January 2010 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Articles: Cell Phone Health Hazards & CT Scan Dangers
by Eric Brooks 28 Jan '10

28 Jan '10

GQ - Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health To flip pages in this article you have to enter the next number in the little page number box you'll find at the bottom right. http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radi… and 15,000 will die from CT scans done in 1 year Scans have higher levels of radiation than thought, researchers say http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34420356/ns/health-cancehttp://www.nytimes.com/… updated 2:14 p.m. PT, Mon., Dec . 14, 2009 CHICAGO - Radiation from CT scans done in 2007 will cause 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans, researchers said Monday. The findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, add to mounting evidence that Americans are overexposed to radiation from diagnostic tests, especially from a specialized kind of X-ray called a computed tomography, or CT, scan. "What we learned is there is a significant amount of radiation with these CT scans, more than what we thought, and there is a significant number of cancers," said Dr. Rita Redberg, editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine, where the studies were published. Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here "It's estimated that just from the CT scans done in one year, just in 2007, there will be 15,000 excess deaths," Redberg said in a telephone interview. "We're doing millions of CT scans every year and the numbers are increasing. That is a lot of excess deaths." CT scans give doctors a view inside the body, often eliminating the need for exploratory surgery. But CT scans involve much higher radiation dose than conventional X-rays. A chest CT scan exposes the patient to more than 100 times the radiation dose of a chest X-ray. 70 million scans done in 2007 About 70 million CT scans were done on Americans in 2007, up from 3 million in 1980. Amy Berrington de Gonzalez of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues developed a computer model to estimate the impact of so many scans. Video Doctor: Radiation danger from CT scans 'serious' Dec. 14: Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California at San Francisco and the editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine, says commonly performed CT scans are exposing patients to more radiation than previously thought. Nightly News They estimated the scans done in 2007 will cause 29,000 cancers. A third of the projected cancers will occur in people who were ages 35 to 54 when they got their CT, two-thirds will occur in women and 15 percent will arise from scans done in children or teens. The researchers estimated there will be an extra 2,000 excess breast cancers just from CT scans done in 2007. Redberg, who wrote a commentary on the studies, said U.S. doctors' enthusiasm for the tests has led to an explosion in their use that is putting patients at risk. "While certainly some of the scans are incredibly important and life saving, it is also certain that some of them were not necessary," Redberg said. In a separate study, Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues analyzed data from 1,119 patients undergoing the 11 most common types of diagnostic CT scans at four institutions in 2008. They found radiation dosage varied widely between different types of CT studies, from a median or midpoint of 2 millisieverts for a routine head CT scan to 31 millisieverts for a scan of the abdomen and pelvis, which often involves taking multiple images of the same organ. By comparison, the average American is exposed to about 3 millisieverts of radiation a year from ground radon or flying in an airplane — a level not considered a risk to health. The researchers said efforts need to be taken to minimize CT radiation exposure, including reducing the number of unnecessary tests, cutting the dose per study, and standardizing the doses across facilities. Imaging equipment makers such as GE Healthcare, Siemens, Philips and Toshiba Medical Systems are working to develop low-dose CT scanners. Understanding different types of scans CT scan Computed tomography (CT) scans use X-rays and computers to produce images of a cross-section of the body. Some patients are required to drink a contrast liquid before the scan or have it injected into a vein to help emphasize blood vessels, bowels or other structures. Patients lie still on a table as the donut-shaped X-ray tube rotates around them, sending doses of radiation through them at various angles. Most CT scans take just a few minutes. CT scans generally provide good detail about bony structures. MRI scan Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) uses a magnetic field and radio waves to create detailed images of the organs and tissues within the body. Most MRI machines are large, tube-shaped magnets. The machine looks like a tunnel that has both ends open. Patients must lie very still during the scan, which can take about an hour. Inside the machine, patients hear repetitive tapping and thumping sounds made by the internal part of the magnet. During the scan, the magnetic field temporarily aligns the water molecules in the patient's body and radio waves cause them to produce faint signals that create cross sectional images that can be combined to produce a 3-D image. PET scan A positron emission tomography (PET) scan is an imaging test designed to show how a patient's tissues and organs are functioning. Patients inhale, swallow or receive an injection of a small amount of radioactive material, which usually accumulates in areas that have the highest chemical activity, often corresponding to areas of disease. PET scans can help evaluate heart disease, cancer and neurological problems. During the test, patients lie on a narrow table that slides into the opening of the PET scanner, which is similar to a CT machine. Patients must remain very still during the 30 minutes it often takes to complete the scan to prevent images from being blurred. Unlike a CT or MRI scan, a PET scan reveals cellular-level metabolic changes in an organ or tissue. X-ray A conventional X-ray exam uses electromagnetic radiation to make specific images of a patient's bones, teeth and internal organs. X-rays are used to assess conditions ranging from broken bones to pneumonia to cancer. Source: Mayoclinic.com, Clevelandclinic.org Copyright 2009 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

