Flesh and Stone

Respect urged for Japan's tsunami flotsam landing on U.S. coastlines

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:32:00 -0700

A floating black 55-gallon drum was found by a cleaning crew on a beach at the northwest tip of Washington state recently. What's interesting about the flotsam is that it is the first known bit of debris from the March 11, 2011 tsumnami that hit Japan to land on a U.S. beach.

Curtis Ebbesmeyer and Jim Ingraham, oceanographic consultants say that people should be on alert for more floating debris and that they should treat it with respect beacuse it could be valuable to Japanese who were affected by the tsunami.

"All debris should be treated with a great reverence and respect," Ebbesmeyer told an audience in Port Angeles, Washington. Anything that’s found by beach combers should be left in place and authorities called, especially any items that could be identified by victims of the Japanese tsunami.

“If the debris has any kind of identifiable marking, such as numbers or Japanese writing, it may be traceable,” Ebbesmeyer said. “Families in Japan are waiting to hear of any items that may have been associated with their loved ones.” Ebbesmeyer also warned that the debris could be contaminated by radiation.

The flotsam could include fishing boats, houses, car parts and possibly human remains, Ebbesmeyer said. Some floating masses could be a hazard to boats and ships, and some shipping lanes have been rerouted around the debris, according to Ebbesmeyer.

Up to one-quarter of the 100 million tons of debris from Japan is expected to make landfall on U.S. beaches from Alaska to California. Traveling in a current, flotsam moves at speeds from 7 to 20 miles per hour, Ebbesmeyer said.

ABCNews.com reported in October that a Russian training ship had encountered a "1,000-mile-long mass of tsunami debris" in September near Midway Island, a U.S. territory about 1,700 miles from Hawaii.

More Japanese floats reported — now that West End residents know what they are

Video:

Presentation by Oceanographers Ebbesmeyer and Ingraham given at Peninsula College

Japan Earthquake Update (12 March 2011 2110 CET)

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:40:00 -0700

by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Saturday, March 12, 2011 at 12:07pm

Japanese authorities have informed the IAEA that the explosion at Unit 1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant occurred outside the primary containment vessel (PCV), not inside. The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has confirmed that the integrity of the primary containment vessel remains intact.

As a countermeasure to limit damage to the reactor core, TEPCO proposed that sea water mixed with boron be injected into the primary containment vessel. This measure was approved by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the injection procedure began at 20:20 local Japan time.

Japan has reported that four workers at Fukushima Daiichi were injured by the explosion.

NISA have confirmed the presence of caesium-137 and iodine-131 in the vicinity of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1. NISA reported an initial increase in levels of radioactivity around the plant earlier today, but these levels have been observed to lessen in recent hours.

Containment remains intact at Fukushima Daiichi Units 1, 2 and 3.

Evacuations around both affected nuclear plants have begun. In the 20-kilometre radius around Fukushima Daiichi an estimated 170000 people have been evacuated. In the 10-kilometre radius around Fukushima Daini an estimated 30000 people have been evacuated. Full evacuation measures have not been completed.

The Japanese authorities have classified the event at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 as a level 4 ‘Accident with Local Consequences’ on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). The INES scale is used to promptly and consistently communicate to the public the safety significance of events associated with sources of radiation. The scale runs from 0 (deviation) to 7 (major accident).

Japan has also confirmed the safety of all its nuclear research reactors.

The IAEA continues to liaise with the Japanese authorities and is monitoring the situation as it evolves.

Japan awaits word on possible nuclear reactor leak

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:44:00 -0700

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has issued an emergency decree regarding the possibility of leaking radiation from the damaged Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCo) multi-reactor Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The 3,000 residents near the Fukushima No. 1 plant were told to evacuate, according to the Kyoto News Service.

TEPCo officials said rising pressure inside one of its reactors had elevated the risk of a radiation leak. The U.S. Air Force in Japan flew coolant to a nuclear power plant that suffered severe damage from the quake, according to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it wasn't immediately clear if it was the Fukushima plant. Nuclear fuel must be continuously cooled for 24 to 48 hours even after being shut down, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Kan told citizens there were no confirmed reports of leaked nuclear radiation. "I ask the public to continue to stay fully vigilant and to keep abreast of TV and radio reports, and I ask everyone to act calmly," Kan said in a released statement.

''We have a situation where one of the reactors cannot be cooled down," said Yukio Edano, a government spokesman, at a late Friday press briefing. ''No radiation has leaked outside the reactor. The incident poses no danger to the environment at the moment.''

