By Hugh Parkhurst
I spent almost two months without a car earlier this summer, getting around by bike, the Long Island Rail Road and rides from friends. During this time, I put around 300 miles on an old Schwinn 3-speed bicycle, gathering local census information and doing grocery shopping and other activities. I’d like to share some of my thoughts on this experience.

300 Miles on a 3 Speed Schwinn

In early spring I began working for the Census Bureau as an enumerator, going door to door to obtain information necessary to complete a comprehensive picture of America’s population. A week into the fieldwork, my car began to operate erratically. Fortunately the census work was local. Out came my trusty old 3-speed Schwinn. I adapted quickly to going door to door with the bike and in many respects, the bike proved more convenient than the car. For example, the bike took me closer to mail boxes and I was able to go by more slowly, without holding up traffic, while I looked for addresses. In addition, I also was able to park quickly and exactly where I needed to be. The weather cooperated and I completed the remaining six weeks of census work on the bike.

Buying groceries was another important task. I had a set of panniers—bags, like saddlebags, which fit on either side of a carrier rack on the rear of the bike. Using them and a small knapsack, I was able to carry a week’s necessities from my favorite grocery store, a round trip of approximately 13 miles. I could have shopped closer, but I came to enjoy the trip. Frozen vegetables doubled as “ice” to help keep meat cool. Fruits and vegetables were strongly preferred over snack food. The snack foods contained empty calories and simply took up too much valuable space. During this period, I lost over 10 pounds, which I attribute to the increase in exercise and a healthier diet.

The bike was also used for 9 mile round trips to my allergist, running to pick up parts for the car and even a couple of scouting trips for a newer car, with most of the distance covered by the LIRR. I live in Greenlawn on the North Shore just east of Huntington and traveled as far southwest as Merrick (23 miles each way) and as far southeast as North Bellport (27 miles each way).

What happened to the car? Eventually it was fixed, without any apparent long-term damage to the engine, so the hunt for a newer car was called off.

During the time I was without the car. I saved 8 weeks worth of gas and avoided leaving a carbon footprint of over 200 pounds of CO2. It also felt good that I had reduced my petroleum consumption during the BP oil spill. I was also pleased and grateful that friends shared rides.

Riding a Bike

To me, the three most important rules for riding a bike are:
1. Know the roads on which you will be traveling and do not ride anywhere you don’t feel comfortable. For a beginner, start by considering where you can ride your bike as you walk or drive around the neighborhood.
2. Always wear a helmet.
3. Observe all motor vehicle laws, especially the requirement to drive WITH the traffic.

Lots of other good tips are available at http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/.

If you use the bike to run errands, so much the better. For a run to the local drugstore, supermarket or library, a simple knapsack can easily accommodate prescriptions, numerous books, a few odds and ends, several grocery items or even a half-gallon of milk or OJ.

For more experienced riders, a reasonable pace is 10 to 14 miles per hour, depending on the type of bike, trip distance and strength and endurance. 10 miles round trip is a reasonable distance and generally adds 10-30 minutes travel time. Scout the route first, looking for the side streets you can take and shoulders you can use on those main roads you can’t avoid. Google Maps provides a tool for planning bike routes. Another handy feature of Google Maps is that it gives both instructions and distance to the destination.

I want to weigh in to answer a simple question: is there any plausible physical mechanism by which cell phones or cell phone towers could cause cancer? The short answer is no, but to convince you of that, we need to go into a little bit of physics.

By way of introduction, I am an editor, a physicist, and an environmentalist. I am a member of Yes We Can! Long Island‘s Energy and Environment Committee. I should also note that I don’t even know anyone in the cell phone industry. I work for a scientific journal.

I am writing here today because I want the environmental movement to succeed, and because it is essential we make our policy decisions in possession of the scientific facts. There are serious problems facing our planet, and the last thing we need is for people to be able to dismiss environmentalists as being unknowledgeable. I am afraid that this cell phone debate is providing fodder for that. Please allow me to explain, and please consider the facts below with an open mind.

