Monday, August 22, 2016


The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is preparing to issue permits to allow the operation of three uranium mines in greater Grand Canyon watershed. Of course, this would benefit Energy Fuels Resources, Inc., the mining company that's requesting the permits. But what do the rest of us get? Radioactive pollution that threatens human health, wildlife, and ground and surface water.  

Allowing private companies to profit at the expense of public health and the environment is just wrong -- and we can't let it happen.  

Uranium mining creates fine dust containing radioactive particles, lead and arsenic. Because the dust is so fine, it travels far from mines into our waterways, recreation sites and communities. It can increase the risk of lung cancer, birth defects and kidney disease. Uranium mining exacts other costs as well: The federal government has spent billions trying to clean up old uranium mines, and the costs continue to mount. 

The Center for Biological Diversity has been working to end all uranium mining in the greater Grand Canyon region. Stopping these three mines is a very important part of that greater goal, and we need your help to make it happen. 

Please take action below -- tell the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality that you oppose the operation of the Canyon, AZ1 and EZ uranium mines.  

And if you can, join us on Tuesday, Aug. 30 in Flagstaff at Sinagua Middle School to voice your opposition to the issuance of new permits that will allow toxic uranium mining to continue on the rim of Grand Canyon. If you plan to attend, RSVP to Katie Davis.

SIGN NOW: Say No to These Three Uranium Mines at Grand Canyon

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Syria: Little boy in Aleppo a reminder of war's horror -

(CNN) His name is Omran Daqneesh. The image of him, bloodied and covered with dust, sitting silently in an ambulance awaiting help, is another stark reminder of the toll of the war in Syria.
He is young -- one witness puts him at five years old, as old as the Syrian war itself. But his chubby arms and legs and the way he clings to the man who pulled him from the rubble of his bombed-out home suggest he is younger, maybe still a toddler...
more: Syria: Little boy in Aleppo a reminder of war's horror -

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone? | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

In 1971, then US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz uttered these unsympathetic words: “Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry.” Since then, critics have continued to argue that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land than conventional agriculture to yield the same amount of food. Proponents have countered that increasing research could reduce the yield gap, and organic agriculture generates environmental, health and socioeconomic benefits that can’t be found with conventional farming.

The flower petals and the labels represent different sustainability metrics that compare organic farming with conventional farming. They illustrate that organic systems can better balance the four areas of sustainability: production (orange), environment (blue), economics (red) and social wellbeing (green). Illustration: John Reganold and Jonathan Wachter

Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for one of the greatest challenges facing humanity: producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.

That’s the conclusion my doctoral student Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science and hundreds of scientific studies comparing the long term prospects of organic and conventional farming. The study, Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century, published in Nature Plants, is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the four main metrics of sustainability identified by the US National Academy of Sciences: be productive, economically profitable, environmentally sound and socially just. Like a chair, for a farm to be sustainable, it needs to be stable, with all four legs being managed so they are in balance...

more: Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone? | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian 

Sunday, July 31, 2016

regarding today's edition

Robert Cherwink’s Daily • #RCDaily #ECO | #RCDaily #ECO ::: WEEKLY edition
The #OcNukeDaily • #OccupyNuclear | The #OcNuke Weekly • #OccupyNuclear

F Y I ::: 31 JULY :::  i am having a hellish time with my long-injured neck and a week-long headache, so not much time online. All issues are postponed ~ stay tuned!

UPDATE 11 AUGUST: it has shifted, and i am feeling better. – i hope to have everything up and running again early next week.
UPDATE – 14 AUGUST: the situation with my neck has improved. watch for new editions this week!

UPDATE – 18 AUGUST: i had hoped to restart, but find that i need to just postpone all publications for awhile.

please see 

#RCDaily #ECO ::: WEEKLY edition

ARCHIVES* of #RCDaily *

The #OcNuke Weekly

last completed edition of the #OcNuke Weekly: 
Wednesday, Jul. 27, 2016 - The #OcNuke Weekly • #OccupyNuclear

ARCHIVES of The #OcNukeDaily *

* find the archives calendar feature in the subhead, in the line with the date –

you can't nuke global warming!


Support #OcNukeDaily/#OccupyNuclear: 

Support #RCDaily #ECO News! 

this is what next

my homepage:

The Sticky Truth about Economic Growth and Climate Change - Scientific American Blog Network

Coal workers will need re-tooling to transition to a sustainable economy. Credit: PhotoDisc/Getty Images.
Why We Need to Talk About the Costs of Mitigation

That averting climate change will save us money should be a tautology, but for reasons including entrenched interests, it is not. The pre-cautionary principle alone would tell us that we do not want to learn what costs climate change will incur, so better to pay a small premium to avoid the risk at all. Instead, calculated estimates pin the cost of avoiding catastrophic effects from climate change at something like 1% of global GDP. So who will pay for it, and who loses from a more sustainable economy?

more: The Sticky Truth about Economic Growth and Climate Change - Scientific American Blog Network

Nuclear Power Advocates Claim Cheap Renewable Energy Is A Bad Thing | ThinkProgress