photo by elycefeliz (Flickr Creative Commons)

By now many of you have probably heard of ‘greenwashing’, the practice by which businesses or organizations present an environmentally friendly image without backing it up with concrete green credentials. BP’s green flower logo and ‘Beyond Petroleum’ slogan are blatant examples of greenwashing. Perhaps even more bewildering and maddening is the fact that the production of certain types of so-called biofuels can result in more greenhouse gas emissions and environmental destruction than that of fossil fuels.

But what about actual green washing – as in cleaning our homes, clothes and bodies in environmentally friendly ways?

According to a piece in the Independent, what’s green or environmentally friendly, in terms of household cleaning products, isn’t always that simple.

Mick Bremans, chief executive of Ecover – the king of green cleaning – suggests that it’s actually their intent and effort to make products with the least amount of negative impact on the environment as possible that gives them credibility:

In fact, Bremans is making the point that no product, be it a lavatory cleaner, a hybrid car or a locally sourced punnet of strawberries, is technically environmentally friendly. Everything we make takes its toll on the planet in production and leaves its mark when disposed of. Instead, Ecover describes its products as “ecological”, to communicate that they are kinder to the environment than comparable products.

–Independent

Those are pretty fair statements, though I wonder how much we actually need strong cleaners in the home anyway.

From another article in the Independent:

For completely toxin-free and natural cleaning products, websites such as World Watch advocate making solutions out of common household items such as vinegar.

That’s right – regular, natural, inexpensive vinegar (white, not balsamic). It absorbs odors, is an effective glass cleaner, fights mold and mildew, and is a great fabric-softener. Baking soda is another good household cleaner.

No one is claiming (I hope) that you can disinfect surgical equipment with lemon juice, but rather that the need for potentially harmful, industrial strength cleaners and deodorizers in the home – such as bleach and chemical air fresheners – has been highly overstated by the companies selling these products.

For more tips on greener and safer products for everyday cleaning see this article from EmaxHealth:

Green Home Cleaners Can Replace Cancer Causing Chemicals

Additional resources:

Worldwatch Institute – Cleaning Products: What’s Behind the Shine?

Tennessee journalist – Five easy ways to help the Gulf

photo by Compassion in World Farming (Flickr Creative Commons)

Two rather informative articles from Mother Jones go over the environmental benefits/drawbacks of a vegetarian diet vs. one that includes lots of meat.

Kiera Butler’s ‘Steak or Veggie Burger: Which is Greener?’ – aka ‘Get Behind Me Seitan’ – may tread some familiar ground for those well versed on the relationship between diet and the environment, but it offers up some pretty important details, especially about processed meat substitutes.

A processed ‘pea-burger’ requires as much energy as a pork chop, Butler claims. I don’t know what a pea-burger is, but I’m guessing she is referring to the bulk of industrially produced meat substitutes in the US. There is also another worrying aspect about how some fake meat is produced in the States:

Consider the process that keeps your veggie burgers low in fat: The cheapest way to remove fatty soybean oil is with hexane, an EPA-registered air pollutant and suspected neurotoxin. A 2009 study by the Cornucopia Institute, a sustainable-farming nonprofit, found that Boca, Morningstar Farms, and Gardenburger (among others) market products made with hexane.

–Kiera Butler

I think I’d rather have my veggie burger higher in fat then, but I guess we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Or can we? I’ve made seitan (wheat gluten) in my own sink with nothing but flour and water. And from what I can find out hexane is used to make glue and in oil extraction procedures for seeds, not wheat gluten. At the risk of oversimplifying, just shop and eat smart.

Regardless of the above, plants are for the most part far more energy efficient than meat and produce far less greenhouse gasses. But traditional, local means of farming – whether carnivorous or vegetarian – are generally the ways to go in terms of the environment. That means cutting out meat unless it’s grass-fed and not eating over-processed food in general.

