
Monsanto criminalizes seed banks

Kauai Bee Keepers Association
By Jimmy Trujillo on 12 March 2009 in Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2009/03/kauai-bee-keepers-association.html)
Image above: Bees swarm on Norfolk pine sap at Banana Joe's on Kauai
Kauai Beekeeper's Association (KBEE) was formed in January of 2009 after a series of community meetings were convened and hosted by Jimmy Torio, an Anahola beekeeper. Election of KBEE's executive committee occurred at a community meeting on January 17 in Niumalu. KBEE was formed as a proactive effort to rally Kaua'i beekeepers, community members and government officials to take action and prevent the spread of the varoaa mite to Kauai from infested areas on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii.
Contact: Jimmy Trujillo (808) 346 7725 jtluvmw@lava.net
Jose Bulatao (808) 337 9135 mrb@hawaiilink.net
Chris Kobayahsi (808) 639 1971 waioli2@hawaiiantel.net
Jimmy Torio (808) 652 0921 jktorio@hawaiilink.net
a. what will happen to the flowers to make leis to greet our visitors? b. how will our agricultural activities be affected? c. in which ways will our local economy be impacted?Is this reason enough to make every attempt to collabortively work together to address the "plight of the honeybees" here in the State of Hawaii?
Bees and Corn Syrup
Aren't we all Bernie Madoffs?
By George Mobus on 12 March 2009 in Question Everything - Image above: Falling house of cards. From (http://www.fotosearch.com/IDX034/394174)
Security for a Sustainable Kauai

John Stewart and the Fifth Estate
Jon Stewart skewers CNBC
Depleted Uranium Study Flawed
image above:U.S. Army tank parked at Pohakuloa Training Area from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5237049
Colonel Howard Killian, Deputy Director
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
Pacific Region
132 Yamanaga Street
Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5520
Dear Colonel Killian:
I have had an opportunity to review the reports released from DU studies at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area. I also spoke with Dr. Lorrin Pang, some members of the Community Advisory Group, and met contractor Dr. Jeff Morrow.
I agree with your statement that you mentioned in a previous communication we had, and that is to let the science speak.
In that light, I am particularly concerned that what is proposed by the U.S. Army for future studies at PTA will fall far short of providing the best information possible at this time, or for that matter, provide any information that can be used to develop a real rather than a speculative risk assessment.
DU is an issue of evolving study results and knowledge. There are some points that are immutable fact. We know that DU is present at Schofield and Pohakuloa. As I recall, the Army does not dispute the point of potential health risk. Therefore, we must take the best information we obtain today and use it to address the concerns about the level of health risks from potential exposure to DU.
The citizens of the Big Island are concerned. This is a natural, often fearful, reaction anytime the word radiation is mentioned in our society. Yet, we live in a world with ubiquitous and unavoidable natural radiation, from cosmic rays to the foodstuffs that provide our sustenance. According to the position of the U.S. EPA, any and all ionizing radiation has the potential of causing cancer. Thus, there has to be a reasoned balance between unavoidable exposure and elective exposure.
The past use of DU on the Big Island places exposure to that type of radioactive material in the “unavoidable exposure” category. This brings forth the question then of how much additional risk does it pose to the people of the Big Island including the military personnel stationed and working at Pohakuloa.
I believe that with adequate study, this question can be answered with reasonable assurance. As I mentioned, I do not believe the currently planned study has the capacity to answer that question. The reason for my belief is that the study design is to measure total uranium and to show that it is below standards set by World Agencies for regulated exposures. This may present itself as a feel-good approach, but it is unfortunately misleading even with the rudimentary information we have today about the form and occurrence of uranium in the natural environment. In other words, the study as currently planned still leaves the door wide open on determining excess health risks, if any.
The attached commentary contains suggestions on what additional information could be collected to help determine the risk. It is fair to assume that the information about the use of DU is as accurate as it can be. That is, the only use was in the Davy Crockett spotting rounds, no use of penetrating munitions occurred, that is the 20mm or 30 mm rounds from various Gatling configurations, smaller caliber rounds, or larger caliber armor penetrating munitions. It assumes that DU does not remain from any breach of containment if used as ballast or armor reinforcement, or any other possible presentation of DU.
My comments are intended for a reasonably informed individual about DU issues; it is not overpoweringly technical but does use various standard abbreviations, chemical, isotopic, and radiological inferences and acronyms. For example, I use DU for depleted uranium and its various components, and natural uranium or NU for naturally occurring uranium. I am not suggesting that the uranium has a chemical, physical, or radiological difference. However, it is different in form and that is a significant difference for risk assessment. In addition, unless specifically mentioned, I do not separate radioactive decay into the three common particles, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Of special note is my use of the term “form” in describing uranium. Unlike the Hawaii Department of Health presentation (November 2007), I use form not to refer to the element uranium (and isotopes) but to describe its occurrence in a matrix – natural, alloy DU, or oxidized DU.