1 0

[Sustain] Email MTC: Save Jobs & Transit Using Airport BART Funds
by Eric Brooks 26 Jan '10

26 Jan '10

http://www.transformca.org/take-action/tell-mtc-save-jobs-and-transit-servi… Email MTC Now to Use Federal Money to Save Jobs and Transit Service! Tell the Metropolitian Transportation Commission to use stimulus money from the Oakland Airport Connector to save jobs and transit service! A letter was just released by the Federal Transit Administration stating that $70 million in federal stimulus funds are being withheld from the Oakland Airport Connector project due to BART's failure to do an equity analysis on how the project will impact local residents. *Now these precious dollars could be lost altogether to the Bay Area.* *But the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission and BART can choose to put this $70 million towards things the 9-county Bay Area really needs:* 1. *JOBS. *The $70 million can save hundreds of local jobs at public transit agencies that are on the chopping block due to funding shortfalls. 2. *Better public transportation service. *Millions in funding could quickly be directed to transit operations across the Bay Area, stopping brutal service cuts and fare hikes. 3. The chance* to study a faster way to get to the Oakland Airport and save $400 million.* *SEND A PERSONALIZED EMAIL TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NOW.* <http://act.transformca.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1628> *Let's put $70 million in stimulus funds where it's needed: our regional transit agencies, not the Oakland Airport Connector boondoggle. Or the Bay Area risks losing this money entirely! * *COME TO THE RALLY FOR JOBS AND JUSTICE ON JANUARY 27. * <http://www.transformca.org/oac/your-action-needed-now> *Why is the Oakland Airport Connector such a boondoggle?* This $492,000,000 project a 3-mile, half-billion dollar transit fiasco. Service will average just 23.4 mph between the Coliseum BART Station and the Oakland Airport. Riders will be required to drag their luggage up and down more escalators and walk fartherthan they do now. Once at the Airport, they will get dropped into the existing parking lot and have to walk across multiple lanes of traffic. The $492 million price tag will require loans and a $6 one-way fare on top of the cost of a BART ride, making the trip to OAK more expensive than to SFO.

1 0

[Sustain] Public Citizen Petition vs Corporate Free Speech
by Eric Brooks 22 Jan '10

22 Jan '10

As we told you in an email this morning, the Supreme Court today allowed corporations to use their immense wealth to take over our elections. *The court has put our democracy up for sale.* Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process. Join our grassroots mobilization to take back our democracy. The more people who join, the more power we have to fight a corporate takeover. *Forward this email to everyone you know who recognizes that letting unlimited corporate cash into our elections will be a catastrophe.* Public Citizen President Robert Weissman <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2B8g2q9jpbbCv3T25B%…>Click here to watch a short video about the ruling and Public Citizen's response to it. And sign our petition calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent corporate money from overwhelming our democracy. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iUoKM2%2F8DQhNQ22O%2…> The shocking decision in /Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/ struck down 60 years of legal precedent prohibiting corporations from making campaign expenditures to attack or support political candidates. The court ruled that the First Amendment - meant to protect the speech of actual human beings - gives for-profit corporations the right to influence elections. *People or corporations?* Corporations are not human beings. Corporations should not be able to use their vast financial power to drown out the voices of real people. *Forward this email to friends, family, neighbors and coworkers to let them know about our campaign to fight unfettered corporate power.* Then watch the video and sign the petition. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Lv16WfMd9arlhbYiszSh…> Please help me spread the word and build a massive movement to save our democracy. *Forward this email. Watch the video. Sign the petition.* Thank you. Robert Weissman, President To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen's work, sign up <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hoBStHezXmNu6pF9YfOM…> for the Public Citizen Action Network. Contribute <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2OxxpsKKZl2EolsrC3md…> | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FanniHrNg5anE2pUpB…>