This is a simplification too, but a useful one. If you want to know the specifics of how each thing you eat affects the environment – and you should want to know that – you’ll have to do a bit of research. Start with Butler’s article and then check out ‘Bacon Lovers vs. Soy Huggers: The Smackdown’, with voices from different sides of the debate including Jonathan Safran Froer and farmer Joel Salatin. Experts from various fields give their informed opinions about the relationship between diet and the environment.

Pretty enlightening stuff, even without exploring the question of cruelty in both meat eating and especially factory farming.

Graham Land

Additional resources:

Trailer for documentary film Meat the Truth

photo from PETA Asia-Pacific

During the last few days the British press has run some relatively prominent articles once again highlighting the correlation between meat eating and climate change, also resulting in a few additional commentary pieces and the usual backlash.

Perhaps biggest of all is the Observer Food Monthly magazine’s OFM vegetarian recipe special edited by none other than the McCartney family (Sir Paul, Mary and Stella). Far from simply a collection of recipes – including several from Gwyneth Paltrow and other veggie celebs – the OFM special contains interviews with each of the three McCartneys, plus one piece that specifically connects environmentalism and not eating meat: 10 ways vegetarianism can help save the planet. You know, less land and water use, climate change, deforestation, health, pollution, production costs, economics, yada yada…

The way we breed animals is now recognised by the UN, scientists, economists and politicians as giving rise to many interlinked human and ecological problems, but with 1 billion people already not having enough to eat and 3 billion more mouths to feed within 50 years, the urgency to rethink our relationship with animals is extreme.

–John Vidal in the Observer

In an opinion piece for the Independent, climate change skeptic Dominic Lawson points out what he sees as the hypocrisy of those who are for fuel and carbon taxes, but remain silent when it comes to meat eating’s effect on the climate:

Lord (Nicholas) Stern is generally accorded a respectful audience when he preaches the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels; yet when, nine months ago, the author of the Stern Review on climate change raised the idea that we should switch to a vegetarian diet, he was greeted with abuse – and has not repeated the suggestion in public since.

Of course most of the abuse I recall came from right-leaning media and climate skeptics, but fair enough. Lawson argues that giving up meat would be far less damaging to the economy than abandoning fossil fuels. He certainly has a point and is right about any hypocrisy, but so what? Is he suggesting an all or nothing position for the green lobby? Thanks for the advice on political pragmatism.

Well, in the end he comes to his real point: climate change is simply a ruse for a great green leftist movement who wants to dismantle our ‘prosperous, consumer-driven way of life’. The final paragraphs are total Red Scare, ‘greens under the bed’ nuttiness tantamount to the worst McCarthyism.

Obviously, I prefer the ‘McCartneyism’ of the Observer features and Sir Paul to Lord Lawson (Dominic’s father). For his sister, the lovely super-chef Nigella, I am willing to make an exception.

In other news, I also enjoyed last weeks story of Africa’s first Lettuce Lady, PETA activist Michelle Odhiambo, who campaigns for vegetarianism and the environment in Kenya. She is a true veggie footsoldier.

Graham Land

Additional resources:

Independent – Curry spices for cows and sheep could cut methane emissions

Independent Catholic News – NJPN Conference: Our Daily Bread

BBC News – ‘Lettuce Lady’ takes on Kenya’s meat-eaters

A recent piece for The Ecologist, entitled ‘Biomass Britain: do fields of energy crops spell an end to grazing livestock’, explores the possibility of a revolution in the UK’s land use.

70-80% of land in the UK is used by the British livestock industry. The possibility of a near-complete shift from livestock farming to the growing of food crops and biomass for energy production may sound revolutionary to some and catastrophic to others. It would mean the de-industrialization of Britain’s meat industry and a 60-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, according to The Ecologist article.

