… Let’s hope California has the “cojones” to enact this law …

 

clip_image002

… Let’s hope California has the “cojones” to enact this law …

 

…Bill to reveal what chemicals used in "fracking" process…

 

 June 22, 2011 |  8:09 pm …http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/fracking-hyraulic-fracturing-california-oil-natural-gas-shale-wieckowski.html


A bill forcing oil and gas companies to reveal what chemicals they use when using hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to extract natural gas in California passed the California Senate Natural Resources Committee earlier this month and is set to go before the Environmental Quality Committee next week.

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting rock formations with high-pressure water, sand and a combination of chemicals, to release tightly-packed hydrocarbons. It is used in the Monterey Shale Formation, which extends from Northern California to the Los Angeles area, including Kern, Ventura, Orange and Santa Barbara counties; it is also used in the Rocky Mountain West, Midwest, East Coast, Texas and Louisiana.   There is no law in California requiring companies to publically disclose a list of all chemicals pumped in the ground during the fracking process. They include benzene, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde and methanol.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski’s bill, AB 591, aims to change that. The bill is part of the growing trend of states, including Wyoming, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Texas, that have approved or are in the process of approving legislation requiring companies to disclose where fracking occurs, how much water is used in the process and what chemicals are pumped into the ground, due to the fear that toxic materials could potentially contaminate water aquifers.

“AB 591 will require drillers to note whether they are fracking near active fault lines,” said Pamela King Palitz, staff attorney at Environment California, and expose the issue of “tremendous water use flowing to the Central Valley that most Californians think is going to irrigate crops.”

Currently there is no evidence linking the technique to water contamination. Wells are lined with steel and cement to protect, but environmental groups say the risk of fracking is connected to numerous "fraccidents" across the country, and have the potential to harm more than just drinking water.


EarthJustice, an environmental law group based in Oakland, estimates that 70 hydraulic fracturing accidents have occured in recent years, the majority taking place in the Marcellus Shale — the biggest natural gas fracking area in the U.S., which includes large parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. Earlier this year, Chesapeake Energy equipment erupted in flames outside Philadelphia, letting out thousands of gallons of highly toxic chemicals, which spilled in a trout stream and forced seven families to evacuate their homes.

“We’re trying to get in front of the issue,” said Jeff Barbosa, spokesman for Wieckowski. “In California, there is no disclosure at all. This bill would disclose the chemicals being used, and give us a better understanding of where the chemicals are injected.”

Laws in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Texas  do not require companies to disclose chemical ingredients if they are deemed “trade secrets.” But this bill, along with a bill in Wyoming, requires the disclosure of all chemicals used in wells, and a state website will be easier to navigate and will map the wells. FrackFocus.org, a national disclosure website, requires users to know the name of the operator, the API number, the county and the well name.

Wieckowski’s legislative staff said Frackfocus.org takes its information from Material Safety Data Sheets, documents that the group says often provide flawed and inaccurate information, while excluding information about hazardous chemicals that are part of a trade-secreted formula. It sometimes uses a family name for chemicals or just says “proprietary.”

The California bill could help residents and officials dealing with chemicals in groundwater, by giving them a database of chemicals used nearby.

Environmentalists are pushing for a national database.

In response to oil and gas companies’ concerns about trade secrets, the bill would not require companies such as Venoco Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corp and Canadian Natural Resources Limited, all of which engage in fracking in California, to disclose the amount of chemicals used.

“Some companies feel the combo of chemicals is a competitive issue and should be proprietary and confidential information,” said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western State Petroleum Assn., an industry trade group.

Releasing the concentration of chemicals would be releasing the “actual recipe, which is a competitive issue between companies. If a company feels it has a process to produce oil more efficiently and at less cost, that’s in their interest [to keep it confidential] and in the interest of consumers.”

Hull said oil and gas companies are supporting this bill, and industry leaders have been working closely with Wieckowski to craft legislation both parties can support. Some companies have volunteeered to list chemicals and their maximum concentration on FrackFocus.org.

Hydraulic fracturing has been around since the 1940s but was a relatively uncommon practice until the past decade or so, largely pushed by energy services company Halliburton, led by then-Chief Executive Dick Cheney. During the Bush-Cheney administrations, oil lobbyists were been able to exempt fracking from federal water regulations because it was such an unexplored technique.

Last year the EPA requested nine energy companies to hand over a list of chemicals used, locations, standard operating procedures for the method, and any data on environmental effects on human health. The push came amid documented cases of drinking-water wells becoming contaminated near sites where fracking was taking place.