This is a commentary; it is not a formal, peer-reviewed technical report although it may in some instances give the appearance of a peer review for the program. I do not duplicate information that can be found elsewhere and except in unusual or compelling circumstances, I do not provide references. For detail not presented here, I am sure various contractors you have will be able to address and clarify the concepts more fully. However, I am also willing to further explain my commentary for those issues that might be seen as some in a gray area of meaning.
Sincerely,
Michael Reimer, Ph.D., geologist, retired
Kona Hawaii, Hawaii
Superferry Progress Report
Polihale access to be restored
"Sorry for the late notice, but I just found out; Senator Gary Hooser and DNLR chief Laura Theilan will be at Polihale Wednesday morning at 10 AM. Please show your support for open beach access! There has been talk that it may take 18 months to 2 years to reopen access."
Bottled Water and Energy
The Pacific Institute estimates that in 2006:
- Producing the bottles for American consumption required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation
- Bottling water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide
- It took 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water
Total U.S. Consumption of Bottled Water in 2006
According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, Americans bought a total of 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006, sold in bottles ranging from the 8-ounce aquapods popular in school lunches to the multi-gallon bottles found in family refrigerators and office water coolers. Most of this water was sold in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, requiring nearly 900,000 tons of the plastic. PET is produced from fossil fuels – typically natural gas and petroleum.Energy Required to Make PET Plastic
According to the plastics manufacturing industry, it takes around 3.4 megajoules of energy to make a typical one-liter plastic bottle, cap, and packaging. Making enough plastic to bottle 31.2 billion liters of water required more than 106 billion megajoules of energy. Because a barrel of oil contains around 6 thousand megajoules, the Pacific Institute estimates that the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil were needed to produce these plastic bottles.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Consumption of Bottled Water
The manufacture of every ton of PET produces around 3 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Bottling water thus created more than 2.5 million tons of CO2 in 2006.
Water Required to Make Bottled Water
In addition to the water sold in plastic bottles, the Pacific Institute estimates that twice as much water is used in the production process. Thus, every liter sold represents three liters of water.
Transporting and Recycling Bottled Water
More energy is needed to fill the bottles with water at the factory, move it by truck, train, ship, or air freight to the user, cool it in grocery stores or home refrigerators, and recover, recycle, or throw away the empty bottles. The Pacific Institute estimates that the total amount of energy embedded in our use of bottled water can be as high as the equivalent of filling a plastic bottle one quarter full with oil.
Sources:
Beverage Marketing Corporation estimate for 2006.
Plastics Europe. http://lca.plasticseurope.org/petb5.htm
I. Bousted. 2005. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), (Bottle grade).
see also:
Island Breath: Big Island attracts plastic trash 11/9/08 Island Breath: The Sand, The Sun, The Squalor 1/21/07
Keep GMO regulation options
Image above: View of Waimea Canyon Middle School where children have been made ill from Syngenta chemical spraying in adjacent fields. From WCMS website.
Please take a minute to write a letter in opposition of HB 1226. This Bill would preempt any effort to regulate an industry that has a long history of manipulating the democratic process at the expense of the environment and community health. It would also preclude attempts to establish pesticide free buffer zones around schools protecting children from exposure to Organoposphate pesticides used heavily in GMO cultivation. Please send this e-mail to a friend. Mahalo for your Kokua.
OPPOSE HB 1226
RELATING TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANT ORGANISMS.
Prohibits state administrative regulatory actions and county regulatory actions from banning or otherwise regulating activities related to genetically modified plant organisms, with certain exceptions (HB1226 HD1)
Write letters of opposition to: Hawaii State Legislature House of Representatives Agricultural Committee http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/comm/commAGR.asp
.
Fish kill on Niihau
By Joan Conrow on 09 March 2009 in The Hawaii Independent

Bruce Robinson, whose family owns the island that lies off Kauai’s western shore, first spotted fish washing ashore on Jan. 17, but did not contact state officials until Feb. 2, when he brought Heacock a sample of about 100 dead fish.
The Inflection Is Near?
Is Tom Friedman getting it?
Chinese buzz HSF-like navy ship
The Good Food Revolution
Image above: A view looking northeast towards PMRF and Syngenta GMO fields on Kauai from GoogleEarth.
The island of Kaua‘i is one of the most beautiful and fragile places on earth. From above, it looks like a vibrant green flower, lush and pulsing with life, floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The Hawaiian tourist industry calls it “The Garden Isle,” comparing it to the Garden of Eden. The image of Hawai‘i has always been sold as a “paradise.” But there is another side to life on this island, one that visitors rarely see.
The west side of this tiny island is home to the U.S. military’s Pacific Missile Range and testing grounds, part of the longstanding military occupation of the Hawaiian islands, and to the headquarters of giant agrochemical corporations Syngenta and Dupont. These corporations test and produce genetically modified crops on former sugar plantation lands here and throughout Hawai‘i, along with toxic herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. It is the very worst of America’s “agrochemical military industrial complex,” imposed on the ancient homelands of a rich traditional farming and fishing culture, in the midst of some of the world’s most precious biodiversity.