It’s a revolutionary vision that would completely change both the look and outlook of our countryside. It may also change the look of our cities if people start to take a renewed interest in backyard poultry and pig-rearing to meet desires for meat. But beyond the aesthetics of removing fields of dotted sheep and cattle, the new biomass-producing countryside as outlined in a groundbreaking report from the Centre of Alternative Technology (CAT), could also play a role in significantly reducing the UK’s carbon emissions.

–The Ecologist

Growing biomass both sequesters carbon and produces a non-fossil fuel that is a renewable source of energy and heat.

But there are also arguments against biomass schemes. Many farmers see it as less profitable and a plan such as the one described above would require a significant – albeit beneficial – change in diet for the British public.

Meanwhile, plans for biomass plants in the UK are already on the go. Peel Energy is planning a £70m renewable energy power plant in Trafford, near Manchester. If approved, the plant would run off recycled wood and byproducts from the forestry and agriculture industries.

From a report in the Manchester Evening News:

Peel estimates the plant would save up to 75,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year and would power the equivalent of 37,000 homes.

In Scotland a proposed biomass plant is drawing criticism from both protesters and a local MP. According to a report in Scottish broadsheet The Courier, there are concerns that biomass plants are ‘gobbling up forestry in the UK’ and that plants in Scotland might even have to depend on importing foreign wood.

Surely each scheme should be evaluated based on over-all sustainability and feasibility rather than special interests. As far as trying to sell perceived ‘earthshaking’ societal changes, perhaps a ‘glass half full’ attitude could be taken, or the old ‘carrot and stick’ approach used. The overall manifold benefits of health and sustainability coupled with the risks posed by a changing climate and a diet high in meat and processed foods should be enough to convince a public who are probably already far more used to change than they realize.

Graham Land

Image Source: Flickr. By: Oceandesetoiles

If not, then there’s a book you should definitely check out. Last week, I picked up a new book, called Wicked Plants: The Weed That Killed Lincoln’s Mother & Other Botanical Atrocities, by Amy Stewart. This book teaches the reader about more than 60 plants that are deadly, illegal, painful, offensive, dangerous, intoxicating, or destructive. These are plants that can be found around the globe, in the wild, planted in your backyard, or even sitting in your home—perhaps even on your dinner plate!

Some of the plants mentioned are already known to be harmful in some way, such as Deadly Nightshade, Poison Hemlock, or the extremely hot Habanero Chile. However, it may surprise you to learn that:

All parts of Lilies are toxic to cats and can cause kidney failure and death within 48 hours.

Touching a Tulip bulb can bring on a number of problems, ranging from skin irritation to respiratory trouble; while eating them can bring on vomiting, weakness, and also breathing trouble.

Honey made from Azalea or Rhododendron plants can be toxic; eating any part of the plant can cause extreme weakness, dizziness, vomiting and heart problems.

Consuming potatoes can kill you—if their skin has turned green. They can also cause burning, gastrointestinal symptoms and comas.

Ficus and Rubber Trees can give you a nasty allergy attack, due to the latex they contain. One woman even suffered anaphylactic shock, but her symptoms were removed after the Ficus was removed from her home.

Oh, and if you’re wondering what’s so dangerous about corn: eating too much of it (and not much of any other food) can lead to a niacin deficiency, known as Pellagra. The pattern of Pellagra follows 4 symptoms, known as the 4 D’s: dermatitis, dementia, diarrhea, and death. The illness killed at least 100,000 Americans in the early 20th century and even more around the world since the 1730s. Ah, but don’t worry, this vegetable is perfectly safe and healthy to eat today—provided you eat it along with other foods.

If you are curious about what other plants may be surprisingly harmful to you or your animal friends, I highly suggest picking up a copy of this book. Who knows, one day it could mean the difference between life and death.

By Heidi Marshall

photo by kqedquest (Flickr Creative Commons)

I’ve assumed that transport via boat, whether shipping goods or people, is less polluting and has a lower carbon footprint than flying or road freight, for example. Not so, according to both scientific research and inside information from the maritime shipping industry.

