Posts Tagged ‘environment’

Montreal boil water advisory for 1.3 million people

Much of Montreal is under a boil water advisory. Photo: opethpainter, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Much of Montreal is under a boil water advisory. Photo: opethpainter, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Update Friday 8 am.  The boil water advisory was lifted late Thursday evening after tests showed no dangerous bacteria, such as E. coli, in the affected water. Here’s more from the Montreal Gazette.

Update 4 pm. The boil water advisory for affected areas will continue to at least 9:30 or 10 pm, Thursday, when a further update on the situation will be available, according to the Montreal Gazette.

10:25 am. Approximately 1.3 million Montreal residents remain under a boil water advisory today. The Montreal Gazette reports the problem stems from a mishap at a water treatment plant that caused sediment to be stirred into the city’s water system.

The boil water advisory is considered precautionary and may be lifted between 5-8 pm tonight, once test results come back. But, as you can imagine, the situation is a tremendous inconvenience for institutions, businesses and individuals.

As the story is picked up as international news, the Globe and Mail writes that this incident contributes to doubts about Montreal’s ability to properly administer and deliver essential services:

“It’s another blow,” said restaurateur Alexandre Wolosianski after his staff raced out to Costco to buy 50 large containers of water to supply his bustling downtown eatery, the Dominion Square Tavern. In the morning, his cooks called him to report the tap water was yellowish. “Not many Montrealers are proud of their city right now. It already feels like our infrastructure is outdated. Now this.”

Many residents of smaller municipalities are used to dealing with the occasional boil water advisory. But when it affects systems this big, it’s quite a problem.

Arctic Council news – and why it matters

Photo: Linnea Nordström, from the Arctic Council press kit

Photo: Linnea Nordström, from the Arctic Council’s Kiruna, Sweden meeting press kit

Canada and the U.S. are among the small number of nations that directly border the Arctic region. It’s a short list of just eight that includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Russia.

World-wide interest over the transportation and resource potential of the Arctic is growing by leaps and bounds. The stakes are high – especially for the area’s ecological health and actual inhabitants of that cross-border region.

So here’s a round-up of news related to something called the Arctic Council, the body that tries to set and regulate policy for the Arctic.

This week, leaders from many nations will gather in Kiruna, Sweden for an  important session of the Arctic Council. The council’s rotating leadership will pass from Sweden to Canada.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will attend. The New York Times published two op-ed this week about why the subject matters. The first “Northern Beacon” was penned by Sweden’s foreign minister, Carl Bildt, who says:

…when the Arctic Council meets in Kiruna in northern Sweden in the next few days, it is a rare example of a framework set up to deal with events well before they really start to happen, thus making it possible to shape events rather than reacting to things that have already gone wrong.

The second op-ed “Hands Across the Melting Ice” was written by a trio of Arctic experts who caution that Wednesday’s “ministerial meeting of the council in Sweden will face urgent issues dealing with the environment, shipping and governance.”

Science Daily says a main concern is the fragile region’s vulnerability to spills or other ecological upsets.

This Toronto Star article “Canada to take helm of Arctic Council beginning Wednesday” discusses the internal and external implications of Canada returning to a 2-year revolving post last held back in 1998. According to the Star:

Leona Aglukkaq, Harper’s minister in charge of northern economic development, did not respond to an interview request. But she told The Canadian Press that Ottawa’s focus on development — including the creation of an arctic business forum — won’t distract from other priorities.

“What I’m proposing is a trade show forum, a business forum of Arctic to Arctic, an opportunity for private industry to exchange information on best practices on permafrost, on shipping, all of that,” she told The Canadian Press.

British Columbia based Tyee had more on this topic “Business to have role in Arctic debates, says Aglukkaq

Aglukkaq — an Inuk from Gjoa Haven, Nunavut — said it’s time the council addressed the immediate concerns of northerners.

“We can do science and research but if we’re going to make fully informed decisions we have to ask industry how are we doing? I feel we have to close that gap.”

The resource rush is already changing many Arctic communities.

Writing about “Arctic Council heads to Kiruna next week” the Norway-based Barents Observer says the northern Swedish town of Kiruna exemplifies some of these forces of change: resource extraction, toursim and the needs of traditional people.