1 0

[Sustain] Alert: Oppose Magwood Appointment To Nuke Commission
by Eric Brooks 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=15… nirsnet(a)nirs.org wrote: Dear Friends, Late last July, 100 environmental and clean energy organizations responded to media reports and wrote to President Obama urging him not to appoint William Magwood to become one of five Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners. You can read our letter here. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hfIqiFz6mAXAxXYpu6tbs…> Unfortunately, Obama ignored this plea and appointed Magwood anyway. *One of your Senators sits on the Senate Environment Committee, which can approve or disapprove NRC nominees. Please write your Senator now and ask him/her to oppose the Magwood nomination <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XClf07wqZP6Y2sMlZGHsK…>.* The Senate has not yet confirmed Magwood, and his appointment has raised at least a few eyebrows. It's not hard to see why. Magwood has been an unabashed promoter of nuclear power for decades. According to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8m9qwRsOvTAiuVZMp9Jge…>, "As head of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Power, he helped lead the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Nuclear Power 2010, and the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. He also served as the first chairman of the Generation IV International Forum and as chair of the Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. More recently, he founded Advanced Energy Strategies which provides "expert advice and analysis of U.S. and international energy policy activities; nuclear industry developments and prospects; and supporting business development efforts." Mr. Magwood has also been an investor in and President of Secure Energy North America Corporation, a company that is 'working with industry and investors to develop novel approaches to finance new nuclear power stations in the United States.''" For years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been plagued with Commissioners more interested in boosting the nuclear power industry than in meaningful regulatory oversight, even though the NRC is explicitly prohibited from nuclear promotion. There is a real chance to stop this unwarranted nomination. Tell your Senator today that the NRC needs strong, public-minded regulators, not more nuclear cheerleaders. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gd%2FKoaWYo%2BHiBUU12…> And ask your friends and colleagues to take action too. Thanks for all you do, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet(a)nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org> www.nirs.org <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ntmT5s49M6ablIQfaV0pa…>