Eleven of Japan's 50 nuclear reactors shut down automatically following the quake.

The Tohoku district was the epicenter for the 8.8 earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan beginning at at 2:46 pm. One of three Onagawa nuclear power plants near Sengai, less thn 50 miles from the epicenter, broke out in a fire, but was later extinguished.

Kyodo News said at least 200 bodies had been found near the epicenter and that 88,000 people are reported as missing. The massive tsunami that followed the quake washed away numerous homes, autos and planes and submerged entire towns.

Dangerous High-Level Nuclear Waste with Nowhere to Go

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:39:00 -0700

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future is meeting January 26-28 in Atlanta, Georgia

By Celia Sampol, DC Bureau

Many nuclear power advocates appeared in front of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in Augusta, Georgia, on Friday [Jan. 7, 2011] in support of a permanent repository for nuclear waste and supported the concept of reprocessing nuclear waste.

Environmentalists opposed reprocessing because there is no permanent waste repository and reprocessing creates more waste. They believe reprocessing wastes taxpayer dollars on special interests.

BRAC went to Augusta because the Department of Energy’s massive nuclear facility, the Savannah River Site, and the Southern Company’s two huge new nuclear power plants under construction are nearby.

During a day-long meeting, the 15-person Commission, launched by President Barack Obama last January, heard from an array of speakers. Most of them criticized the Obama administration’s decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, which was designed as a permanent repository for 70,000 tons of spent fuel from the 104 commercial reactors located in the United States. “It was a short-sighted decision with devastating consequences,” said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He added that South Carolina has paid more than $1.3 billion to “build a hole that we are not going to use” so “we either want our money back or we want to use that hole.”

Graham also said that more nuclear power plants could “create new jobs in America that pay very well.” But “to those who wish to have a Nuclear Renaissance, we will not be able to get there until we come up with a waste disposal plan.” The Senator said he supports reprocessing because he believes it “make sense” and “could be achieved in a reasonable period of time.” He did not address the issue of disposal of nuclear waste created by reprocessing.

Graham praised the Obama administration’s support for the multi-billion dollar Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) program at SRS. The goal of this project, authorized in 1999 during the Clinton administration, is to dispose of 36 metric tons of surplus U.S. military weapons grade plutonium by irradiating it and turning it into fuel that can be used in nuclear reactors to produce electricity. Once the plutonium has been irradiated, it can no longer be used in a nuclear weapon without elaborate further reprocessing. This new technology is unproven. Currently commercial reactors in the United States are not designed to use MOX fuel.

“I would say something good about the Obama administration: Secretary Chu has been one of the best Secretaries of Energy I ever have to deal with. The administration, generally speaking, has had a good vision for the development of commercial nuclear power; they have put on the table loan guarantees more robust than under the Bush administration. Secretary Chu has also convinced me that another form of reprocessing, better than what the French, the British and the Japanese do, may be achieved in the next decade,” Graham said. (SRS received one of the largest amounts of Recovery Act funds in the country.) He believes the risk of proliferation from reprocessing is “overstated.”

Speaking on behalf of the Central Savannah River Area Chambers of Commerce, Brian Tucker said, “The federal government’s decision to abandon Yucca Mountain has sent a very bad message” to the local community and has made “SRS a de facto permanent repository.” He also supports the MOX program and believes that “blending down weapons-grade uranium into low enriched uranium suitable for fuel in commercial power reactors” and using it in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors to provide electricity is the “kind of well-executed, innovative, problem-solving technology that we believe can be brought to bear in helping to resolve the pressing issues being addressed by this Commission.”

Manuel Bettencourt, from the SRS Citizens Advisory Board, agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and stressed the fact that SRS has significant resources that could assist in research and development of ways to reprocess nuclear waste. The concept of reprocessing nuclear waste was also supported by Clint Wolfe, the executive director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, who explained that coal and gas emissions threaten the world’s water and air while nuclear energy “has the potential to provide a clean alternative” and remains “safe.”

In opposition to reprocessing, environmentalist Tom Clements, the Southeast Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from South Carolina on the Green Party ticket last year, told the Commission, “There is really no rush concerning high-level waste. There is time to make the right decision.” According to Clements, “the path forward in a medium term is to secure on-site storage, it’s not recycling or reprocessing. …We are all concerned about future jobs but reprocessing is not a good idea.” Clements raised concerns about proliferation, because reprocessing has been used to create plutonium, the core material for nuclear weapons, and noted that reprocessing will bring more high-level radioactive nuclear waste to South Carolina.