Today, the underground mine in Kiruna—the largest of its kind in the world—produces about 76,000 tons of ore every day, according to the LKAB website. Or, enough to fill up a 12-story building.

But Kiruna is becoming increasingly well known for more than what it digs out of the ground. It neighbours the Esrange Space Centre, a rocket range and research centre. It has a healthy tourism industry and well known hotels. It’s driving distance to several protected areas, including Abisko national park. And of course, the area it occupies is part of the traditional home of the Sami people, who have raised major concerns about the impact of increased activity—iron mining in particular—on the grazing range of the reindeer they depend on.

According to the UK’s Guardian a key question being discussed is “…whether to allow 14 countries including China and India as well as the European Union a say in deciding the future of the region by granting them observer status in the Arctic Council”.

 The article describe the debate thusly:

Nordic countries would like to internationalise the Arctic; Russia and Canada, which control more territory in the region, are opposed. Obama, it turns out, may still be on the fence.

Looking for what I’ll call local views on the Council’s summit this week, I found this from Nunatsiaq on line:

[MLAs = Members of the Legislative Assembly]

Nunavut MLAs say they don’t want the Arctic Council to admit the European Union into their international forum as an observer and they want Canada to “firmly, publicly and vigorously oppose the European Union’s application for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council.”

The EU’s ban on things like seal pelts is unpopular in Canadian native and northern communities. Here’s more on that:

The EU ban on seal products, which came into effect Aug. 20, 2010, offers an exemption to furs hunted traditionally by Inuit from Canada and Greenland, but bars them from large-scale commerce in skins, oils or meat in its member nations. It’s still not clear how this exemption would work and if any producers in Canada or Greenland will ever use it.

Hudson Bay MLA Alan Rumbolt said that because of the seal products ban, people in Sanikiluaq are having trouble providing for their families, and he commended his colleagues for standing up and supporting the May 9 motion asking for the EU to be denied observer status at the Arctic Council.

Major changes have already come to the Arctic with more on the way. The shape of future change will largely be decided through decisions made by the Arctic Council.

By the way, if you are deeply interested in this week’s sessions in Kiruna, some of them will be streamed on line, including the main May 15th session.

Lobster woes

The Canadian lobster boat "Benevolence" and a stack of traps at low tide. Lobster prices are also ebbing. Photo: Karen Morris, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

The Canadian lobster boat “Benevolence” and a stack of traps at low tide. Lobster prices are also ebbing. Photo: Karen Morris, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

According to press reports out of Atlantic Canada, this has been a bumper season for lobster.

One reason may be a robust grey seal population, as discussed in this Chronicle Herald business write-up out of Nova Scotia:

And the glut of lobster may be due to the fact the lobsters’ predators — cod, pollock and cusk — have been nearly devastated by hungry grey seals.

Groundfish eat lobster larvae and were big factors in keeping the lobster population in check, said Marc Surette, executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association.

With fewer lobster larvae loving fish, more lobster survived infancy, resulting in catches this year that saw some boats steaming into port with lobster piled on their decks because the crew had run out of crates.

This is one of those good news/bad news cycles. While one might think a bumper lobster harvest is good (healthy stocks) it’s been bad for lobster fishermen & women.

In a separate Herald news report, the price for lobster has fallen so low that a mass protest was held on Thursday, the largest such protest  in recent memory.

In total, about 1,000 Nova Scotia boats from along the Northumberland Strait, Gulf of St. Lawrence coast and Eastern Shore refused to leave the wharf in order to protest prices that have dropped to $3.75 per pound for canners (small lobster) and $4.25 per pound for market lobsters.

In Prince Edward Island, where prices have dropped further to nearly $3 a pound, the spring lobster fleet, composed of about 1,000 boats, also stayed tied up to the wharf.

About 250 fishermen from along the Northumberland Strait gathered at the wharf in Caribou, Pictou County, for an open-air meeting.

Some boat operators say they’ll be holding out for $5 a pound and will try sell directly to consumers to net the higher price. But those options may be limited. CTV news has more on the same story, including a video report and interview with PEI Fisherman’s Associatin president Mike McGeoghegan.

I’m not fond of lobster and have no idea if the better harvest has shown up in the form of lower prices for consumers outside of Atlantic Canada. Have you seen price changes?

Meanwhile, from what I read, Maine produces 80% of lobsters consumed in the US market, so how is the Maine lobster situation looking this year?