1 0

[Sustain] My Written Comments On Hunters Point II DEIR
by Eric Brooks 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Hi all, Here's what I both emailed and hand delivered to Planning and Redevelopment yesterday on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the toxic, gentrifying, Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development (which is set to be built by environmentally criminal Lennar Corporation). 1/12/2010 Public Comments On: - CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT File No. 2007.0946E - SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY File No. ER06.05.07 - State Clearinghouse No. 2007082168 Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project (formerly the "Bayview Waterfront Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report TO: Bill Wycko Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 and Stanley Muraoka Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Redevelopment Agency One South Van Ness Avenue, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 FROM: Eric Brooks Sustainability Chair, San Francisco Green Party 288 Onondaga Ave # 4 San Francisco, CA 94112 brookse(a)igc.org 415-756-8844 Environmental Review Officers, I am submitting these comments to point out, and insist upon correction of, serious inadequacies, in the the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project, and in the project plans to which the DEIR refers. I will focus my comments in two categories - 1) SERIOUS INADEQUACIES IN ADDRESSING, AND FAILURES TO ACCOUNT FOR, PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE 2) FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR AND AVOID HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF TOXIC MATERIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS AND IONIZING RADIATION; AND, FAILURE TO MEET THE LEGAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENT CODE CHAPTER 1: - PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE POLICY STATEMENT - SECTIONS 100-104 (see http://library.municode.com/HTML/14134/level1/C1.html ) Comments: 1) SERIOUS INADEQUACIES IN ADDRESSING, AND FAILURES TO ACCOUNT FOR, PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE As is now commonly understood and established by widespread and overwhelming scientific consensus, the Earth's oceans and the San Francisco Bay are now undergoing sea level rise due to planetary climate warming. Until very recently, science policy groups, including and especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been projecting that the worst case scenario for global sea level rise would be no higher than 1.5 meters by the year 2100. However new data and reports released in November 2009 now indicate that the worst case scenario for global sea level rise is now projected to be at least 2 meters by the year 2100. More importantly, NASA's James Hansen, widely recognized as the preeminent climate change expert on Earth, argued credibly as early as 2007 that worst case scenario sea level rise will instead be 5 meters by the year 2100. In light of the fact that the IPCC's predictions of sea level rise from just two years ago have been found to be inadequate by an entire one half meter, and that James Hansen had previously argued in 2007 that the IPCC's projections were indeed inadequate, Hansen's projection of a worst case scenario of 5 meters sea level rise by the year 2100, must now be assumed as the guide for all plans for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. The following data and reports prove this case: - On Nov 22, 2009 NASA released new satellite gravimetric data from a 7 year study of Antarctica showing that the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which scientists previously thought was gaining in volume, is suddenly (as of 2006) undergoing rapid and widespread melting. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-… The NASA study report itself can be ordered from Nature Geoscience at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html This research also shows massive new and more rapid melting in West Antarctica and Greenland. - As of November 24, 2009, in a report entitled 'The Copenhagen Diagnosis', even historically overly equivocal IPCC scientists revised their sea level rise projections to a possible 2 meters (6.5 feet) by the year 2100. See the Reuters news release on the report at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AN4L620091124 and the actual report itself at http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/default.html The portion of this report which describes new sea level rise projections begins on page 37 of the report. - In a March 2007 report, NASA's James Hansen, who first alerted the general public and policy makers to the global climate crisis, discusses the probability of a 5 meter (16.25 feet) sea level rise. See Hansen's report at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html Note that Hansen's report is speculative by nature, simply because ice sheet melting and other data will not exist to prove the case that he argues, until that level of melting is already happening. However, given that the NASA gravimetric data noted above shows that Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are currently undergoing rapidly accelerating melting at previously unforeseen rates (and at rates which continue to accelerate even further) there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt Hansen's predictions; especially in light of the fact that Hansen's past predictions have consistently proved to be correct. CONCLUSIONS - SEA RISE: Hence, since James Hansen's prediction of a worst case 5 meter sea level rise by the year 2100 is highly credible, it is, at the very least, that standard of a predicted 5 meter rise which must be used as the guideline for all plans for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. More importantly, good engineering practice (especially when dealing with a factor with such high unpredictability and potentially severe and costly outcomes as climate induced sea level rise) would call for at least an additional 100% margin of safety over worst case projections to be adopted for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. This means that the standard for assumed sea level rise in the project should be at least 10 meters (32.5 feet) of sea level rise by the year 2100. Even if planners were to use the likely far too equivocal 2 meter worst case sea rise projection in The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an additional 100% margin of safety would still demand a minimum 4 meter rise assumption. Since the project plans and DEIR for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project could not have envisioned the November 2009 reports noted above, and since planners and drafters were apparently unaware of Hansen's earlier and even more serious 5 meter rise projection, the project plans and DEIR are therefore utterly inadequate in addressing and including sufficiently high sea level rise projections. Specific Inadequacies Numerous And Widespread - In Addition Most DEIR Sections Have No Sea Rise Analysis At All, And Must Now Include Such Analysis The sections of the DEIR which deal most comprehensively with sea level rise; Volume 2 Section II. Project Description; and Volume 2 Section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; have numerous entries on sea level rise. In nearly every instance, the core predictions and plans referenced in the DEIR are dramatically overwhelmed by even the new -minimum- worst case scenario described above of 2 meters (78 inches) sea level rise. Most of the DEIR and project plan sections mentioning sea level rise assume a maximum of 36 inches sea level rise. Most notably, even where a potential 55 inch rise is mentioned as theoretically possible, that potential is downplayed with the following statement which, in light of the new information shown above, can now be seen to be completely and dangerously incorrect; "Even among projections considered plausible, albeit high, by the CALFED Independent Science Board, a SLR of 36-inches would not occur until about 2075 to 2080 and by about 2100 the SLR could reach 55 inches. However, sea level observations since the publication date of the ice cap melt studies, although not conclusive to establish a new trend in SLR, do not show the accelerated SLR trajectory predicted by some of the reports." Clearly, new observations do -indeed- show such accelerated sea level rise. Other sections of the DEIR which specifically mention sea level rise and which need to be carefully and extensively revised to account for both the new data and Hansen's report are: Volume 2 Sections III.K and III.L and Volume 3 Sections III.N and III.S, Section IV. and Section VI. Furthermore, almost every -other- section of the DEIR and the project plan referenced, is impacted by sea level rise; and in light of the much higher 2 to 5 meter sea level rise projections now shown to be warranted, nearly the entire DEIR and the project plan that it references must be carefully reexamined and revised to account for sea level rise impacts. To