 2004 making it possible to store wind power by transforming it into hydrogen.

Surplus wind-generated energy is passed through water and, using electrolysis, the hydrogen atoms are separated from the oxygen atoms that make up water molecules.

The hydrogen is then compressed and stored in a container that can hold enough hydrogen gas to cover the energy needs of the 10 households for two windless days.

"Utsira has more than enough wind power to be self-sustained ... but the problem arises on a day like today when there is not enough wind," explains Halgeir Oeya, who heads up the hydrogen technology unit at Norwegian energy giant StatoilHydro, which is running the project.

"This system allows us to deliver power with expected quality and reliability," he says, standing next to the large metal electrolyser box baking in the spring sun.

Combining renewable energy and hydrogen, he says, makes most sense in secluded areas like the numerous islands lining the European coast or in remote Australian communities, which until now have been heavily dependent on carbon dioxide-spewing diesel fuel provided by a constant flow of truck convoys.

Islands like Utsira have long been considered ideal laboratories for renewable energy due to their total dependence on outside energy supplies and their access to powerful wind energy.

Oeya boasts that the people participating in the Utsira test project have no restrictions on how they use power, switching on the lights, dishwashers, television sets and stereos without a thought to how the wind is blowing.

And amid growing alarm over greenhouse gas-promoted global warming, they can do so with a clean conscience, he says, pointing out that "the only emission is oxygen."

Producing and storing energy this way however is still, nearly four years after testing began, far more expensive than the hydraulic power produced on Norway's mainland.

StatoilHydro has no intention of building up the system to compete with large-scale energy production, but even making it competitive in the small, remote communities far off the grid that make up its target market remains years off.

"This is not a commercial project as it stands," Oeya acknowledges.

"We must have a bigger scale in order to compete ... and this will take a number of years," he says.

Utsira mayor Jarle Nilsen is nonetheless ecstatic about the system and its effects on his small island community.

"This is a fantastic project that has been good for Utsira," he says, pointing out that initial concerns about noise levels and birds getting caught in the turbines had been laid to rest.

"We haven't found a single dead bird," he says.

Most importantly, the system was helping nudge his Utsira towards its goal of zero emissions within the next decade and had become a major tourist attraction.

"The tourists go over to the lighthouse first, but then they go to look at our windmills. They want to see the world's first full scale wind and hydrogen project in action," he says proudly.

Little Guy strikes tiny blow on Monsanto

Monsanto pays Percy Schmeiser

Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser spent 1998 to 2004 standing up to one of the most influential agricultural companies in the world: Monsanto. While it was Monsanto that took Schmesier to court on that occasion, the roles were reversed on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, when Monsanto found itself being taken to court by Schmeiser.

It was the first case between Monsanto and Schmeiser that led to the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled in favour of Monsanto. While the decision assured that regardless of contamination, a farmer cannot grow patented seeds, Schmeiser recognized that if the company is indeed the owner of the plant, then it should be liable for the damages that their property causes others.

There is no legal precedent in Canada that has determined who maintains the liability for damages caused by patented plants. Monsanto does however accept moral responsiblity for what are known as "volunteers" -- unwanted plants appearing on farmers' fields.

The company employs a program that offers to remove volunteer plants.

In October 2005, Schmeiser's farm was visited yet again by Monsanto, and again, in the form of its RoundUp Ready Canola. Schmeiser took advantage of the company's removal program, but discovered that it would only remove the plants if he signed a release form that contained a confidentiality clause, which he disapproved of. What followed led to an out-of-court settlement on March 19, 2008, and Monsanto paid Schmeiser the $660 it cost him to have the plants removed.

LBy Jon Steinman
Published: March 21, 2008
TheTyee.ca

Citizens’ group wants a law to ban genetically engineered crops.

Printed from the Monterey County Weekly website: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Mar-06/20-citizens-group-wants-a-law-to-ban-genetically-engineered-crops
Ag Advisory Committee considers GMOs
Citizens’ group wants a law to ban genetically engineered crops.
Posted March 06, 2008

By Zachary Stahl
Leading the Charge
Lorna Moffat (front) wants a countywide ban on genetically modified crops.

Several years ago seed giant Monsanto offered Salinas Valley growers a genetic solution to their weed problem with spring mix. Monsanto was developing a lettuce variety resistant to Roundup, the company’s leading herbicide. Farmers could have killed weeds with Roundup without harming the genetically engineered spring mix. But the industry shied away.