While diesel cars – once known as smelly, noisy polluters – have relatively cleaned up their act to the level of standard petrol or gasoline-fuelled cars, the heavy-duty diesel and low-grade fuel oil engines that power ships are a scourge on the environment and human health.

From an article in the Economist:

Research by James Corbett of the University of Delaware estimates that soot from ships’ diesels contributes to 60,000 deaths from and lung disease every year. Dirty ships’ diesels also produce oxides of nitrogen—the main ingredient of smog.

It is estimated that cargo ships currently produce 30% of the world’s nitrogen-oxide emissions.

But there may be a partial solution – and it’s as simple as H2O. Experiments have shown that mixing water with diesel and adding a surfactant – which prevents the oil and water from separating – eliminates soot and reduces nitrogen-oxide emissions by up to 80%.

Successful implementation of this technology, along with the new air quality standards in both Europe and the US, would be good news for both the environment and world health. According to an article in the Guardian from last year, a US study has shown that pollution from the world’s 90,000 cargo ships causes 60,000 deaths annually in that country alone and ‘$330bn (€260bn) per year in health costs from lung and heart diseases’. A Danish government study claims it costs Denmark £5bn (€6bn) per annum in health costs and .1% of Danes to die prematurely each year.

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 760m cars.

–Guardian

That’s over 50 million cars per big ship.

Graham Land

Additional resources:

Treehugger – Could we Clean Up Air Pollution from Cargo Ships with… H2O?!

Image Source: Flickr. By: Deepwater Horizon.

A few nights ago, I was watching Larry King on CNN. During that particular episode, he was interviewing some of the Sea Shepherd crew and former game-show host and animal rights activist, Bob Barker (who also has a Sea Shepherd vessel named after him). Of course, they talked about the crew and Whale Wars, but they also discussed an ongoing disaster of our time: the Gulf Coast Oil Spill.

I had fallen out of the news loop on that lately, so I was pretty shocked when they showed footage of the fires being set at night in the Gulf. Apparently, the fires are not simply being set to deal with the oil—they are also burning the animals alive. In addition to that issue, dozens of volunteer offers—both national and international—are not even being accepted.

Several conservation and animal welfare groups have already filed lawsuits against BP for the burning of endangered sea turtles. These groups include: the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network. The groups claim BP is violating the Endangered Species Act and other laws by the use of the “controlled burns”.

The main thing they want right now is a temporary restraining order issued to stop all burning “until…mechanisms are implemented that will prevent any additional sea turtles from being burned alive”. Right now, the “controlled burns” involves gathering oil by ship-towed floating booms and then setting the oil on fire. At least 430 endangered sea turtles (of different species) have died in the oil spill thus far. The groups also add:
“Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s Ridley (one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth), are caught in the gathered oil and unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.”

They also believe that BP should remove all turtles from the gathered oil before its set on fire.

In related news, there is new effort planned to save turtle eggs found along the Gulf Coast. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge of this mission, which involves collecting approximately 70,000 eggs from up to 800 nests found along Alabama and Florida panhandle beaches. Once the eggs are collected, they’ll be sent to a temperature-controlled warehouse at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center and when they hatch, the turtles will be released in the Atlantic Ocean along Florida’s east coast. You can read more about that here.

More updates will be posted as they happen.

By Heidi Marshall

photo by Matt From London (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Joyce Kilmer’s 1913 poem ‘Trees’ was not only sickly-sweet, but also pretty darn apt regarding how important our woody friends truly are.

The British conservation charity Woodland Trust has published a report detailing the important role of native trees in urban environments.

The report, entitled, ‘Greening the concrete jungle’, claims that more trees and woods in urban areas are needed in order to improve general health and wellness, reduce the risk of surface water flooding, raise the quality of life, support wildlife and enhance conditions for inward investment.

Trees are an inexpensive way to provide a diverse range of benefits for urban dwellers, who currently make up 80% of the UK population.