The activist said that the Department of Energy (DOE) is now proposing “a so-called energy park” at SRS and wants to create four experimental nuclear power plants capable of burning radioactive waste for fuel. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, the consortium of private government contractors that operates SRS under contract with the DOE, defends the energy park and says that it could be the potential alternative to Yucca Mountain.

Clements said, “The environmental groups have not been involved in the discussion” of the energy park and “there was no discussion with the public.” He said, “Their (DOE) mission is clean up; they need to get back to that mission.” He added that the mission of the MOX plant was never to use the fuel for purposes like producing electricity. “I think it’s more about money going to special interests than anything else,” he said. “It’s going to be a grand battle” if government decides to push forward with reprocessing. “We don’t want South Carolina to become the new Yucca Mountain.”

Charles Utley, from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, told the Commission that they should work toward a nuclear-free future for the nation. He said solar and wind power “have a great potential as clean energy sources” that will help ease dependence on foreign oil.

After the testimonies, the public made brief comments. A long line of witnesses pleaded against nuclear power. A student in environmental engineering came to the podium with her one-year-old sister and asked the Blue Ribbon Commission to take into account her sister’s future when making its deliberations.

At the end of the meeting, co-Chairman Brent Scowcroft noted, “There is a feeling in the country that the government keeps changing the rules with Yucca Mountain” and one of the problems the Commission faces is “how to set a system in which people can have confidence it won’t be changed with the next election cycle.”

The Commission’s next hearings will be in New Mexico January 26 through 28, where members will tour the Energy Department’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and hold public meetings in Carlsbad and Albuquerque. The Blue Ribbon Commission is to publish a draft report in mid-2011 and a final report in 2012.

Master degree graduate in European Journalism, Celia Sampol has worked for five years as a reporter for the European press agency Europolitics in Brussels, Belgium. She has also collaborated with various famous French newspapers as Le Monde, Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace or Acteurs Publics. She moved to DC last September to pursue a career in political and environmental investigative reporting.

Who Owns Wild Rice?

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:33:00 -0700

by Jeff Nygaard, Nygaard Notes

Whenever we look at the world from an indigenous perspective the issues of ownership and wealth come up almost immediately. In a series from this past October called “Midwest Mining Rush Threatens Water,” the Public Education Center (PEC) reported that “In the upper Midwest, mining companies estimate there is the largest deposit of copper, nickel and precious stones in North America encased in nearly 5 billion tons of low-grade rock.” The PEC explains that “Because the region suffers some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, there is enormous pressure to let the mining companies come.” Let them come, that is, and engage in sulfide mining that, according to the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, “contaminates lakes, rivers, and groundwater,” in the process causing damage to “human health, fish, wildlife, and entire ecosystems.”

One thing that would be damaged by the proposed mining operations would be the wild rice that grows in the area. As the White Earth Land Recovery Project explains, wild rice is a “sacred food” that “is a central part of Anishinaabeg culture and tradition.” Minnesota Public Radio reports that “High levels of sulfates released from Minnesota's mining industry are suspected of diminishing Minnesota's native wild rice beds.” That’s part of the reason Minnesota currently has rules that limit sulfates in wild rice waters.

The advocacy group Water Legacy reminds us that “It is prudent to ask the political question, whether we really want to sacrifice our water for jobs.” And water may not be the only thing that would be sacrificed if the mining companies are allowed to come.

In the corporate media in Minnesota this case has been reported as a dispute about “regulation,” the enforcement of rules, the role of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and so forth. But the disputed ideas underneath all of those issues are fundamental ideas about ownership and control. On the one side is the dominant capitalist culture, in which land is “owned” and the owner can do with it whatever he or she likes. So a mining company can operate a mine on land that it “owns” if it can abide by the necessary regulations. (Here we are, talking about regulations again.)

On the other side are the traditions and culture of the indigenous people of the area, and the foods with which they have been in relationship from time immemorial. The indigenous people who rely so heavily on wild rice do not claim to “own” it. No one can “own” what is wild, after all. But they do claim that no one has the right to destroy this resource that is sacred to the people, that is a central part of an ancient and living culture.