According to this CBC report, there are concerns that warm ocean temperatures will produce an early harvest which could also glut the market. The article (written from the Canadian perspective) goes on to say:

Fishermen don’t want to see a recurrence of last year, when the strong early catch caused prices to plummet and tensions to boil over when Canadian lobstermen, angered by the low prices, blocked truckloads of Maine’s catch from being delivered to processing plants in Canada.

Phew! It sounds pretty challenging.

Should environmentalists name chunks of the Adirondacks after their leaders?

Paul Schaefer shaped the Adirondack landscape.  Should a chunk of it be named after him?  (Photo by Paul Grondahl, courtesy of Adirondack Wild)

Paul Schaefer shaped the Adirondack landscape. Should a chunk of it be named after him? (Photo by Paul Grondahl, courtesy of Adirondack Wild)

UPDATE:  No environmental activist has suggested that a wilderness or Adirondack land parcel be named after themselves personally.  The text below has been corrected to clarify this point.

This week, a group called Adirondack Wild unveiled a proposal to name a big chunk of the former Finch Pruyn timberlands after celebrated environmentalist Paul Schaefer.

“There is no one so closely associated with protection of the wild Upper Hudson River, and the Park’s wild river system as Paul Schaefer,” said Dan Plumley, co-founder of the group.

“With these magnificent new acquisitions watered and bordered by wild, free flowing rivers, the time has come to name a substantial wilderness in Paul’s honor.”

Schaefer was a ground-breaking environmental activist, who fought against plans to construct a major complex of dams that would have reshaped the Adirondacks, taming some of its wildest rivers and likely displacing some communities.

He passed away in 1996.

This idea of honoring a Park environmentalist with a chunk of wilderness named after him isn’t new.

The Adirondack Council and others have proposed naming a big swath of the western and northern Adirondacks after Bob Marshall.

Marshall was a seasonal resident of the Park who helped to popularize the idea of the 46 High Peaks and he co-founded the Wilderness Society.  He passed away in 1939.

The group has even taken to calling the area The Bob Marshall Wild Lands Complex and issued a map that gathers towns, villages, chunks of public and private land under the moniker that they decided unilaterally that it should bear.

“Now is the opportunity to honor the legacy of Bob Marshall by preserving this wilderness jewel as a gift from our generation to posterity,” the group argued.

I think it’s fair to say that no one can question the impact of these two men, or of a number of other prominent environmentalists who have devoted their lives to protecting land and ecosystems inside the blue line.

But I wonder about the optics of green groups trying to protect these chunks of land, lobbying for the most restrictive land-use classification (in opposition to the views of many locals) and then lobbying to hang  the names of their mentors and inspirations above the door.

In this case, members of Adirondack Wild are proposing to name a wilderness area after an individual with whom they have had longstanding personal and professional ties.

“[Schaefer] was my early mentor in all things Adirondack. In 1987 I was fortunate to have been selected executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, the organization Paul served as a Vice-President,” Adirondack Wild co-founder Dave Gibson wrote in the Adirondack Almanack in 2010.

Is there just a slight whiff of Mount Rushmorism here?

The simple truth is that the goals and ideals of these men have often run contrary to the values of local residents and community leaders who live in the areas most directly affected by these proposed wilderness designations.

It’s one thing to lose a bitter political fight over how the land in your back yard should be managed.  But then to have “your” area named after one of the leaders of the opposing faction?  That’s tough medicine.

I also wonder if there aren’t other folks, including elected officials, who might be in line before Schaefer and Marshall — men who had an arguably much larger and more lasting impact on the Park and its history.

Teddy Roosevelt?  Nelson Rockefeller?  George Pataki?  All three are former state governors who either learned from or reshaped the Adirondacks in profound ways, while leaving an unquestionably important environmental legacy.

Or how about naming an Adirondack wild lands parcel after William Wheeler, the famously honest Malone attorney and congressman who later served as Franklin County prosecutor and then as vice president of the United States?

What about naming a chunk of land after a powerfully influential local leader?  A Ron Stafford Wild Forest?  A George Canon Intensive Use Area?

Finally, what about the guys whose names are already identified with a big chunk of this property?  Jeremiah and Daniel Finch and Samuel Pruyn had a particularly long and historical impact on the Park lands that they owned and stewarded.