“We don’t presume there is a risk,” Hull said of the chemicals, which the industry has said are mostly non-hazardous and only make up of less than 1% of the solution volume. “But there is a desire to disclose how often fracking is taking place, where it is taking place and what materials are being used.”

RELATED:

Oscar voters tackle gas ‘fracking’ controversy 

Gulf oil spill worsens, but what about the safety of gas fracking? 

EPA wants companies to reveal chemicals used in controversal gas extraction method

… Some things to ponder while drinking lemonade …

… Some things to ponder while drinking lemonade …

NATURAL NEWS …  By any honest measure, the so-called War on Drugs has been an utter failure. And it’s time to end the wasted billions, the injustice, the human suffering and the total political lunacy that began this Nixon-era scheme in the first place.

Rep. Ron Paul has joined forces with Rep. Barney Frank to introduce legislation that would legalize marijuana across America and end the failure of prohibition. Read my full report at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032791_legalize_marijuana_Ron_Paul.html


Here’s a great article on ways to minimize the side effects of vaccines. Lots of nutritional advice for boosting your body’s defenses:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032787_vaccines_side_effects.html


No surprise: Did you know that health insurance companies botch up to 20 percent of all claims?
http://www.naturalnews.com/032789_health_insurance_claims.html

 

Dr Christopher Fichtner MD is a psychiatrist and the former Mental Health Director for the State of Illinois. In his new book, ‘Cannabinomics: The Marijuana Policy Tipping Point,’

Fichtner predicts that marijuana policy is about to change radically.

 

 

Video:

 

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/page/4057.html

 

 

Dr Fichtner points out three public policy trajectories converging; The medical marijuana movement is gaining momentum. People are increasingly waking up to the fact that drug prohibition creates more public health problems than it solves. And, in the same way that the Great Depression caused people to reprioritize how we spend our public dollars, the current economic crisis has got people thinking that bringing the biggest cash crop in the US back into the open might not be such a bad idea.

 

"Medical marijuana is a prism through which alternative health issues could be viewed" — J. Rense

 

 

Video:

 

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/page/4057.html

 

Timely commentary

… Timely commentary … putting into perspective the result of choices we made of those we elected … “to serve & to protect” …

Tyranny in Arizona …Usurping the Constitutional Power Of ‘We The People’


Posted by AzBlueMeanie …http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/06/tea-publican-tyranny-in-arizona-usurping-the-constitutional-power-of-we-the-people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29

When Arizona became a state in 1912 it was at the height of the Progressive Era. Arizona enacted a model "progressive" state constitution, which included the progressive reforms of citizen’s initiative, referendum and recall. "We The People" are a super legislature superior to our elected legislature.

The Arizona Constitution also includes a Declaration of Rights at Article 2. Of particular interest, Article 2, Section 2. Political power; purpose of government:

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

The progressive provisions in the Arizona Constitution remain today, and some have been expanded, i.e., Proposition 105 (the Voter Protection Act) amending Article 4, Part 1 of the Arizona Constitution in 1988. The Voter Protection Act prevents the Governor from vetoing any approved measure, and prevents the Legislature from repealing any measure indefinitely. The amendment also requires a 3/4 vote by the Legislature to amend any approved ballot measure which  must further the purpose of such measure. The Legislature also cannot divert any funds allocated for a specific purpose.

Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1, as amended, provides in pertinent part:

1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum

Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.

* * *

(6) (A) Veto of initiative or referendum. The veto power of the governor shall not extend to an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or to a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

(6) (B) Legislature’s power to repeal initiative or referendum. The legislature shall not have the power to repeal an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or to repeal a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

(6) (C) Legislature’s power to amend initiative or referendum. The legislature shall not have the power to amend an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or to amend a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to amend such measure.

(6) (D) Legislature’s power to appropriate or divert funds created by initiative or referendum.The legislature shall not have the power to appropriate or divert funds created or allocated to a specific purpose by an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or by a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the appropriation or diversion of funds furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to appropriate or divert such funds.

* * *

(14) Reservation of legislative power. This section shall not be construed to deprive the legislature of the right to enact any measure except that the legislature shall not have the power to adopt any measure that supersedes, in whole or in part, any initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or any referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon unless the superseding measure furthers the purposes of the initiative or referendum measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to supersede such initiative or referendum measure.

So when I read a headline like this today, State downplays voter authority in dispute over Medicaid cutbacks, it grabs my attention:

Attorneys for the state told the Arizona Supreme Court that voters cannot tell the Legislature what to do, at least when it comes to money.