The indigenous claim on the wild rice—or, rather, the indigenous relationship with wild rice—implies a right to stop the mining companies (or anyone else) from killing it. But this only makes sense if we throw out the idea of “ownership” entirely. Because if “ownership” were to settle this issue, then it would be theoretically possible for native people to “own” the rice and to kill it themselves, should they so desire. That is, they would have the “right” to do what they wish with “their” rice. But not everyone sees things this way, a fact which is hinted at by use of the word “sacred” in describing the rice.

(Somewhat ironically, the dominant culture likes to talk about something called The Enlightenment, one of the ideas of which was the idea of “natural rights,” which we know as “inalienable” rights, and which the U.S. Declaration of Independence says come from the “Creator.” Such rights are “self-evident,” and cannot be taken away by governments. I think this is another way of saying “sacred,” perhaps. But I digress...)

The Forum on Privatization and the Public Domain, a Canadian anti-privatization group, explains that the question here is “the question of how indigenous peoples are to conserve their culture, language, spirituality and ecology without being forced to ‘own’ it according to the property laws of the dominant culture.”

Culture, language, spirituality and ecology are invisible—if not inconceivable—in the market. So we argue about rules and regulations when the issues go much deeper, out of the view of most of us.

The test behind our water pollution program failures

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:09:00 -0700

by Peter Maier, PhD, PE

Sewage contains carbonaceous (fecal) waste and nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, which both are used by two different types of bacteria. Treatment plants are actually bacteria feedlot operations to break down this waste, while containing them under controlled conditions. Since the two types are different and have different requirements, it is essential to know how much and what type of waste has to be broken down, thus what type of holding areas are needed and how much oxygen would be required for this process. This oxygen demand can be measured with the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test.

Another important design criteria is the amount of sewage (flow rates) expected. This in turn will depend on in what type of sewer collection system this sewage is collected. Older cities will mostly have combined sewer systems, whereby both sanitary sewage and storm water is collected and which of course do require much larger hydraulic capacity as compared to separate sewer system, where only sewage is collected. To handle extreme high flows, combined systems also have CSOs (Combined Sewer Overflows), where during such periods both sewage and storm water is directly discharged into open water. Separate systems have the disadvantage that storm water in many cities is not as clean as was expected and that this storm water has become a major untreated pollution source.

The selection of sewage treatment therefore not only depends on how much carbonaceous and nitrogenous waste is in sewage, but also on the flow rates in what type of sewage collection system this sewage is collected.

The BOD test, developed in England around 1920, measures the oxygen use by heterotrophic bacteria using carbonaceous (fecal) waste, exerting a C-BOD and autotrophic bacteria using nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste exerting a N-BOD. Biochemical tests are slow, so it will take at least 30 days before all the waste is broken down into CO2, NO3 and water, while the test still does not show how much oxygen is used by the heterotrophic and how much by autotrophic bacteria. However, since very fresh raw sewage hardly contains autotrophic bacteria, the test during the first 6 to 8 days only measured the oxygen use by heterotrophic bacteria and since the oxygen used by autotrophic bacteria also can be measured by the faster TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen) test, it was possible to calculate the total BOD already after 5 days, by using the following formula: Total BOD = 1.5 x BOD5 + 4.6 x TKN.

Average sewage (according the literature) will measure BOD5 = 200 mg/l and TKN = 40 mg/l, hence Total BOD = 300 + 184 = 484 mg/l. Unfortunately, when EPA implemented the CWA, it used only the BOD5 value and since ‘secondary treatment' was supposed to be 85% treatment, the BOD5 of secondary treated sewage should be less then (85% of 200) 30 mg /l.

Since autotrophic bacteria already are present in many sewage collection system and sewage treatment plants, there is no 5-day delay, as was found in 1920, so many sewage treatment plants in the seventies violated their discharge permits, while in fact the higher than 30 mg BOD5 /l reading was actually partly N-BOD5. In these cases, plants were violating their discharge permits, while in fact treating the sewage better than was required by their permits.

In 1984 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledged this problem and allowed the C-BOD5 test, which is the same BOD5 test, except that a certain chemical is added that will only kill the autotrophic bacteria. It was estimated that 60 percent of the plants in the 1970s that were out of compliance were brought into compliance by adding this chemical to their test.

However, by allowing this, EPA not only lowered the final goal of the CWA from 100 percent treatment (elimination of all water pollution by 1985) to a measly 35 percent treatment, but also officially ignored nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, while this waste, besides exerting an oxygen demand, also is a fertilizer for algae, causing eutrophication often resulting in red tides and dead zones. This, while it still is impossible to evaluate the real treatment performance of a sewage treatment plant and establish what its effluent waste loading is on receiving water bodies.

