Five towns across Donegal and five local election candidates have made a commitment to not use plastic posters in the upcoming council elections.The climate-conscious move is part of a nationwide campaign to have poster free elections in Ireland. One hundred and fifty towns nationwide have signed up to be poster free areas this May – which is the equivalent to over 15% of 2018 Tidy Town entrants. In Donegal, you won’t be seeing any political posters on polls in Annagry, Bundoran, Donegal Town, Glenties and Kilcar.The local election candidates who have shunned posters for their campaigns are: Seamus Maguire, Tom Conaghan, Seán O’Beirne, Seamus Rodgers and Michael McBride.PosterFree.ie is a joint campaign by Independent Donegal Councillor Séamus Maguire and David Weitbrecht of ZeroWaste.ie, which is now calling for a national voluntary ban to mark the beginning of the end for plastic election posters.An estimated 600,000 posters were erected across the country in the 2014 local elections. Election campaigns will kick off next week, when it will be legal to erect election posters again.Despite this, Poster Free are calling on all current and future representatives to take note of the calls by children who are demanding climate action, the Tidy Towns Committees, the voters and the planet.Five Donegal towns and five candidates going Poster Free for elections was last modified: April 17th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:local electionposter free
An analysis has been carried out on a dead whale which was stranded outside Ramelton this week. Locals discovered the huge beached creature at Aughnish on Thursday.Many questions were raised over the species of the whale and the cause of death. The whale washed up on the shore near Ramelton. (North West Newspix)A representative of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group has visited the site to carry out studies and take samples from the carcass.They determined that the whale was a male juvenile fin whale. The body measured 16ft 8inches in length, which shows that it is a very young animal.Some fin whales can life up to 140 years. “Fin Whales are second largest animal on the planet can reach lengths of 27m, and one of the fastest. Reaching speeds of 30 miles an hour,” said an update from the Donegal Irish Whale and Dolphin Group Facebook page.However, the cause of death is still unknown.The external analysis showed no sign of a cause of death. Scientific investigations are due to be carried out on samples from the whale to look at its genetic make-up and if any contaminants were present in the body.The Donegal IWDG spokesperson said: “Remember to report standings to the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group website. As well as sightings so we can better protect these beautiful creatures.”Studies carried out on stranded whale outside Ramelton was last modified: August 5th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:whale
When it comes to feelings about creation vs evolution between the American vice-presidential candidates, voters will have a clear choice. Reporters are digging for information on the surprise Republican nominee, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Answers in Genesis collected statements from the press about her position on the teaching of evolution in public schools. She indicated support for teaching both sides if the debate comes up in class, but not mandating the teaching of intelligent design. As for her personal position, she stated clearly, “I believe we have a creator.” AIG did not consider any of these strong indicators of a Biblical creationist position, but at least one that tolerates openness in the public debate. Massimo Pigliucci though, commenting on this at Live Science, considered Palin’s stance on science education “worrisome.” He asserted that “creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity.” (Presumably, he considers evolution as a top contender.) The situation is very different on the Democratic side. According to Bill Sammon at Fox News, Joe Biden gave reporters an earful when asked about creationism. “Biden … used unusually strong language to ridicule those who believe in creationism or intelligent design,” Sammon said. Biden exclaimed, “I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!”If Biden wants to attract votes, it doesn’t seem politic to alienate the majority of people. Diplomacy does not seem to be his strong point. A hot-headed vituperant responded to Sammon’s article with this gem of reasoning: “I also use strong language to ridicule the creationist idiots who still believe in intelligent design MAGIC in the 21st century. Nobody is more uneducated, gullible, and just plain stupid than the creationists.” Here’s a suggestion on how to respond to this kind of pronouncement when you encounter a self-made philosopher. Use the J. P. Moreland approach. Listen patiently while the vituperant blows his credibility, then look him or her in the eye, and calmly but firmly ask, “Excuse me sir/madam, do you have an argument?” After a short pause for the quizzical look, continue, “because I’m waiting for one. If you have a point to make, make it.” Get the vituperant on the defensive to make a rational argument based on evidence. (This assumes you have been setting a good example.) If the combatant takes the challenge and states a proposition, good. That can be debated, using evidence and logic. Don’t put up, though, with ridicule. Stand up to it. Demand respectful, rational dialogue, and maybe you will win mutual respect. If he or she storms off muttering, then – well, you’ve won something else: the whole shootin’ match.