“It was dropped very quickly,” says Jim Manassero, chairman of the Monterey County Agricultural Advisory Committee. “Number one, the industry didn’t want it.” Manassero says a state law would have had to change to allow the vegetables to be harvested after being doused with Roundup. Plus, consumers would have balked at the prospect.

“It becomes very easy for that type of science to get blown out of proportion by the media and to make it all lettuce is poisoned or could be,” Manassero says.

The genetically modified seeds never reached the valley floor. While Monsanto has taken over the corn and soybean seed market, Monterey County ag officials maintain that no genetically engineered crops have been grown in the county. Some local organic farmers and environmentalists want to keep it this way.

On Feb. 28 a group of small farmers and Monterey Peninsula residents asked the Agricultural Advisory Committee to recommend a county ban on GE crops. Lorna Moffat, who is spearheading the effort, proposed the moratorium in response to a November speech by Dr. Henry Daniell of the University of Florida about producing insulin from genetically modified lettuce.

Moffat told the committee that federal agencies do a poor job monitoring GE crops, and no long-term studies have been done to monitor their health impacts. “Few regulations to protect public health and our environment are in place,” Moffat said, warning that GE crops could cross-pollinate other produce.

Alex Sancen is an organic farmer who grows on less than five acres at the Agricultural & Land-Based Training Association outside Salinas. Sancen told the committee that his farmers market customers are concerned about GE crops tainting their produce. “They are speaking of buying vegetables from Santa Cruz County if you guys don’t do anything,” Sancen said.

Sancen and dozens of other ALBA farmers want the Monterey County Board of Supervisors to adopt an ordinance similar to one that exists in Santa Cruz County. In 2006 Santa Cruz supervisors banned growing genetically engineered crops. The county code makes exemptions for GE pharmaceuticals grown in state or federally licensed, indoor labs.

Santa Cruz is the most recent California county to prohibit GM crops. In 2004, Mendocino County became the first in the U.S. to ban GMOs, followed by Trinity and Marin counties. While a handful of liberal, coastal counties have outlawed the crops, anti-GMO ballot initiatives in Butte, Humboldt, San Luis Obispo and Sonoma counties have failed at the polls.

In addition, at least 12 counties, mostly in the conservative and agriculturally-rich Central Valley, have passed resolutions supporting ag biotechnology.

The only related thing that Monterey County has on the books is a code regulating the experimental release of GE microorganisms. The county crafted the code in the ‘70s in response to a bacteria intended to prevent frost on strawberries, says Bob Roach, assistant agricultural commissioner.

Pesticide-resistant crops, GE plants and pharmaceuticals fall under the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration, respectively, Roach says. County ordinances “are largely symbolic because no one really wanted to grow these crops in these counties,” he adds.

The same goes for Monterey County. “I don’t think they are on our door step,” Roach says. “I don’t think they are even coming up the walk yet.”

But Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue and some ag officials want to leave the door open for GE research. Donohue hopes to usher in higher-paying jobs by attracting pharmaceutical, biotechnology and alternative energy firms. He says he will oppose any regulations restricting biotechnology. “The reality is our scientists want to be free to do business,” he says.

Donohue says just because Daniell spoke in Salinas about insulin-producing lettuce doesn’t mean that research is moving forward. “This is all speculative,” he says. “He gave a speech. Nobody is making plans. Nobody is advocating GMO crops.”

Manassero says the Ag Advisory Committee will schedule a presentation from a UC Davis professor about the benefits of genetic engineering. The committee will then recommend a course of action to county supervisors. But it’s clear the committee chairman doesn’t think a ban is necessary.

“Why pass an ordinance that would close a potential scientific and high-tech solution to a problem that we don’t know about yet?” Manassero asks.

Manassero dismisses the concerns of GMO opponents. Since vegetables are harvested when they are immature, he says they don’t pollinate. Therefore, Manassero says, the crops wouldn’t cross-pollinate. As for organic farmers losing business, Manassero calls it a “scare tactic that is being used to push the GMO ordinance in Monterey County.”

If Monterey County sides with GE crops, Sancen says it could hurt the county’s farming reputation. Sancen points to the drawbacks of GE crops, including increased food allergies, damage to beneficial insects and the creation of “superweeds.” “It’s not just for small farmers,” he says. “It’s for the whole ag industry.”