Since we still also do not know how much carbonaceous and nitrogenous waste is in raw sewage, the chances are that sewage treatment plants are designed to treat the wrong waste, as most engineers still assume that the BOD5 in raw sewage represents its C-BOD5 value only, while in many cases (especially warmer climates) this is not the case.

The only correct way to use the BOD test is to use the C-BOD5 test in combination with the TKN test: BOD = 1.5 x C- BOD5 + 4.6 x TKN.

This will provide the only correct data how much carbonaceous and how much nitrogenous food has to be broken down in these bacteria feedlot operations, called sewage treatment plants.

Consequences of incorrect use of the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) test:

Government regulations failed to achieve any of its goals as 60% of the pollution Congress intended to prevent, was ignored.

Since it still is impossible to evaluate the real treatment performances of sewage treatment plants, it is impossible to compare the different treatment processes and therefore makes any cost-benefit engineering analysis of different treatment processes worthless.

Since it also is impossible to know the real effluent waste loading on receiving waters, this data is misleading when used in TMDL (Total Daily Maximum Load) watershed programs.

Raw sewage can already be N-BOD5 and when design engineers still assume that it only represents C-BOD5, sewage treatment plants will be designed to treat the wrong waste.

Better sewage treatment was accomplished by adding secondary and now tertiary treatment processes, only after stricter treatment criteria were required.

When the oxidation ditch was developed in 1950, which contained all these additional treatment processes in one process, it was not recognized, because there was no correct test data available and engineers were solely focused in meeting effluent standards.

Improving the oxidation ditch process by adding final clarifiers was a mistake, as it caused hydraulic limitations. The original concept allows inexpensive solutions to the problems now experience with combined sewer collection system, eliminating CSOs.

The lack of correct test data and unwillingness to even discuss this, has created an atmosphere of denial, which promotes the status quo, sticking only to traditional systems, which were original only odor control facilities and also inhibits innovation.

The fear of exposing what happened with the CWA, now interferes with other environmental issues (air pollution, climate change, acidification of oceans, forest fires, etc) impacted by the huge increase of reactive nitrogen in our biosphere.

Maier received a doctoral degree in civil engineering from the University of Delft in Holland, and has professional engineering licenses in New York and Utah. He worked for the State of New York, a large engineering consulting firm in Holland and an equipment manufacturing firm in Utah. He was involved in the design and R&D of municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and the United States. He can be reached at pmaier@petermaier.net.

World going nuts over California almonds

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:54:00 -0700

Bakersfield, Calif. -- California almond growers announced a record 1.65- billion-pound production of almonds for local consumption and export in a recent harvest.

Reflecting a large growth in almond orchards in the state over the past five years, farmers are shifting their productions of cheaper vegetables to the new “in farming" of growing, harvesting and exporting nuts. Currently, California has 810,000 acres of planted almond orchards, up 25 percent from 10 years ago, and now lays claim to producing 80 percent of the world’s supply. Spain trails California as the second largest producer.

California growers have also cornered the U.S. market; the Almond Board of California claims "virtually 100 percent of domestic supply"in its 2010 Almond Almanac.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, almonds are now the largest export crop in California, beating out milk, cheese, wheat, apples and wine. Experts said this new high in almond exports is due to increased consumption and demand in developing nations, such as China, where imports of the nuts rose from 16 million pounds to more than 133 million pounds during the past five years. Experts are speculating that Africa and South America, largely untapped markets, will be the next focus of the nut-growing industry, which expects to make gains in various countries on those continents, too.

Image: Almonds on the tree. Photo courtesy mental.masala/flickr

Star power has helped in the industry’s growth as well. The Almond Board hired Chinese actress Gao Yuan Yuan to promote almonds for the Chinese New Year as part of its largest marketing campaign in China yet.

Gift-giving is traditional during the winter months in India, so the California almond industry seized the opportunity to hire Indian actress Karisma Kapoor to make promotional spots for their product. "We have no mature markets or consumers who have reached a point even close" to eating as many almonds as they can, said Richard Waycott, Almond Board CEO.

Grain importers pestered by beetle larvae arriving in rice shipments

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:59:00 -0700

Port of Los Angeles, Calif. -- For the fourth time since November 2010 U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) agriculture specialists have seized and destroyed rice shipments from India, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia containing beetle larvae.

