Category: Archive
Archived material from historical editions of The Generator
-
Byron Shire excludes self from fluoridation scheme
There’s something in the water on the Far North Coast of NSW and it is not fluoride, suggests The Sydney Morning Herald (19 July 2006 p3).
Hate campaign removes White smile: Since calling for the fluoridation of water supplies for Lismore City, Richmond Valley, Ballina Shire and Byron Shire councils last year, an Australian Dental Association representative, Brendan White, has become the target of a hate campaign.
Physical threats: Angry residents have thrown rocks at his house and made abusive, anonymous phone calls to his family. So heated has the matter become that in the latest incident, a woman urinated on the doorstep of his Lismore dental practice.
Ballina has second thoughts: The first three councils have resolved to introduce fluoride into the water system, although a group of councillors at Ballina recently lodged a motion to rescind the resolution.
NSW close on heels of Tas: After Tasmania, where 91 per cent of the population has fluoridated drinking water, NSW has the second highest rate of fluoridated water, figures from NSW Health show.
Qld not keen: By contrast, less than 5 per cent of Queenslanders have fluoridated water.
Health stats indicate good for kids: Since 2003, more than 10 NSW councils have started to fluoridate their water. A 10-year study in the Blue Mountains, where fluoride was introduced in 1993, revealed a 75 per cent reduction in tooth decay for nine- to 11-year-olds and a 73 per cent reduction for six- to eight-year-olds.
Maybe a bit of fluoride wouldn’t be a bad thing? The Far North Coast of NSW has the state’s worst rate of dental decay for 12-year-olds and the second worst for five year-olds, said the NSW Health oral health project manager, John Irving.
If Byron holds out, costs will inflate: Rous Water, which supplies water to the four coastal councils, will meet on 19 July to discuss the next step in the fluoridation process. Because Byron Shire has excluded itself, the set-up costs are likely to rise from about $500,000 to $1 million.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 19/7/2006, p. 3
Source: Erisk Net
-
Porous pavement to harvest city stormwater
A team of researchers at Melbourne’s Monash University is already on the case, reports The Australian (19 July 2006 p27). Academics at the Institute for Sustainable Water Resources have won a $90,000 Australian Research Council linkage grant, for joint university-industry projects, to study the efficacy of porous pavement for city surfaces.
Aussie product: They will study an Australian product, PermaPave. ISWR deputy director Aria Deletic told the HES that low-use areas, such as car parks, residential streets and pedestrian areas, were most suitable.
Already in UK: Porous paving, used widely in Britain, is made in modular blocks laid with gaps in between or as a monolithic, a bound aggregate such as porous asphalt.
Clogging tests: “In Australia, porous pavements are rarely used, mainly due to perceptions that they are prone to clogging,” Dr Deletic said. “Assessing whether clogging is a problem, as well as the treatment efficiency of PermaPave, is the [focus] of our research.”
Acts as litter filter: Rain that falls on impervious surfaces runs into streams, stormwater channels, bays and the ocean, picking up litter and other pollutants. But Dr Deletic said rain that fell on porous surfaces would percolate through to pipes laid underneath for harvesting and treatment. “Only in the case of extremely large storms will it run off the pavement,” she said.
Choices available for harvested water: “While going through porous pavements, water gets treated to some extent. The water then could be either treated further, stored and reused or discharged.”
Urban run-off roughly equivalent to urban use: It was impossible to replace all impervious paving with porous surfaces, Dr Deletic said. A 1999 study showed that the average annual volume of urban stormwater run-off in Australian cities was almost equal to the average annual urban water use.
Minimal stormwater harvesting currently practised in Aust: But harvesting of stormwater was minimal in one of the driest countries. “It is still not widely practised in Australia. Stormwater is particularly neglected; only 8 per cent of rainwater is used,” Dr Deletic said, quoting CSIRO figures from 2003, although in Melbourne, “recycling of waste water is now very high on the agenda”.
Melbourne on the trail of overseas greenfield projects: “Melbourne Water recycles 11.3 per cent of its treated waste water,” Dr Deletic said. Porous paving was “one of the most popular water-sensitive urban drainage measures in retrofit and greenfield developments in the UK, Sweden, Japan and the US”, Dr Deletic said.