Cell phones use microwaves. Microwaves are a kind of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light, except less energetic. Electromagnetic radiation is made up of little packets called “photons” which are categorized by frequency. The higher the frequency, the more energetic the photons. The various types of electromagnetic radiation and their frequencies are shown in this diagram. The most energetic electromagnetic radiation is gamma rays, followed by x-rays, and then ultraviolet (UV) radiation. These are called “ionizing radiation” because their photons have enough energy to ionize atoms (kick electrons out of their orbits) and break chemical bonds. Next comes visible light, and then infrared radiation, followed by microwaves and on down to radio waves. These are called “non-ionizing radiation” because their photons don’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds. Note that the bond has to be broken in one shot, which is why there is no effect if the photons are below an energy threshold, independent of the intensity of the source (Albert Einstein discovered this threshold property in 1905).

As far as we know, in order to cause cancer, you need to break bonds in genetic material. If heat could cause cancer, heating pads, hats, and other warming devices would have far more effect than any device which does not produce noticeable body heating. Thus ionizing radiation can cause cancer, non-ionizing radiation, like microwaves, cannot. Let me say that again, microwaves can’t break chemical bonds and thus can’t cause cancer. That’s why we put on sunscreen to protect against UV radiation and not indoor light. If the sun, as bright as it is, emitted only visible light, infrared radiation and microwaves, you would not need to put on sunscreen. Light bulbs emit photons which are 1000 times more energetic than those from cell phone towers. One should certainly ban all light bulbs (including incandescent and fluorescent ones) and sit in the dark before banning cell phone towers (light bulbs are safe too–don’t ban them–I am just pointing out that cell phone towers are at least as safe as light bulbs).

Now when there is a serious concern, such as the existence of cancer, there is a tendency to want to find “the cause.” I know, I am a cancer survivor. I would love to know what caused my cancer (if it was due to a single cause). But sometimes people point to something which stands out, something which is alien, even if it could not have been the cause. I am afraid cell phone towers fall into that category.

I just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird, and so I can’t help making an analogy. In the book, a man who stands out is accused of beating (and raping) a woman. Whoever committed the crime hit the woman repeatedly with his left hand. But after it is revealed that the defendant has a crippled left arm, and thus could not possibly have committed the crime, most people’s opinions are unswayed. It is hard to give up on one’s preconceived notions.

Cell towers are alien. They are obvious targets. But they are innocent on the grounds of basic physics.

I hope proposed regulations will be considered in light of the science, and I hope that concerns about the environment are redirected to real issues, such as addressing climate change, which is the problem of our time.

-Robert Garisto, PhD

Read the article on the proposal:

More Points of View on LIPA’s New South Shore Wind “Farm” Proposal

Beverly Visconti
I knew it as soon as I heard the new plan was to locate the turbines 13-17 miles south of Long Island. A hard bottom on the ocean floor is needed on which to build the structures. 13-17 miles south of Long Island is exactly where Cholera Banks is located, exactly where ASIG had planned to build the now-defunct Safe Harbor LNG Island.

Cholera Banks is the only rugged, rock hard-bottom surface area in this region of the ocean, which is mostly made up of sand and silt. And that’s why marine life has developed there so profusely.

And now, of course, the LI Commercial Fishing Association is starting its fight, as it should. We can’t agree to sacrifice the vast marine life that thrives in that area or the fishermen whose livelihoods depend on Cholera Banks, just like the Louisiana fishermen depend on the Gulf.

Wind turbines are a wonderful idea, in keeping with our need to invest in green energy sources. As much as I hate to say this, perhaps 3 miles south of Jones Beach would be the better choice. Preserving the view does not stand up as a good enough reason to oppose the plan as preserving sea life.

Phil Heckler
Yes We Can! Long Island did not support the LNG Island for several reasons, one of which was the impact on Long Island’s fishing grounds. However I do not think that individual windmills with small footprints can be compared to the Impact of the 60 acre LNG island. In fact windmills in other countries have been found to attract abundant sea life.
In addition the LNG Island offered no benefits to Long Island or the environment. That is not the case for windmills. They are a necessary step to stop climate change and help provide energy independence and green jobs. Thus I do not think we should take a knee jerk opposition this windmill project.