They created some of the most interesting works of architecture in the North Country, bankrolled landmark institutions that endure today, and set an early standard for environmentally sound forestry.

I’m not suggesting that no wild lands in the Park should ever be named after a green activist.  And my comments here don’t reflect my personal views about these men or their contributions.

(Having grown up in Alaska, and trekked in the Brooks Range, a well-worn copy of Marshall’s “Exploring the Central Brooks Range” has a place of pride on my book shelf.)

But names and the process of naming are important things.

It seems like before people start hanging their banners or putting names on maps, maybe a conversation is in order between environmental groups, state officials, and the folks who live in these areas.

Beaver lodge critter cam

In Box readers have already heard about Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Great Blue Heron web camera. That two-camera set-up offers wonderful views. As many have commented, the soothing natural sound alone is worth the visit. And, hey, if there was ever a week where a mental health break came in handy, this was it. (Life – precious life – goes on.)

So, I had similar hopes for another natural oasis when I read about a beaver lodge camera.

This “Beaver Whisperers” project is jointly produced by CBC TV’s “The Nature of Things” and Eco-Odyssée, a privately-run Quebec nature destination some 30 minutes north of Ottawa.  (A feature video on the topic of beavers was presented on”The Nature of Things”. Regrettably, the full video is only available within Canada.)

According to the Eco-Oydssée website, their back story goes like this:

What’s one to do with 500 acres of land that comprises a 70 acre marsh, agricultural fields and rolling mountains accentuated by a magnificent mixed forest. This was the question that Michel Leclair asked himself upon acquiring this vast property located just outside of the charming town of Wakefield.

Anyway, proprietor Michel Leclair has been observing a female beaver he named Pollux for 8 years. Contacted about a beaver cam, Leclair thought that site and her family would suit. Clan members now include Castor, Amik, Boulotte and Peluche. Leclair is tweeting updates and tips about what the beavers are up to.

And? Well, my initial reaction is renewed admiration for the rich simplicity of the Cornell project! (And its reliability.) 

Not much happening inside the lodge. Screen shot from The The Beaver Whisperers

I suppose it is to be expected, but visitors to this CBC site must endure TV-style ads to get to the featured material. Next, sometimes the video is down (unavailable). This CBC article about the project includes reader comments, including a number of annoyed swipes at ads and uncertain video feeds at the site.

Next, when it’s working, beaver lodge camera 1 (inside the lodge) disappoints somewhat for being in black and white, with a camera angle that doesn’t show much. There’s no sound either. (Though perhaps there wouldn’t be a lot to hear in there anyway?) A full morning of intermittent viewing consisted of grey fur that sometimes moved.

To be fair, I haven’t been visiting very often and there may be better days than the one I saw. Shortcomings aside, without a camera like this, how often would one otherwise get to see the inner workings of daily life in a lodge? So it is worth something.

Beavers are fascinating, important creatures. Communicating that to a broader audience is worthwhile.

The “Beaver Whisperer” website is a cheerful smorgasbord of diverse information and images, some of which are slow to load, but offer good views. Plus we get tidbits like this:

If you see a couple of muskrats, don’t be surprised, they are guests! The two species often lodge together. Muskrats are the ultimate bad houseguests; they eat the food, hog the beds and never leave! The muskrats tend to be more active during the day.

Good to know: don’t invite muskrats. I wonder why the beavers don’t seem to mind?

Meanwhile, if you want an uplifting dose of nature with fewer hassels and a good chat side-bar, Cornell’s blue heron site is hard to beat!

Three eggs (and counting?) as of Friday – and not a bomb or SWAT team in sight. Although nature is no picnic either. There can still be great horned owls that come a raiding at night.

Great Blue Herons, live, up close and personal

One of the gang at Sapsucker Woods. A still image from the webcam last spring.

Newsflash for bird lovers: the Great Blue Herons are back on the nest at the Cornell webcam site.

You can see the lovely big birds, hear the sounds of early spring at the Ornithology Lab (including the occasional heron honk and squawk) and follow the live conversation among the pro-am group of birders who camp out online to follow the action moment by moment.

I found having the site up  at work, just to hear the sounds as the pond there returned to life, was a terrific stress-reliever. Last year, over the weeks, we saw the herons tidying and decorating the nest,then  tending the eggs as they appeared day by day. There was a dramatic nighttime owl attack, great sibling interaction once the eggs had hatched, and of course, the young herons fledging.