When I visited the west side of Kaua‘i in 2006, the local newspapers were full of reports of children from Waimea Canyon School who had been sickened by chemicals used on nearby test plots. As many as 60 people were affected, including teachers and staff. It happened again in 2007, with school children suffering nausea, headaches, and dizziness. In 2008, for the third time in three years, chemicals being tested for industrial agriculture sickened children and adults and sent them to clinics and the emergency room with tears in their eyes, holding their heads in their hands, or vomiting. The corporations responsible for the tests deny any role in the incidences.
But the open air testing of chemicals and genetically modified crops is a now a persistent worry for people living in this small rural community. Local activists have suggested that the welcome sign at the Kaua‘i airport be changed to warn tourists of what is going on there: “Welcome to the Mutant Garden Island.” Instead of being a source of health and well-being for the land and people, the American system of industrial agriculture has become a source of problematic food and even fear.
The connection to the military is the key to understanding how this tragedy came about. Most of the toxic chemicals used in agriculture came from the implements of war, such as nerve poisons and defoliants developed during World War II. And our military has been repeatedly used to impose our system of industrial agriculture on other lands, depriving traditional farmers of their livelihoods and redirecting their natural resources to the use of U.S. business interests.
American plantation owners used the military to force the monarchy of Hawai‘i out of power.
The takeover of Hawai‘i—the imposition of plantation agriculture on Hawai‘i’s traditional system and the conversion of the Hawaiian people to a Western lifestyle—is a case history and a warning for all of us concerned about the future of food. We are facing an urgent problem: Given global warming, growing populations, and declining natural resources, how will we feed ourselves?
Before colonization, Hawaiians had a sophisticated system of land, water, and ocean resource use that fed populations equal to or even greater than those on several of the islands today (excluding the urban populations of O‘ahu). Now, residents of Hawai‘i import 85 percent of their food. The descendants of the first Hawaiians, like most native peoples who have been colonized, suffer from some of the worst poverty and diet-related health problems of anyone living in the United States.
The food being imported into Hawai‘i is produced, processed, packaged, and transported using enormous amounts of fossil fuels. By one measure, the current U.S. food system uses 10 times more energy than it produces in the form of food calories. Even if you like industrial agriculture, its built-in obsolescence is a problem. When oil production peaks, and prices rise again, as they inevitably must, food in Hawai‘i will become unaffordable. What will happen when the gas pumps and grocery store shelves are empty? This is a question all of us will face, sooner or later, since we are all on what David Brower called “Earth Island,” a small planet floating in a sea of space.
For more click here: http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3283
Image above: Hawaiian "Living Farm" at Hipahulu on Maui, Hawaii. See www.kipahulu.org
Adapting in Place - And When Not To
Image above: The proverbial log cabin with a satellite dish is one kind of adjustment. From at http://pro.corbis.com.
Some reasons for considering relocation:If you have young children or are elderly, have close ties somewhere but are living far away from them in a community that you are not invested in. Not everyone has people (family biological or chosen) who will give you a place at the table, thin the soup to make it stretch, let you sleep on their couch and otherwise cover your back. But if you do, recognize that these people are the beginnings of your tribe. Not all of us have tribes in one place - and some of us have multiple tribes. But if you aren’t rooted where you are in some deep way, if you live there primarily for a job, and you can get back to your people think about it seriously.If you plan to move anyway. That is, if you have a family place or somewhere you have always planned to return to, if you can, now is probably the best time. It takes time to build soil. It takes time to get to know people. It takes time to see fruit trees come to maturity. If you were planning on going anyway after a few more years of earning, or something, now might be the right time. That said, however, I’d be awfully cautious about buying, and only recommend this *if you can* leave - either by selling your current place or if you’ve been renting. But building roots is important.If you aren’t prepared to live in the place you live as its culture demands. That is, as we get poorer and travel and transit become bigger issues, living in the country is going to be a lot different than it is now - instead of living essentially a suburban life, commuting to activities not available and relying on trucked in supplies, you may have to shop occasionally and mostly stay home in the country, making your own entertainment. Are you prepared to do that? Urban dwellers may have to make do in tougher conditions as infrastructure problems come up. My own analogy is this - if you’d be ok living in the worst neighborhood in your city as most of the people there live now, you’ll probably be fine. But if you’ve been affluent and comfortable and might not be forever, be sure you can afford the city and like the life. I believe strongly that city, suburb (most of them) and country all have a future - but the differences between them are likely to become more acute. If you aren’t prepared to deal with those differences, you might consider moving.Our native knowledge of our place is valuable - in fact, it may be the most powerful tool we have. Now some of us will have to leave our native places, to journey again as people so often have. But if we can stay where we are, knowing our flora and fauna, knowing what grows where and how things smell when the seasons change and how to heal or feed or tend with what is native here is absolutely valuable - as is the ability to adapt that knowledge as our places change. So if there is a place where you feel at home, and no other constraints bind you, perhaps you will want to go there, and be there, and help other people be there. See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Adapting in Place 2/4/09