In a somewhat unusual argument, Assistant Attorney General Kevin Ray filed legal papers Tuesday saying it is long settled law that members of one state legislature cannot tell members of future legislatures they have to spend money on certain priorities. And Ray said the 2000 voter initiative [Proposition 204] requiring the state to provide free care for everyone below the federal poverty level — currently about $18,500 a year for a family of three — is just another form of legislation, albeit by voters.

That ballot measure said the expanded program was to be paid for from tobacco tax revenues and Arizona’s share of a nationwide settlement with tobacco companies. But it also said that when those funds run short, the legislature is supposed to supplement it with other available sources.

But Ray said the people, acting as legislators through the initiative, have no more right to mandate that current lawmakers make those dollars available than would legislators who were in office in 2000.

Really?I would refer you back to Article 2, Section 2 above, and Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1 above. In order to make this assault upon Proposition 204 of 2000, the state of Arizona by necessity must also assault the "political power inherent in the people" to legislate by initiative and referendum under Article 4, Part 1 of the Arizona Constitution, as amended by Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1998.

Lawmakers, seeking to save money for the new fiscal year that begins July 1, directed Brewer to find more than $500 million in savings.

She responded by telling AHCCCS, the state’s Medicaid program, to stop enrolling childless adults beginning July 1. Medicaid does not require these individuals be covered.

Parents with incomes above 75 percent of the federal poverty level also would be denied coverage, though their children would not.

Anyone already on AHCCCS would not be affected. But about 150,000 people who are currently eligible will be turned away by the end of June 2012.

Attorneys for public interest law firms filed suit, contending lawmakers cannot ignore the mandates in the 2000 initiative.

The state is not fighting the requirement to use tobacco proceeds to fund AHCCCS. But Ray said voters, even acting as legislators in approving a law at the ballot, cannot force lawmakers in subsequent years to provide cash beyond that.

"We The People" most assuredly can. Again, I would refer you back to Article 2, Section 2 above, and Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1 above. This is a specious argument to vitiate the "political power inherent in the people" to preserve the policy decisions of "We The People" under Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1988. The state’s specious legal argument is precisely why the voters of this state approved Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act, back in 1988.

Should the state succeed in its specious argument, no citizen’s initiative or referendum will have any lasting force or effect. It can simply be overruled by legislative or executive fiat, effectively vitiating the constitutional rights of "We The People" to legislate by citizen’s initiative and referendum, and rendering "We The People" subservient to our elected representatives, who are supposed to be subservient to us.

The state’s position is based upon the unwillingness of our Tea-Publican legislature to raise taxes to produce enough public revenues to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state for each fiscal year, as required by the Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 3. Annual tax; purposes; amount; tax laws; payment of taxes into state treasury:

Section 3. The legislature shall provide by law for an annual tax sufficient, with other sources of revenue, to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state for each fiscal year. And for the purpose of paying the state debt, if there be any, the legislature shall provide for levying an annual tax sufficient to pay the annual interest and the principal of such debt within twenty-five years from the final passage of the law creating the debt.

The Arizona Tea-Publican legislature is violating this provision of the Arizona Constitution and now seeks to vitiate our constitutional rights to legislate by citizens’ initiative and referendum so that "We The People" cannot tell them what to do. That’s known as tyranny, people.

The crux of the state’s fiscal argument is this:

“If the court grants the injunction, the legislature and the governor will need to assume that the anticipated $282,408,600 that would have been saved from the 2011-2012 budget was not saved and will have to find a way to address that additional shortfall in the budget,” Ray said. “The deficit will require balancing, which will undoubtedly require the reduction of agency operating budgets and potential cuts to vital state services, impacting an untold number of citizens.”

Budget cuts are not the only remedy. The Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 3 requires that the legislature "shall provide by law for an annual tax sufficient, with other sources of revenue, to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state." This the Tea-Publican legislature steadfastly refuses to do, in violation of the Arizona Constitution. Rather than fulfill its constitutional duty, the Tea-Publican legislature now seeks to negate Proposition 204 of 2000, and by necessity, Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1998, both citizen’s initiatives. They are trying to deprive us of our constitutional rights as citizens of Arizona.

Gov. Brewer, in a prepared statement, said current lawmakers should not be constrained.

“At its heart, this legal battle is about fundamental constitutional principles and ensuring that elected officials maintain their authority to make difficult financial decisions for the state of Arizona,” the governor said.

Wrong! "Political power is inherent in the people" and the people possess the constitutional authority to legislate by citizen’s initiative and referendum if we so choose, to determine policy choices and financial decisions for ourselves and our posterity. And neither the Governor nor the Legislature possess any constitutional power to supersede our authority or to negate citizen’s initiatives or referendums.

