replyforall
  • faqs
  • blog
    • log in
    • |
    • sign up
    •  
  • sign up
  • how to get your personal email signature for Outlook 2007 or Yahoo Mail, Gmail, Hotmail
  • impact
  • causes
  • the advertising sponsors in your email signature
  • Share |
  • Recent Posts

    • The fight to provide clean water
    • replyforall spotlight on: Petfinder.com Foundation
    • States take the lead on animal rights legislation
    • Foie Gras the Faux Pas
    • replyforall spotlight on: Partners in Health
  • Archives

    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • July 2008

Archive for January, 2009

"For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Did anyone else feel like today was New Year’s Day all over again?  That as of 12:06 pm EST, we were ringing in a new age, a new chance to make and stick to a set of resolutions? That’s what it felt like to me. All those things we want to make happen—world peace, energy independence, and living within our means— now have the opportunity to be realized by each and every one of us, and by America as a whole.

I was curled up alone on a couch for this event. Like most of my emotional moments, I wanted to keep to myself. I also wanted to really listen to him speak, and figure out how I felt. His speech was honest, humble, and gracious. He evoked the better legacy of the United States, one built on toil and sacrifice, on collective dreams rather than individual ambition. And set the tone for the government now, that it is no longer a question of “whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

I hesitate in quoting him at all; I think that the best part of his Inaugural Address is that it can’t be boiled down to thumbnail quotes and newsworthy snippets. He stuck to the message: that the government and the country are built on each individual, and each individual carries the “price and promise” of our citizenship. So while we are asking for a new agenda, and a different kind of government, we all hold a stake and responsibility within it.

President Obama (and it feels so great to say that) gave us a few things we need to work on, in government and outside of it. The most obvious was the economy. I think he understands not only the struggling economy, but also our uncertainty about what comes next in our lives as a result of it. I think the rest of his agenda is pretty clear, too. We need to rethink and rework health care, education, and energy in the United States, and our relationships with other countries abroad. And good news! President Obama mentioned solar, wind, and soil as sourcing our power. Now, unless he means “soil” as digging up the earth to find uranium and coal, I would say we might have a victory in the energy department. We’ll see. Overall, I loved it. Loved it. Hello, Obama-nation!

Here’s a full text of his speech, with video available. And here’s President Obama taking the Oath of Office:

Obama took his oath on the 1861 Lincoln Inauguration Bible. Fitting, for his presidency. (I would also like to note that it wasn’t Obama that messed up the words, it was Chief Justice Roberts.) I’ll be the first to admit I shed a tear or two.

So, I’m ushering in a new presidency as if it were a new year. Hopefully we’ll stick to these resolutions. But you know I’ll be keeping up with all of it, starting now.

Fight the Good Fight,

Johanna Hudgens

Wellesley College 2009

Tags: Inauguration 2009, Johanna Hudgens, President Obama
Posted in news | No Comments »

"Clean coal" or clean water? Take your pick

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

This is just a quick post in case y’all haven’t heard about the “leak” that sent millions of gallons of toxic coal sludge flooding into Tennessee. It’s estimated to be 48 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. It also left thousands of people without clean water, since it flooded rivers that were used as a source for drinking water. This is here. In the US.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) released a year’s worth of inventory of the ash pond that leaked. The byproducts include 45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese. I like flavored water just as much as the next guy, but metals that cause cancer, neurological damage, and organ failure are not on my list of additives.

If you’re not worried, let’s hope you’re not part of the 50% of Americans living within thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant. And the Environmental Protection Agency has already pinpointed areas where water has been affected, and this was before the sludge spill last month:

Freaked yet? How about the fact that the regulation on the coal ash is varied, with some states without any regulation at all. Last week, a judge approved a $54 million class-action settlement with a power company that had been dumping coal ash for decades, contaminating wells. Or that coal ash has been used in agriculture, on soil, despite the EPA’s warning of arsenic. Soil, ya know, is where they grow our FOOD.

Check out these two articles in New York Times, one about the spill itself and the other about (the lack of) coal ash regulation. I find it a bit scary that Obama is looking towards clean coal as part of the energy future. Maybe this incident will change his mind. Clean coal? Puh-lease. Frosty the Coal Man must be so embarrassed right now.