The Australian, 19/7/2006, p. 27
Source: Erisk Net
-
Israel Crosses the Line
by Justin RaimondoThe war’s aftermath, however, tells a different story. Examined in light of Israel’s postwar actions – the unilateral " withdrawal" from Gaza, the absorption of more territory and the building of more settlements on the West Bank, the war against Hamas, and now the re – invasion of Lebanon – the chief (and only) beneficiary of the new regional balance of power is clear enough. The American invasion and occupation of the Mesopotamian heartland has empowered the Israelis as never before – and now they are on the offensive, carving out a greatly expanded sphere of influence extending into Kurdistan as well as Lebanon, bringing closer to fulfillment the old Zionist vision of an empire stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The U.S., on the other hand, has considerably reduced leverage in the region. Our troops in Iraq are exposed, vulnerable to the Iranians – and stalemated by the Iraqi insurgency, which shows troubling signs of extending into Shi’ite areas. As the Israelis advance, with American support, Sunni and Shi’ite factions in Iraq – including those in the governing Shi’ite coalition – are radicalized, and turn their fire on the Americans.
Yet the U.S. is still shilling for the Israelis, blaming Syria and Iran for acts that occurred well outside the purview of the mullahs and the increasingly isolated regime of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, in the UN, we are bringing the issue of Iran’s nuclear power program to the Security Council, pressing for a confrontation that can only end in $200-per-barrel oil.
In 1996, a group of pro-Israeli Americans – including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – prepared a policy statement for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that proposed a strategy of regime change as the only solution for Israel’s growing encirclement and isolation. The main problem, they averred in " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was Syria, and the troublesome border with Lebanon:
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."
But this could occur only if Iraq was taken out first:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
With Saddam out of the way, the second phase of the "Clean Break" scenario is unfolding before our eyes. And the propaganda war is going just as well as the military aspect of the campaign: the Israelis are no fools. They realize they can’t proceed without the tacit complicity of the U.S. and the Europeans, who must be made to look the other way as the IDF commits war crimes on the ground. Under the pretext of avenging the "kidnapping" of one of their soldiers – and, more recently, two more – they have unleashed a military assault planned well in advance of the allegedly precipitating incidents.
This is surely one of the most threadbare excuses for a war ever uttered. One wonders how Israel’s spokesmen can say it with a straight face. Soldiers in wartime are captured, not "kidnapped." If Hezbollah has "kidnapped" those two Israeli soldiers, then how do we describe the jailing of thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, on the basis of their alleged sympathy for Hamas – now the democratically elected government of Palestine? In any case, it appears, according to this report, that Hezbollah has some Israeli competition when it comes to the business of kidnapping.
The Bush administration is formally committed to the " road map," which entails the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the Israelis have done everything possible to undermine Bush’s plan, including obstructing elections. The American response has been appeasement: as Israeli gunboats make short work of Gaza beach-goers, Washington’s response is to demand the unconditional release of captured Israeli soldiers. There is an undertone of disapproval, as Condoleezza Rice urges " restraint" by all parties and the president worries that the Lebanese government will be destabilized, yet none of this is allowed to deflect U.S. policymakers from their craven course of kowtowing to the Israelis while they spend our money and earn us plenty more enemies among the world’s billion-plus Muslims.
Israel’s fifth column in America has been enormously successful in "spinning" the latest news from the Middle East. Instead of reporting that Israel is invading Lebanon, the " mainstream" media avers that Israel has " entered" Lebanon – as casually as one would enter a room in one’s own house. The first few paragraphs of many news stories describe the latest attacks on Israeli targets and accounts of the damage done, while, five paragraphs down, we finally get word that 55 civilians have been killed by the latest Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon.
The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis – that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked ( kidnapped, if you will) by what they refer to as " the Lobby" – has so far been confirmed by the events of the past few days. The United States is giving what appears to be unconditional support to phase two of the "Clean Break" plan, targeting Syria and Iran, albeit while cautioning the Israelis on Lebanon.
The Israelis, outraged by what they regard as foot-dragging in Washington, are forcing Uncle Sam’s hand. If we won’t fire the first shots of World War IV, then they are perfectly willing to do so – confident that we’ll follow them blindly into the maelstrom.
Whether the Bush administration will go all the way with the Israelis on this one, is, however, in some doubt. The alleged triumph of the Republican " realists" over the neoconservatives, supposedly symbolized by the ascension of Condi Rice, is counteracted by the Democrats’ complete subservience to the Lobby. Already Hillary Clinton is denouncing the administration for " appeasing" Iran, and the sudden reappearance of the neocons in Democratic Party circles is indicative of what is going on here. Foreign policy is merely a reflection of domestic political pressures – which, in this case, surely do not represent either the views or the interests of the American people.
Mearsheimer and Walt explain how we got into this mess, but they don’t give us any answers about how to get out. How do we avoid getting dragged by our Israeli "allies" into World War IV?