get a sense of why such an overarching reexamination of nearly the entire DEIR is necessary, see the following online interactive sea level rise projection maps: The Project Area At 2 Meters Sea Level Rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=37.7293,-122.3995&z=3&m=2 The Project Area At 5 Meters Sea Level Rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=37.7293,-122.3995&z=3&m=5 Even at the minimum 2 meter rise worst case assumption, the sea inundations into the project area clearly and profoundly impact the entire project in fundamental ways that are not adequately addressed in the DEIR and the referenced project plan. And the 5 meter projection map is undeniably astounding in its implications. Therefore the following sections; III.A. Intro to Analysis; III.B. Land Use; III.C. Pop., Housing, & Employment; III. D. Transportation; III. E. Aesthetics; III.H. Air Quality; III.J. Cultural and Paleontological Resources; III.O. Public Services; III.P. Recreation; III.Q. Utilities; III.R. Energy; and V. Other CEQA Considerations; all of which shockingly contain no significant references to sea level rise whatsoever, must now all be carefully reviewed and revised to account comprehensively for the far reaching impacts of the sea level rise projections indicated above. Furthermore, all of the DEIR Appendices must likewise be assessed as to their accuracy in regard to sea level rise. Most notably, Appendices L, S, and V-2 each reference sea level rise, largely mirror the same serious shortcomings and errors shown in the DEIR, and must therefore be strongly questioned. And as in the case of the overall DEIR itself, all of the other Appendices are also affected and should be reexamined in relation to the new data and reports as to their adequacy. Particularly important in this respect is Appendix N-2 which discusses Yosemite Slough with almost no mention of sea level at all; this when sea level rise will clearly have profound impacts on plans for the Slough. Sea Level Rise Interactions With Liquefaction & Hazardous Materials The most important inadequacies of the DEIR and project plan lie in their failure to account adequately for the potential of sea level rise to severely exacerbate both liquefaction and the leaching and harmful interactions of hazardous materials in the project area. Liquefaction In the report entitled 'Vulnerability assessment to liquefaction hazard induced by rising sea-levels due to global warming' (see http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=155784183 - or purchase the full article with graphics at http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812701602/preserved-docs/9789812701… ) the report authors establish clearly that liquefaction dangers increase as sea levels rise, and increase rapidly after sea level rise exceeds 1 meter. Shockingly, neither the DEIR section III.L. Geotechnical; nor section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; mention in any substantial way the dangers of potential interactions between sea level rise and liquefaction. It is absolutely imperative that the DEIR and the project plan, outline a detailed analysis of these potentially extremely hazardous interactions, and outline plans for how they would be prevented; all with the full range of 2 to 5 meters sea level rise assumed. Hazardous Materials By far the most troubling aspect of the DEIR and project plan's neglect of sea level rise assessments is in their failure to sufficiently address potential sea level rise interaction with hazardous materials in and on the project site. In 'Implications of Sea Level Rise for Hazardous Waste Sites in Coastal Floodplains' (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter9.pdf ) the authors establish clearly the extensive dangerous interactions that can occur as sea level rise exacerbates flooding and triggers other negative impacts in hazardous waste sites, such as those in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. Yet astoundingly, neither the DEIR section III.K. Hazards and Hazardous Materials; III.L. Geotechnical; nor section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; assess in any comprehensive or substantial way the very serious dangers of potential interactions between sea level rise and the numerous hazardous materials and residues in the project plan area. It is crucial that comprehensive detailed assessments of such potential interactions be included in the DEIR and project plan; assessments which assume the full spectrum of 2 to 5 meters sea level rise projected above. However, regardless of the findings of such new assessments, the dramatic sea level rise scenarios projected above could so overwhelm the project area that unforeseen and unavoidable extremely dangerous leaching, flushing, mixing, out-gassing and dispersion of a veritable toxic soup of hazardous materials could take place in the project area. It is therefore imperative that all hazardous materials be completely removed from the entire project area before any development is permitted to proceed. Under a scenario of sea level rise between 2 and 5 meters, no capping or other on-site containment of any hazardous wastes can be adequate to assure the prevention of unacceptably dangerous leaching, flushing, mixing, out-gassing and dispersion of hazardous materials; all which in turn would lead to the inevitable poisoning of the environment, animals, and people, living in, working in, and visiting the area. These remarks on sea level rise disrupted hazardous materials now segue well into the second and final category of my comments. 2) FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR AND AVOID HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF TOXIC MATERIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS AND IONIZING RADIATION; AND, FAILURE TO MEET THE LEGAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENT CODE CHAPTER 1: - PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE POLICY STATEMENT - SECTIONS 100-104 (see http://library.municode.com/HTML/14134/level1/C1.html ) Chrysotile Asbestos Two recent European Union (EU) directives can be viewed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXn… and at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXn… In those directives, the EU establishes that "No threshold level of exposure has yet been identified below which chrysotile asbestos does not pose carcinogenic risks;". In those directives, the EU also bans all applications and uses of chrysotile asbestos as of the year 2005. Chrysotile or 'white' asbestos is the same type existing naturally in serpentine rock at the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area and in other development areas in the Bayview Hunters Point. Previous grading and other development activities in those other development areas has resulted in chrysotile dust contamination on the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area. Because it has been established that there is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile asbestos, all asbestos dust which has arisen from other construction sites must be completely removed from the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area before any any development can begin in the area. Further, because it has been established that there is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile asbestos, no grading whatsoever of any asbestos laden serpentine rock can be allowed in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area. Such grading presents unnecessary and unacceptable risks to human health. All plans of the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project which permit the grading of asbestos laden serpentine rock must be nullified, and alternative plans which will not disturb chrysotile asbestos must be adopted. Ionizing Radiation In June 2005 the National Academies of Science reported that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation (see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340 ) Therefore no development can be allowed to proceed in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area until all radiological waste materials are completely removed from the area. Proceeding with any development while such wastes remain anywhere in the project area, presents unnecessary and unacceptable risks to human health. The Precautionary Principle And All Hazardous Materials Furthermore, because San Francisco's own legally established Precautionary Principle also requires that no person be unnecessarily exposed to chrysotile asbestos, ionizing radiation, or any other hazardous materials, it is doubly mandated that all asbestos laden serpentine rock must be left completely undisturbed, and all radiological and other hazardous materials must be completely removed from the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area before any development can proceed. -end of comments- Eric Brooks Sustainability Chair, San Francisco Green Party 288 Onondaga Ave # 4 San Francisco, CA 94112 brookse(a)igc.org 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] SF City Atty Files To Block PG&E Attacks On CCA
by Eric Brooks 12 Jan '10