(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification program has once again attracted a mixture of criticism and curiosity, this time in relation to a luxury condominium project planned for one of the most scenic settings on the San Francisco waterfront.The $345-million project, called 8 Washington, includes about 53,500 sq. ft. of recreation space, 29,600 sq. ft. of retail, and 165 condo units that are expected to list for between $3 million and $10 million apiece. Public transportation, including the Embarcadero entrance to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, is steps away. The development plan calls for two waterfront parks where the public can bask in the breeze and take in the mostly unobstructed views, looking east, of San Francisco Bay. Topping things off, the marketing strategy of the developer, San Francisco Waterfront Partners LLC, includes building the project to the LEED Platinum standard.Familiar talking pointsBig construction projects – and even small ones – in San Francisco often attract media scrutiny, in addition to the attention they get from the Planning Department and Planning Commission. But an alternative weekly, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, recently focused on 8 Washington not only for the presumed extravagance of its eventual occupants but for touting its LEED Platinum ambitions. In an article published July 5, the typically progressive Guardian also highlighted what is sees as deficiencies in the LEED program, particularly when it’s applied to a project whose homeowners, as one observer put it, will “burn tons of fossil fuels using their new condos as weekend getaways.”The Guardian cites criticisms of LEED familiar to most green builders, including the notion that even though addresses site use, water efficiency, energy use and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation in design and regional priority, it is not yet geared to certifying its energy efficiency performance.The Guardian also field comments from Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Saving consultancy and lead plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that USGBC misrepresented the performance of LEED certified buildings and altered study results to support its performance claims. Gifford argues in the Guardian that any rating service claiming to encourage energy efficiency needs to track energy usage in client buildings over time after they’re in full operation, a process that LEED has not yet imposed as a requirement for certification.“They say that the building is required to be energy efficient. But the building doesn’t have to be energy efficient — it just has to earn points, to promise it’s going to be energy efficient,” Gifford told the paper. “California is the promise land. All you’re required to do is provide a promise. The sad thing is that it removes all the integrity from the process — it encourages lying.”
RELATED ARTICLES The Smart Meter: Friend or Foe?EMFs and Human HealthOntario to Yank Some Smart MetersIn Nevada, Calls for a Smart Meter ProbeWhen Customers Challenge the Wisdom of Smart MetersFinding the Smartest Use for Smart MetersSmart Meter SmackdownThe Smart Meter’s Contentious OpponentsThe New ‘Smart’ Grid CMP originally won PUC approval for its $200 million conversion program in 2009. Critics took the PUC to court, and in 2012 the Maine Supreme Court ordered the PUC to revisit the issue. A PUC staff report delivered in March 2014 said that there were no credible studies linking the meters to ill health, and six months later commissioners voted to accept the staff report.The coalition appealed, first with written arguments and then the brief oral arguments on November 2. Just what are the threats?The safety of smart meters in Maine and elsewhere is part of a larger debate over the possible health effects of exposure to the many wireless devices people routinely come in contact with — microwave ovens, cell phones, and wireless routers as well as smart meters — and the radio frequency (RF) radiation they produce.Ed Friedman, the lead complainant in the Maine case, says that wireless technology represents “a public health and security emergency the likes of which we have never seen.” The coalition’s website refers to a half-dozen publications or reports dealing with the risks of radio frequency exposure.“In every state and country where smart meters have been or may be installed, there is continued opposition from citizen groups concerned with 24/7 radiation emissions deemed by the World Health Organization to be a possible human carcinogen, invasion of privacy for the electronic records the meters record, theft of personal data, infringement of several constitutional rights and compromising of personal and grid cybersecurity,” the Maine coalition says.Others consider these claims overblown.Writing at the Huffington Post scientists David Bailey and Jonathan Borwein said that claims that wireless radiation causes problem such as dizziness or memory loss are “absurd.” They said that a 2010 study commissioned by the World Health Organization found only a “very minimal and partially contradictory link” between cell phone use and brain cancer.“It is also instructive to compare the radiation levels of smart meters with those of other wireless devices,” they wrote. “Smart meters only transmit data for roughly 1.4 seconds per day, at very low wattage. And even if one stands less than one meter (3 feet) from a smart meter when it broadcasts its data, the resulting microwave exposure is 550 times less than standing in front of an active microwave oven, and 1100 times less than holding an active cell phone to one’s ear.”The American Cancer Society says at its website that it is “very unlikely” that smart meters increase the risk of cancer.No decision in the Maine case is expected for several months. A Maine group protesting the deployment of some 600,000 smart meters took its case back to the state supreme court, arguing the Public Utilities Commission erred when it found the wireless devices were not a threat to public health.The Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters is appealing a ruling by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) last fall, which found no established connection between smart meters and health problems. The coalition claims that the meters can cause a number of health problems, including headaches, fatigue, loss of sleep and, potentially, cancer.Central Maine Power Company (CMP), owned by the Spanish energy conglomerate Iberdrola, says that the radio waves emitted by the devices are well below standards set by the Federal Communications Commission, according to an article in The Portland Press Herald.The hearing on November 2 was the most recent skirmish in a long-running dispute over the safety of the electronic devices that have largely replaced analog electric meters in Maine and elsewhere. Wireless smart meters allow utilities to track the distribution of electricity across the grid in real time and, at least in theory, give both consumers and utilities new ways of managing power consumption.