Fight the Good Fight,

Johanna Hudgens

Wellesley College

Class of 2009

Tags: clean coal, clean water, coal sludge, Johanna Hudgens, Obama, Tennessee
Posted in news | No Comments »

Waste not, want not: nuclear's messy leftovers

Monday, January 5th, 2009

Back for the final installation in my anti-nuclear series.  As we’ve seen so far, nuclear is not as cost-effective as many politicians would have us believe, nor is it a solution to the climate crisis, and the water usage is harmful to ecosystems.  But I want to end on the kicker of nuclear power, something that always comes to mind for me but is most of the time left out of the rhetoric by nuclear proponents, and that’s nuclear waste.  That is, what do we do with all the radioactive waste once we have our power?

The easy answer?  Yucca Mountain.  They are drilling holes in the mountain to store the nuclear waste, and it should be ready for use by 2012.  I will just quickly state that drilling holes into mountains is bad for the environment.  Just in general, not to mention the energy usage and additional cost to do it.  But upon learning this, all I was left wondering was what in the heck we have been doing until now.  And what we will do for the next three years.  So I’ll start there, and get back to Yucca Mountain.

Radioactive waste is the “spent” nuclear fuel, when uranium and plutonium can no longer be used for energy production.  It’s been tested to be around 60% as radioactive as untapped uranium.  The problem with storing any of these materials, whether it be high-level radioactive waste, or low-level radioactive waste,  is that—hello!—it’s radioactive.  In fact, calling it “low-level” doesn’t mean that the waste is less radioactive; it just means that it is in smaller quantities, so that there is now more waste to store (i.e. instead of one ton of high level radioactive waste, there would be two tons of low-level radioactive waste).  So don’t be fooled by the term “low-level.”

Right now, radioactive waste is stored on-site.  And the US has about 2,000 tonnes (that’s around 2,205 tons, or about 4.4 million pounds) per year to store.  Keeping track of it tends to be a problem—high-level nuclear waste has gone missing from at least one, if not several nuclear plants in the last 30 years.  And though the government has licensed seven sites for burying low-level waste, four had to be shut down because it leaked radiation into the surrounding environment. Hopefully you don’t live near those areas in New York, Kentucky, Nevada, or Illinois.

Drilled Storage Tunnel in Yucca MountainSo despite the fact (or maybe because of the fact) that we can not keep up with our nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain has been approved to be the mass dumping site for radioactive waste.  It is a remote location in Nevada’s desert where nuclear waste can be shipped and stored five miles underground.  Because of the amount of waste produced by plants, on-site storage is not an indefinite option for nuclear waste.  So it will be shipped by rail and truck to Yucca Mountain.  (If you’re curious about the cost of this, and we’re talking over $96 billion not including railways and research, and only if it remains on schedule, check it out here.)

Based on the half-life of uranium and plutonium (plutonium can be made from uranium during the process of fission), the waste generate in nuclear energy will be dangerous for human health for over 240,000 years.  This is obviously a problem at most on-site locations, since it is also costly (and dangerous) to update storage facilities—even the best must be updated every century.  Scientists working on the Yucca Mountain Project even acknowledge that “nuclear waste will be hazardous longer than our ability to isolate it from the biosphere.”   This means that land storing nuclear waste is not only off-limits for thousands of generations for production, but that it may also become dangerous to live around.  And what about all the plants and animals there?  The Simpsons Movie is coming to mind.

If that’s not enough, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly tried to deregulate low-level waste management so that it can be dumped into regular landfills and recycled in consumer products.

Nuclear waste is a huge problem for the environment, and that directly affects us as humans.  Our pockets, our health, and our future.  For more information about anti-nuclear movements, check out the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Heal Utah, just to name a few.  Time for Change has a great website that explains the pros and cons of nuclear power, and why it is not a sustainable option for energy production.

This concludes my long and detailed rant on why nuclear energy is not a solution to Global Warming or our energy crisis.  I’ll post current developments about this issue as they come up.  For now, I urge you to go to Change.gov and tell the Obama Administration that nuclear power should not be on the horizon for energy independence.

Fight the Good Fight,
Johanna Hudgens
Wellesley College
Class of 2009

Tags: Greenpeace, Heal Utah, Johanna Hudgens, nuclear energy, Obama, radioactive waste, Sierra Club, Time for Change, Yucca Mountain
Posted in news | 1 Comment »

sign up for your personalized email signature. works with Yahoo Mail, Gmail, Hotmail or Outlook 2007
  • terms of service |
  • privacy policy |
  • contact us |
  • about us