Indeed, fruit and vegetable crops are one of the last stands in an ag industry increasingly dominated by GE crops. Since their introduction in 1996 GE crops have ballooned to make up more than 80 percent of soybean production and more than 60 percent of cotton acreage. Sancen calls on the county to rein in GMOs before they spread locally. “We have to regulate this,” he says.

MONSTER MONSANTO GROWS MEANER

MONSANTO SEEKS TO BAN THE TRUTH

Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc. is now owned by a conglomerate, but the company's luscious ice cream still is made from milk that contains no synthetic growth hormones in it – a fact the company proudly advertises right on its cartons. And that really POs Monsanto.

Monsanto is not in the ice-cream business, but it is in the deadly serious business of trying to ice anyone who disses the synthetic hormone that it manufactures. Some dairy farmers inject their cows with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone product, which forces the animals to give more milk. It isn't good for the cows, and there are unanswered questions about its impact on human health, so many consumers don't want milk products with this stuff in it, preferring not to have their families used as guinea pigs for corporate profit.

Thus, Monsanto has waged a long campaign to keep consumers from knowing, opposing efforts to label any dairy products as being free from the synthetic hormone. Last year, however, Monsanto lost its effort to get the Food and Drug Administration to ban such labels. But now there's a new group standing against consumer choice on this issue. It's called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology.

Sounds very science-y, doesn't it? It isn't; it's a lobbying front that's going state to state, trying to get legislatures to prevent companies like Ben & Jerry's from advertising that their goods contain none of the synthetic stuff. Guess who's behind this outfit? Right: It's funded by Monsanto.

You'd think that any effort to ban companies from making a true statement on their labels would be laughed out of any legislature, but Monsanto is determined to kill the consumer's right to know, already having pushed for bills and regulations in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. To keep informed about where Monsanto's attack squad will strike next, contact www.organicconsumers.org.

Chi's comment: Think twice. Monsanto isn't nice.

Brazillian Demonstrators Destroy Monsanto Experiments

Woman peasants destroy Monsanto's transgenic experiments in Brazil
Some 300 Brazilian women dedicated to fighting peasants' rights on Friday took over a plantation of U.S.-headquartered Monsanto Company, and destroyed part of the company's materials for experiments on transgenic biotechnology.

The women belonging to the social movement Via Campesina were protesting against the National Bio-security Council's authorization for the commercialization of two types of transgenic corn, announced on Feb. 12.

According to Monsanto, the one-and-half-hour protest destroyed the specimens of transgenic corn planted in the municipality of Santa Cruz das Palmeiras, 244 km away from the capital city of Sao Paulo. In the 31-hectare plantation, transgenic soybeans and cotton are also cultivated.

In a press statement, the world's leading producer of herbicides condemned "vehemently illegal acts like that," stressing that the protest did not even respect "judicial decisions."

"The company believes that disagreements either ideological or not "must be expressed by means of legal ways, and not by means of attacks on individuals and on private property," Monsanto stressed.

The company added that the protesters left the farm before the police arrived.

Source: Xinhua


My Thoughts: IS MONSANTO A MONSTER? Monsanto says people should always obey the law even when the laws are influenced dramatically by Monsanto!! The more I read about Monsanto, the more I'm feeling as if I'm reading one of those thrillers in which a ruthless set of people working under the guise of a big business starts taking over the world with a snowball effect until all humanity are slaves to them. Is this our future folks?

Global Warming Debunker Debunked

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday November 14, @03:17PM
from the you're-getting-warmer dept.

Earlier this month we ran an article linking Christopher Monckton's attempt to discredit global warming. The submitter asked plaintively, "Can anyone out there go through this piece and tell me why it might be wrong?" George Monbiot has now done so. From the article: "This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong... In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in [the Sunday Telegraph], it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist... As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate — high, medium, and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was 'the most plausible.' As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000." And on the political front, the only major ally for Pres. Bush's stand on global warming, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, is now willing to look at carbon trading.

In the News:

American Speak with Forked Tongue: Although the war in Iraq appears to be very unpopular with most U.S. citizens, the U.S. military is very quietly going about preparing for a long occupation - at least nine years! Check out this site:

Earthquakes, Volanoes, and Hurricanes - WHEEEE! Mama Earth appears to be a bit upset these days. Could WE be doing something wrong? Join me in a small effort to make "Mama" a bit healthier: Virtual Marcher and check out some of these other interesting sites and stories: What's New in Alternative Energy Research?
World Population
Environmental Tips and How-Tos
Living on Earth