Herons are back in my bit of the North Country, too. And there’s a rookery just a nice walk from my house. But the up close view from the webcam is just irresistible. Check it out.

In other signs of spring news: osprey are back, too, in lots of locales. Sunday at Lake Ozonia they got a chilly reception, literally. Lots and lots of ice left there, with only a very little open water. I’m sure the lake, and others in the Adirondacks, are opening up as I write. But in the meantime, what do they osprey do for a living?

What are you seeing in your neighborhood?

Did the EPA put jobs ahead of the environment?

Sen. Schumer with Alcoa workers in Massena Monday. Photo: Julie Grant

The Environmental Protection Agency has made official what we reported earlier this morning. The agency released a final plan for cleaning up PCB-contaminated sediment Alcoa released into the Grasse River until the chemical was banned in the 1970s. It adopts a much less expensive method for cleaning up most of the contamination – capping and containment instead of dredging and removal.

The official decision comes just days after Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, employed no small amount of bluster during a visit to Massena to pressure the EPA into doing what it just did today.

So was there a cause-and-effect? Let’s take a step back.

Alcoa said last week it would invest $600 million in its two plants in Massena and guarantee 900 jobs (actually about 200 fewer than there are currently!) for the next 30 years, in exchange for 480 megawatts of cheap hydropower.

But there was a catch. The deal would only stand if the EPA chose the cheaper cap-and-contain clean-up plan for the Grasse River. As NCPR’s Julie Grant reported, Schumer did not mince words:

Schumer says the company has limits on the amount it will invest in Massena and the Grasse River. Alcoa told him:

“We want to invest in this plant and upgrade it. But we only have a certain amount of money. And we have to put all of the money into the cleanup of the river, and doing the environmental cleanup, we don’t have enough money to invest in the plant.”

Schumer says the EPA has proposed one plan that would cost $245 million, and Alcoa has agreed to that.

“Today, I am urging the EPA to issue that Record of Decision. To support their plan, and get it done fast. I’d like them to get it done in April. Today is April first. And I’m not fooling.”

In other words, there is a balance between economic development and environmental cleanup, or as Schumer said, “you don’t want a decision where you say the environment is the only thing taken into account.”

Let’s not forget here that Alcoa notched $23.7 billion in sales last year and operates in 30 countries. Alcoa is really big.

The St. Regis Mohawks, who live at the downriver end of the Grasse River and whose cultural reality has been devastated and reshaped by PCB contamination, have blasted the EPA, saying it’s putting jobs over the long-term health of the river and the people who rely on it. As tribal chief Paul Thompson said in a press release:

The EPA has a record of poor stewardship in protecting our environment, with the General Motor’s partial clean-up, the Reynolds partial clean-up and now with the Alcoa partial clean-up. That is still our land and the EPA should be using our standards for clean-up, not what the Alcoa scientists say should be done.

One of the most recognized native environmental justice activists in the country, Katsi Cook, said in a statement sent to NCPR:

I am deeply concerned that Sen. Schumer’s call for EPA’s immediate action on a ‘less expensive’ Grasse River remediation focuses only on Alcoa’s modernization plan. We as a community must acknowledge the very real human health risks of PCBs and other toxic industrial chemicals. Those pollutants wreak havoc on multiple human systems. They never leave our bodies and will be passed on to future generations. That’s a terrible expense we can’t afford and should no longer tolerate.

The EPA has been studying exactly how to clean up the Grasse River for more than a decade. In its record of decision released today, the agency directly answers the question the tribe and other environmentalists are asking: why isn’t the main channel of the river being dredged of PCBs and that sediment being trucked away forever? The EPA basically says it wouldn’t work:

Although dredging of the main channel would remove additional PCB mass from the river, PCBs at high concentrations would nevertheless remain in the main channel after dredging. Most of the highly contaminated sediment in the main channel is present over bottom materials such as bedrock, glacial till, and/or marine clay, which prevent a dredge from effectively removing all of the contamination. As a result, and regardless of the type of equipment used for dredging, residual sediments with high PCB concentrations would remain behind after dredging and would still require either armored capping or main channel capping.