Neil Yeoman
For a variety of reasons, which we all know all too well, LIPA must be supported in its effort to substitute wind for fossil fuels as a source of energy for Long Island. Yes We Can! Long Island and every other responsible organization and individual, must support whatever makes the best long term technological and economic sense.
The public needs to be educated about the realities of the world; they must understand that there will never be perfect solutions to any of the world’s problems; and they must permit, indeed, encourage those responsible for Long Island’s energy future to do their imperfect best for the people they serve.
The current project is a response to the needs of the community and the successful opposition to the closer in project mounted by people who claim to have been environmentalists but were anything but.
Stopping that first wind project was an environmental tragedy, a virtual crime perpetrated against the people of Long Island and the people of the world. LIPA must do what is best, and we all must support them. That may be an expanded version of the closer in project or some combination of the two projects. We must no longer allow people and groups who are insensitive to reality and accountable to nobody to continue to interfere with what needs to be done in the best interests of the community.

More opinions from Yes We Can! Long Island activists will be posted as they are submitted.

This entry comes by popular request. A lot of people have been asking what they can do to use less oil, and reduce demand for the sticky stuff ruining beaches everywhere. Here’s my top ten, feel free to add to it in comments:

1. Carpool, cycle or use public transport to go to work.

2. Choose, when possible, products packaged without plastic and recycle or re-use containers.

3. Buy organic fruits and vegetables (fertilisers and pesticides are based on oil more often than not).

4. Buy beauty products (shampoo, soap, make-up) based on natural ingredients, not oil.

5. Choose when possible locally produced products (less transport involved).

6. Buy clothes made out of organic cotton or hemp – not from oil derivatives.

7. Use non-disposable items in picnics and summer festivals.

8. Quit bottled water.

9. Fly less.

10. Demand that your government encourage renewable energy instead of subsidizing oil.

A judge has lifted the moratorium on Gulf oil drilling, but few realize that the moratorium affected fewer than 1% of Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Here’s a look at that, and 14 other BP oil spill myths.

2. Boycotting BP Gas Stations Boycotts BP

Myth. Lady Gaga is among the leading proponents of a BP boycott, as musicians on summer tours shun the stations, along with Public Citizen and tens of thousands of Facebook fans of a boycott. But while the brand may be offensive and permanently tainted, BP disinvested in its U.S. gasoline chain in 2007, leaving independent owners invested most heavily in local stations. They pay BP a licensing fee and may (or may not) be more likely to carry BP gasoline, but the economics of wholesale oil and gas is such that BP, Britain’s largest company, is unlikely to suffer much from a retail gas boycott, but BP the local station owner could. Anyway, what’s the better alternative? And unfortunately, oil ends up in a lot of products other than gasoline, under a lot of different brands, making it difficult to avoid one company’s product.

Read the full list here: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bp-gulf-oil-spill-myths-0622#ixzz0sL7tkJhx

Music by: Duane Eddy, Bright Eyes, Buffalo Springfield and Willy Mason.
Video by: Ben Brodsky

This Saturday’s HANDS ACROSS THE SAND event will be duplicated throughout Long Island, across the entire U.S. and around the WORLD!

This is an important happening! We can influence elected officials by showing UNITY and STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.

WE CAN DO THIS! WE NEED TO DO THIS!!

SATURDAY, June 26, The BOARDWALK at Neptune Blvd., Long Beach. Begin to gather between 11:00 and 11:30AM. We JOIN HANDS at noon.

Share and RSVP using our Facebook event
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136081013069561

HANDS ACROSS THE SAND is a “national movement to oppose offshore oil drilling and to champion clean energy and renewables.” It is a peaceful protest against intrusion into our waters for the development of fossil-fuel facilities.

Like Yes We Can! Long Island, the Hands Across the Sand event is issue-driven and crosses political affiliations. It is “a movement made up of people of all walks of life. It is not about politics; it is about the protection of our oceans, our coastal economies, marine wildlife, and the fishing industry.”

Keep in mind that like all the proposed off-shore drilling plans, as well as BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf, the Atlantic Sea Island Group’s proposal to construct the “Safe Harbor Energy” LNG Island off the coast of Long Island, 13.5 miles south of Long Beach is another such intrusion into our waters intended for the development and use of more fossil-fuel, instead of renewable energy.
Read more about Yes We Can! LI’s opposition to the LNG Island by clicking here.