12 Jan '10

Hi all, Herrera has included potential PG&E marketing for the statewide ballot measure in the complaint. See links below. http://www.sfcityattorney.org/ Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=277> City Attorney Dennis Herrera has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for tougher regulations to prohibit electric utilities from engaging in marketing campaigns and other abuses of their monopoly position to undermine Community Choice Aggregation, a program intended to enable local governments to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources and ultimately stabilize consumers' electricity costs. The move comes in reaction to recent efforts by PG&E to kill consumer choice, contrary to promises the company repeatedly voiced to state regulators. "We cannot let Californians be denied the benefits of cleaner, cost-effective energy alternatives -- consumer choice is simply too important to ratepayers and the environment," Herrera said. "The California Public Utilities Commission exists to police giant utilities, to assure that their monopoly advantages aren't abused to exploit consumers or frustrate the policy objectives of our state lawmakers. Yet that is exactly what has happened since PG&E locked CCA into its crosshairs. It is critical for state regulators to move quickly and decisively to tighten regulations, and restore teeth to the law as the legislature intended. I am enormously grateful to Sup. Ross Mirkarimi for his longstanding leadership on CCA as LAFCo chair, and to SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and his staff for their expertise and hard work to fulfill the promise of consumer choice." * Read the news release "Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=277>; Utility's deceptive campaign, broken promises on Community Choice Aggregation demand expedited action by regulators, City argues" (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of the City Attorney's CPUC petition to halt anti-CCA marketing drives <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=503> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices A-C <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=502> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices D-G <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=500> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices H-L <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=501> (Jan. 11, 2010)

1 0