The EPA also says it has designed an armored cap to contain the contaminants that would withstand an ice jam. In 2003, an ice jam scoured a trial cap put in place in the Grasse.

So the EPA chose the $245 million plan that will take 6 years, instead of the estimated $1.3 billion plan that the EPA says could take three times as long – and may not even achieve its goals.

Was the EPA feeling pressure from Alcoa and North Country lawmakers to approve the cheaper plan? That’s for you to decide.

But one thing that I take away is that the Mohawks and the EPA think fundamentally differently about these cleanups. The EPA says its remedies and monitoring will happen “in perpetuity”.

But the Mohawks are looking way further into the future than a government agency’s notion of “perpetuity”. Mohawks fully expect to outlast the EPA and anyone else on that land. They were there before Europeans arrived, and they believe they’ll remain there when others move on. As the now-famous phrase goes, they’re thinking seven generations into the future, probably further than that.

And they want the chemicals to be gone, not covered up.

Energy from “flammable ice” raises hopes and fears

“Flammable ice”–a burning methane hydrate chunk. Photo: US Geological Survey

The search for energy resources continues hot and heavy. Because – like it or not – those who live in the developed world enjoy consuming hefty amounts of energy, from whatever source is handy. And billions in the developing world would like more of that good life too.

Enter “Flammable ice”, which is more properly called methane hydrate.

I’d never heard of it until maybe a year ago, when a relative spoke about the idea as something new on the horizon. It’s in the news this past week, with reports of a favorable exploratory experiment/expedition in Japan.

As reported in BBC news 3/12/13:  ”Japan says it has successfully extracted natural gas from frozen methane hydrate off its central coast, in a world first”. This New York Times article explains what the fuss focused on:

Methane hydrate is a sherbet-like substance that can form when methane gas is trapped in ice below the seabed or underground. Though it looks like ice, it burns when it is heated.

Experts say there are abundant deposits of gas hydrates in the seabed and in some Arctic regions. Japan, together with Canada, has already succeeded in extracting gas from methane hydrate trapped in permafrost soil. U.S. researchers are carrying out similar test projects on the North Slope of Alaska.

Methane hydrate chunk on seafloor with dissociating methane gas. Photo: US Geological Survey

Japan’s keen interest in this potential energy resource is spurred by that country’s profound dependance on imported fossil fuel. The Wall Street Journal reports the discovery boosted stock prices for Japanese off-shore drilling companies, even though this energy extraction is still in the experimental stage.

And what of it? Does this count as good news? Not for those concerned about carbon’s effect on climate change.

An organization called Oil Change International ran this headline: “The Madness of Exploiting Methane Hydrates” which went on to say:

But others are following Japan’s lead: Canada, the US and China are all looking into ways of exploiting methane hydrate deposits.

The US is currently funding 14 different research projects into methane hydrates after a successful test on Alaska’s North Slope. Reserves are said to be anything from 10,000 trillion cubic feet to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Although an unknown quantity could never be exploited, these vastly outweigh US shale reserves which are estimated to contain 827 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The exploitation of methane hydrates may make fracking and the tar sands look like a walk in the park.

Back in 2008, a CBC Technology and Science article called the resource “the world’s most promising and perilous energy resource“. Why? Because extraction could cause undersea landslides, which could cause unexpected releases of the substance, which has been linked to previous examples of world climate change. According to the CBC article:

More than 50 million years ago, undersea landslides resulted in the release of methane gas from methane hydrate, which contributed to global warming that lasted tens of thousands of years.

“Methane hydrate was a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth’s history,” Ryo Matsumoto, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has spent 20 years researching the subject…

NPR’s Christopher Joyce just examined this topic on Friday’s Morning Edition. Joyce reports other scientists say we can’t be sure about how this may play out:

Geologist Timothy Collett with the U.S. Geological Survey says it’s still too early to either bet on a bonanza or worry about the climate. “Anyone who gives you a definitive answer — including me — about the potential of it being either a climate issue or hazard [versus] being a resource, has got a 50-50 shot of being accurate. We don’t know enough,” he says.

So, an important development in the realm of science and energy extraction meets existing lines of fierce opposition.

Not sure where this may be heading, but it seems like a new development worth knowing about.

Canadian satellite “Sapphire” will help track space junk

Sapphire program logo. Canadian Department of National Defence

Here’s a small ‘good news’ story, as North Korea tests and launches things we wish they would not and meteorites crash to the ground in Siberia.