Proposition 204 should be enforced by the Court with a directive to the Legislature, pursuant to Article 9, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, to raise taxes sufficient to defray the expense of this AHCCCS program.

 

superweeds

…Gee … you think Mon$anto & Friend$ might be aware of thi$ …?

You know how GMOs lead to the creation of so-called superweeds? Now there’s a concern that the repeated use of GMOs and related pesticides are leading to the development of "super" superweeds that virtually no herbicide can kill:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032777_superweeds_biotech.html

take a chance

…Perhaps still too far out for some … but … take a chance … you could find you just might believe it …

 Love may ultimately be the answer, but right now the TSA is still groping our junk, and they’ve recently promised to do it on planes, trains and virtually every other form of transportation they can think of:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032778_TSA_groping.html

… With undiluted full disclosure and transparency this looks promising …

 

… With undiluted full disclosure and transparency this looks promising …

‘The Big Lie': 9/11 Truther Comic Book To Be Released (VIDEO)

clip_image001

 

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/092163-2011-06-21-the-big-lie-9-11-truth-comic-book-to-be.htm?From=News

Image Comics, one of the largest comic book publishers in the United States, is known for series like Spawn, The Walking Dead, and Savage Dragon. Now they are adding a controversial new title to their pantheon: a 9/11 Truther comic called The Big Lie.

Written by Rick Veitch and Gary Erskine, The Big Lie revolves around a particle physicist who travels back in time to warn her husband, who died on September 11.

 

USA Today describes the plot:

She rushes to his office at a risk-management consulting agency, but since she has aged 10 years, Carl can’t quite accept that it’s her. And even though she brings evidence on her iPad, neither her spouse nor his co-workers believe her warnings.

"The meat of the story is her trying to convince these ‘experts’ that the terrorist attack is about to happen," Veitch says. "So it’s essentially a taut emotional drama with the facts and questions surrounding 9/11 sewed into it."

Veitch tells USA Today that he didn’t consider himself a Truther, but says that he’s skeptical of any “official” version of events provided by the government.

"Reading the 9/11 Commission Report, it’s pretty clear that a lot of important evidence about the lead-up to the attacks and the collapse of the towers was ignored or glossed over," Veitch says. "And I’m pretty angry about the aftermath: how Iraq was invaded based on false intelligence and the occupation mismanaged resulting in over 100,000 civilian deaths."

"If one scratches the surface of the commission report, one finds huge holes in the official story. There’s also a lot of disinformation out there and oddball conspiracy theories that need to be debunked. People who are paying attention are asking for a real in-depth investigation into all these nagging questions. That’s what our book is all about."

The series was originally conceived of by Brian Romanoff, who set up Truth Be Told Comics in order to help raise funds to pay for the comic. He also runs the 9/11 Truther site NorCalTruth.org.

“It is in the name of truth and justice for the victims of 9/11 and their family members, that we are committed to sharing the truth about what occurred on September 11th. Truth Be Told Comics (TBT) was formed to facilitate the project of getting critical 9/11 information before the huge number of comic readers across America and the world,” Romanoff writes on the Truth Be Told site.

“Our goal is to present the most obvious elements of the 9/11 crimes and cover-up: the multiple advanced warnings, the multiple war-games on the day of, our missing air defense system, the demolitions of the WTC towers, 9/11 Commission Report and more.”

Visit USA Today to see some of the first pages of the comic, which will be released September 7.

 

Two U.S. nuclear plants under threat as flood waters rise

… Can this be true … FoxyNew$ and their cohort$ have not disclosed it to us … why NOT .. ?

         Posted on 06.21.11 …By Stephen C. WebsterCategories: Featured, Nation    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/two-u-s-nuclear-plants-under-threat-as-flood-waters-rise/   

 

Two U.S. nuclear electricity facilities, the Fort Calhoun and Cooper nuclear plants in Nebraska, are facing the threat of rising flood waters from the Missouri river.

Though safety regulators insist the plants were designed to withstand flooding and no risk of disaster exists, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been enforcing a no-fly zone over the Fort Calhoun plant since early this month, even though the plant has been shut down since early April for refueling.

That may be due in part to a reportedly minor fire at the plant which temporarily knocked out pumps that inject cool water into a pool of used nuclear fuel — or it may be due to something else entirely.

The FAA reportedly told “Big Picture” host Thom Hartmann that it was maintaining the aircraft ban for security reasons, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has insisted there was no danger to people in surrounding areas.

But that still begs the question: Why would anyone build a nuclear plant so close to a river — or any other potentially dangerous region?

This video is from Russia Today, broadcast Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NidxieeUl4&feature=player_embedded

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.