Merrick Patch Article on LNG Island

BE THERE!! AND BE COUNTED!!!

Earlier today, the President took questions from the press at the White House on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  During his opening remarks, the President updated the American people on the “top kill” procedure that was approved yesterday.  This procedure attempts to plug the well with densely packed mud to reduce or stop the flow of oil.  It’s still too soon to tell if the procedure will work.

The President also clarified the role the Federal Government has played in the response since Day 1:

The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort.  As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimized by this tragedy.  We will demand that they pay every dime they owe for the damage they’ve done and the painful losses that they’ve caused.  And we will continue to take full advantage of the unique technology and expertise they have to help stop this leak.

But make no mistake:  BP is operating at our direction.  Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.  I’ve designated Admiral Thad Allen – who has nearly four decades of experience responding to such disasters – as the National Incident Commander, and if he orders BP to do something to respond to this disaster, they are legally bound to do it.  So, for example, when they said they would drill one relief well to stem this leak we demanded a backup and ordered them to drill two.  And they are in the process of drilling two.

The President emphasized that the government would do everything in it’s power to stop the leak and clean up the mess and was employing the best and brightest minds from around the country to solve this problem.  In addition to cleaning up the oil, the Administration is also focused on restoring the livelihoods of families who rely on the Gulf to make a living

We’re also doing whatever it takes to help the men and women whose livelihoods have been disrupted and even destroyed by this spill -– everyone from fishermen to restaurant and hotel owners. So far the Small Business Administration has approved loans and allowed many small businesses to defer existing loan payments.  At our insistence, BP is paying economic injury claims, and we’ll make sure that when all is said and done, the victims of this disaster will get the relief that they are owed.  We’re not going to abandon our fellow citizens.  We’ll help them recover and we will help them rebuild.

To ensure that a spill of this magnitude never happens again, President Obama outlined immediate steps the Department of the Interior will take to reform the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible for issuing drilling leases and regulating oil facilities:

Additionally, after reading the report’s recommendations with Secretary Salazar and other members of my administration, we’re going to be ordering the following actions:  First, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska.  Second, we will cancel the pending lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico and the proposed lease sale off the coast of Virginia.  Third, we will continue the existing moratorium and suspend the issuance of new permits to drill new deepwater wells for six months.  And four, we will suspend action on 33 deepwater exploratory wells currently being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

The President also made the broader point that this tragedy should serve as a “wake-up call” for Americans that our dependence on oil is not sustainable.  Focusing our resources on renewable energy will not only protect our environment, but “it will it will create a new, homegrown, American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.”

President Obama is scheduled to make his second trip to the Gulf Coast region tomorrow.

One company that is taking that challenge seriously is Calera. Calera has developed a technology that will sequester the carbon from power plant emissions and use it to make green cement. The process has been in testing mode for a couple of years and a full scale pilot will start this year. Will it work? I can’t say. The challenges are significant, especially scaling up the process to handle the enormous quantities of carbon that must be processed and the even larger quantities of sea water (or other saline solutions) that must be pumped to make the process work. IF it works it sounds much more stable than other alternatives such as injecting carbon into the ground, creating huge underground reservoirs of carbon rich gases that some fear could escape in the future or cause unforeseen side effects.

Cement is a major component of concrete, the world’s most widely used man-made material, an integral part of roads, bridges and buildings. But making cement requires heating limestone and other materials to very high temperatures, a process that releases into the atmosphere large amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, a leading cause of global warming.

Brent Constantz is working to fix that problem with an environmentally-friendly cement that actually captures CO2 and locks it away.

At his California company, Calera, scientists mix air and water to create the cement powder and aggregate pebbles that are the basic ingredients of concrete. But while traditional cement, called Portland cement, adds CO2 to the atmosphere, Calera’s green cement takes the greenhouse gas out of the air – a lot of it. For every unit of carbon that Portland cement adds to the air, Brent Constantz says his green cement removes three units.

To read the rest of the article see Voice of America.