Earlier this week Canada sent up a tracking satellite to keep tabs on all the space junk swirling in orbit about earth.

No, it will not track missile launches and no, it will not warn hapless earthlings about the next hunk of frozen rock hurling towards our planet.

But this new satellite, called Sapphire, can figure out probable orbital collisions ahead of time. With that information, valuable civilian or military satellites and so forth might have enough advance warning to move out of the way. Hopefully. Because there seems to be a lot of space garbage up there now that needs to be dodged. NASA has a FAQ on the topic of orbital debris, in case you’re interested.

Here’s the official news release from National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

According to the CBC, U.S. and Canada both supply personnel  for the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. (Unofficially, Sapphire is said to be about the size of a dishwasher, only “better looking”.)

CBC reports that Canada has contributed personnel to the monitoring program, but this is the first full satellite provided and launched by Canadian Forces. The article spoke with a number of experts related to the effort, including Canadian Major Cameron Lowdon, chief of space situational awareness at JSOC:

“We’re going to be able to walk around here with a bit more pride on our shoulders, I suppose, as Canadians,” Lowdon added.

When I first saw the headline about the launch, my initial question was “Really? Where?”

Here’s the answer, according to a photo caption from AP: “Indian Space Research Organization’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle carrying the Canadian military satellite Sapphire lifts off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh state, India, on Monday”

Here’s more on India’s ISRO program and the specific Feb 25th launch, which included “Indo-French satellite SARAL along with six commercial payloads from Canada, Austria, Denmark and UK”.

Sapphire has to undergo a testing phase. Assuming that goes well, DND states Sapphire is ”expected to be ready to begin contributing to the network by July, 2013″.

Here’s a NASA animation showing all of Earth’s orbital debris now being tracked:

Uranium convoy heading your way?

Chalk River Laboratories, run by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, near Chalk River, Ontario. Photo: Padraic Ryan, CC some rights reserved

When it comes to weapons-grade uranium, there’s general agreement such material should be kept out of the wrong hands.

How to make sure that happens is another story entirely – including frequent debate about transportation and storage concerns – your basic NIMBY conflicts, writ large.

So, consider this a heads-up: sometime soon an armed convoy of trucks carrying depleted uranium may be trundling down roads between a nuclear facility in Chalk River Ontario and a reprocessing site in South Carolina.

For obvious reasons, specifics about transporting highly-enriched uranium (HEU) are not being publicized. As the crow flies, though, such a journey could easily involve cutting across New York State.

Here’s the story as reported in the Ottawa CItizen this week by Ian MacLeod:

…a 2011 federal government memo says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) considers it unnecessary to hold public sessions that would allow citizens to ask questions and comment on the HEU repatriations to the U.S. The CNSC declined to comment on the memo Tuesday.

Documents from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say an “expedited” approval is being sought for transport of the liquid HEU. It is believed to be the first time such a highly radioactive solution has been transported by road in North America and, according to U.S. commission documents, could happen as early as August.

Other U.S. commission documents show March 1 is the U.S. target date for approving transport of the spent fuel rods to the Savannah River Site. 

Filing for the National Post Ian MacLeod also reports:

“This does seem to be an unprecedented, cross-border shipment of liquid high-level waste and, for that reason alone, it needs the highest order of environmental review on both sides of the border,” says Tom Clements, a South Carolina campaign co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth and former executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington.

(More technical information regarding this complex subject is discussed in both articles.)

The National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River is operated by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). According to the AECL, the facility does not generate electricity:

The NRU reactor was built for three purposes: to be a supplier of industrial and medical radioisotopes used for the diagnosis and treatment of life-threatening diseases; to be a major Canadian facility for neutron physics research; and to provide engineering research and development support for CANDU® power reactors.

The National Research Universal (NRU) reactor in Chalk River crops up in the news now and again, most recently when a shut down imperiled normal supplies of medical isotopes.

But getting back to the potential convoy in question, this strikes me as a tough call. Two friendly nations are co-operating in pursuit of a mutually-desired goal: safe handling and disposal of dangerous material. No one has invented teleportation yet, so the conveyance choices consist of plane, barge, truck or rail. Each has potential problems.

How should any public right to know be weighed next conflicting needs of secrecy and security?