The latest seizure occurred at the Los Angeles/Long Beach port of entry on Jan. 13 where officials stopped a shipment of basmati rice from Pakistan.

"The specimen was a pest not established in the United States," said Jaime Ruiz, a CBP spokesman. U.S. Department of Agriculture entomologists identified the insects as Trogoderma granarium Evert, also known as the khapra beetle. The USDA said the pests are an invasive species not established in the United States and are considered to be one of the world's most destructive insects, particularly for grains and seeds.

According to Ruiz, a Saudi Arabian rice shipment that arrived Dec. 29 at Los Angeles International Airport contained live adult and larvae khapra beetles.

Federal Protection of Wilderness Study Areas Reinstated

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:01:00 -0700

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today restored a policy allowing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which he oversees, to recommend undeveloped lands for federal protection under The Wilderness Act of 1964.

Millions of acres of land could eventually be designated as “Wilderness Study Areas” as a result of Salazar’s order. While only Congress can create new wilderness areas, the order re-authorizes the BLM to protect areas from development until Congress considers whether or not to create a new wilderness area.

The Bush administration introduced the “No More Wilderness policy” in 2003 when it removed the BLM’s authority to designate wilderness areas and afford them protection from excessive development. As a result, millions of acres of public lands that qualified for wilderness status were leased to oil and gas companies. Currently, oil and gas companies hold leases on over 45 million acres of public lands in the western United States, with about 13 million acres in development.

Salazar’s order will restore administrative protection to more than 6 million acres of land in Utah, 650,000 acres in Colorado, 5.5 million acres in Arizona, and 2 million acres in New Mexico, according to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

"Americans love the wild places where they hunt, fish, hike, and get away from it all, and they expect these lands to be protected wisely on their behalf," said Salazar in a press release. "This policy ensures that the lands of the American public are protected for current and future generations to come."

Of course, there were detractors.

Speaking up for industry was Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who said in is own fiery press statement that restoring the wilderness protection policy was “extremist” and "a brazen attempt to kowtow to radical environmentalist groups by locking up more public lands in Utah and other states."

Hatch, the Senate's most senior Republican, is seeking re-election in 2012. and no doubt major campaign contributions from oil and gas lobbyists. Between 2005 and 2010 he was the Senate's top recipient of campaign funds from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry.

Kimberly-Clark on a roll to eliminate toilet paper tubes

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:09:00 -0600

Kimberly-Clark plans to help save the environment by introducing tubeless toilet paper rolls, therefore reducing landfill use by eliminating billions of paper tubes from being tossed out each year.

One of the world’s largest makers of paper products for home use, Kimberly-Clark will be testing sales of "Scott Naturals Tube-Free" bathroom tissue at Walmart and Sam’s Clubs throughout the Northeast beginning Monday.

A spokesman for the company said if the test run of the first major change in the manufacture of bath tissue in 100 years is successful, they may introduce the product nationally, with the possibility of going global. The company is also considering adapting the new tubeless technology to be used in the manufacture of its paper towel brands. It’s not perfect. The centers of the rolls are not 100 percent round, but they do fit standard toilet paper holders, and no paper is lost due to being stuck to the tube with glue.

Doug Daniels, brand manager at Kimberly-Clark said, “Most consumers toss, rather than recycle, used tubes. We found a way to bring innovation to a category as mature as bath tissue."

Seventeen billion toilet paper tubes are tossed out each year in the United States. That equals 160 million pounds of trash. Stacked end-to-end they could stretch more than a million miles, which would cover a distance from here to the moon and back ... twice. Daniels said consumer demand for more eco-friendly products spurred Kimberly-Clark to come up with the idea of tubeless rolls. He refused to reveal the new technology, but said it’s a process similar to how products are made for commercial use.

In a radio man-in-the street interview on KABC in Los Angeles asking people what they thought of the idea, the only complaint came from a Brownie troop leader, who wondered what the girls are going to use for craft projects if all the paper tubes disappear.

Toilet paper is a $9 billion business in the U.S.

Andrew Michler points out on inhabitant, that calling the tubeless TP "Naturals" is a bit of a green tease.

"Although the company promises to use recycled paper content in the future for the tubeless TP they are verging on greenwash by labeling this as part of their Scott Naturals line, in which other products use 40% recycled paper." Read more: Is New Tubeless Toilet Paper Just a Green Tease? | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World