The short answer: stop appeasing Israel – and start looking out for American interests. The Amen Corner makes no such distinction, but clearly there is one, the most obvious being that we (unlike the Israelis) have no interest fomenting a wider war – especially while our troops are stuck in the middle of it all, lined up like sitting ducks and increasingly on the defensive.
The U.S. must unequivocally condemn the invasion of Lebanon and call for the unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese soil. Furthermore, the naval and aerial blockade of Lebanon must end: thousands of tourists and others are pouring into Syria, where they may not be safe for very much longer. This is an intolerable act of war against the whole civilized community, and for the United States government to not only stand by but implicitly condone it is unforgivable. The "war on terrorism" apparently requires enabling Israeli state terrorism.
The regional conflict widely predicted as one of the more horrific consequences of the Iraq invasion is now breaking out. The only rational response is to get out of the way before we are drawn in. Like a summer fire in the American West, if it isn’t contained, the flames of the rapidly spreading conflict will soon be licking at our door. And we are bound to be choking, sooner rather than later, on the economic fallout – another factor that could embolden the Democrats to keep up their effort to outflank the GOP on the war question from the right.
As both parties fall into lockstep behind the Lobby, and American power and prestige are once again harnessed to Israeli interests, there is little hope that Congress will step into the breach and stop our headlong plunge into World War IV. Nor do any of the likely presidential candidates seem willing to take on the War Party when the question of war and peace is put in terms of Israel’s interests – or, as the Lobby would have it, the Jewish state’s continued survival. Here is a war they can sell by confronting critics with a simple question: What are you, some kind of anti-Semite?
Years of relentless propaganda, countless smear campaigns, and a prodigious expenditure of money and human resources led us to this moment: the War Party is launching what amounts to its final offensive, an all-out attack on whatever bastions of human decency and common sense remain in this hideously war-crazed post-9/11 world. Come what may, we at Antiwar.com will stand at our posts, pouring hot molten editorials down on the enemy – and giving you the best, most accurate reporting on events in the Middle East anywhere on the Internet, or anywhere else, for that matter.
-
New wind farm proposed for Ballarat
Alinta Bo Peep Wind Farm Pty Ltd has proposed to construct up to 14 wind turbines with 2 alternative wind turbine positions on private land approximately 12 kilometres west of Ballarat.
Geographical boundary: The area is generally bounded by Smarts Hill Road in the north, Haddon-Windermere Road in the east, Ballarat-Carngham Road in the south and White Lane in the west.
Two year timeline: The construction of the turbines is anticipated within the next two years.
Description of the action: Bo Peep Wind Farm Pty Ltd proposes to construct up to 14 wind turbines with 2 alternative positions, within the defined area.
Necessary gravel roads: To enable the turbines to be constructed within the site, access roads will have to be constructed. The access roads will be of gravel construction and where possible will be located on existing tracks within farm land.
22kV line connection: The wind farm will be connected to the Ballarat South substation by an overhead 22kV powerline that utilises the existing 22kV power line route on the Ballarat Carngham Rd.
322ha land coverage: The defined area that will contain the turbines is approximately 322 ha. The wind turbines will be comprised of towers between 68m and 98.5m tall with blades of up to 55m length.
62GW per annum: The expected energy output of the wind farm is 62 gigawatt hours per annum. This estimate remains subject to the detailed technical design of the facility, final turbine specifications and analysis of wind speeds across the site.
Erisk Net, 14/7/2006
-
Barnaby Joyce still fights for biofuel
Six MPs and Senators raised the biofuel issue in the Coalition party room meeting in Canberra last week, three of those openly called for a mandated 10 per cent biofuel component in all petrol, reported Farm Weekly (22/6/2006, p.24).
Barnaby Joyce set to introduce own bill in August: Both Liberal and National MPs supported the call, with Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce now planning to introduce a private member’s bill to force the issue during the next parliamentary sitting in August, pending support for a resolution to go to the Queensland branch of his party next month.
Backbenchers want incentives for ethanol push: Amid the concerns of the Coalition backbench is:
* The slowness of oil companies to offer ethanol blends to consumers.
* Failure of oil companies to pass on the price savings of ethanol to consumers, thus bolstering profits by marketing it at similar prices to petrol: and
* The risk of undermining the fledgling domestic industry by offering cheaper imported ethanol the same tax concessions.
Joyce: law-law may be better than jaw-jaw: Senator Joyce, said last week that The Nationals had regularly lobbied the petroleum industry towards a 10pc mandate. "If it can’t be achieved through communication, it may very well be achieved through legislation," he said.
Farm Weekly, 22/6/2006, p. 24
Source: Erisk Net