From an article in The Ecologist:

The UK has one of the world’s highest rates of childhood asthma, around 15 per cent, particularly amongst lower socio-economic groups in urban areas. Research shows asthma rates among children aged four to five falls by a quarter for every additional 343 trees per square km, as they help keep the air clean and breathable and reduce ambient temperature.

Unfortunately, native urban trees have been on the decline in the UK. Many beneficial older trees with large crowns are often replaced with smaller, more manageable trees. Though British towns and cities are known for their numerous parks and gardens, fewer than 10% of urban Brits live within 500m of woodland.

Woodlands also provide important cooling benefits in areas considered urban ‘heat islands’.

The resultant effects can be dramatic; on some days there is a difference of as much as 10°C between central London and its surrounding suburbs. Projections for our changing climate suggest this problem will get markedly worse.

–Greening the Concrete Jungle, Woodland Trust

Read more about the new Woodland Trust report in this article from ePolitix.com:

Greening the concrete jungle

Graham Land

Image Source: Flickr. By: Bas Kers.

Although Roundup has a reputation of being one of the top weed killers on the market and much safer than other chemical alternatives, there are still some stubborn weeds out there that are resistant to Roundup and have actually evolved over the past 34 years (since Roundup’s introduction). Unfortunately, this weed evolution has forced farmers (and others) to resort to some outdated and environmentally unsafe weed killing methods, particularly in the southern states.

Right now, there are at least 10 weed species in 22 states that refuse to let Roundup get the best of them, including Palmer Amaranth in Arkansas, and Water Hemp and Marestail in Illinois. All 3 of those species are known to grow very big, very quickly and produce tens of thousands of seeds at a time.

Now, the way Roundup works is it’s absorbed through the plants’ leaves and kills them by blocking the production of proteins they need to grow. Oh, and according to the EPA, you don’t really need to worry about the toxicity level of it because once it’s used, it attaches to the soil real quick and becomes inactive.

Monsanto (the company that introduced Roundup) also introduced seeds specifically created to survive Roundup, which means farmers could spray Roundup on their crops to remove the weeds growing alongside them. Today, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds make up 90% of the nation’s soybean crops and about 70% of the corn and cotton.

However, as with all things in Nature, the weeds will learn how to adapt. The more the weed killer is used on them, the more they are able to change and evolve—and that is exactly what is happening. To compensate cotton farmers for damages and further herbicide use, the company is paying them $12 per acre.

To make matters worse, farmers are already resorting to the use of older chemicals, such as dicamba and 2,4-D. This has forced Monsanto and other companies to develop new seeds designed to be resistant to these herbicides, too. Both dicamba and 2,4-D (which is an ingredient in Agent Orange) can easily go beyond the areas where they are sprayed, thus posing a threat to nearby crops and other wild plants, which in turn could also threaten animals, too.

There is hope, though. Australia has been dealing with a similar problem since the mid-90s and developed other (safer) methods of weed control. One of the methods involves planting cover crops, such as rye, to keep the weeds at bay during winter and other times when corn or other crops aren’t in season.

It’s hard to say what the future of Roundup will be or if there will be a better solution for weed killing, but we can only hope they won’t depend on the use of older herbicides and chemicals for too long.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Stock.Xchng. By: Chendra.

Air pollution is already known to irritate the respiratory system, so, researchers tried to figure out if this irritation has anything to do with sleeping trouble, too. First, they studied data from the Sleep Heart Health Study, which examined links between heart health and sleeping patterns of more than 6,000 people between 1995 and 1998.

Then, they compared that data to EPA air pollution data in 7 cities: Framingham (Mass.), Minneapolis, New York City, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, and Tucson. All in all, they studied more than 3,000 people, making sure to adjust for different factors, such as age, gender and smoking habits.

What they found is incidents of sleep apnea and low levels of oxygen during sleep increase as the temperature increases during all seasons of the year. Breathing troubles during sleep also increased in the summer as air pollution increased, too. Sleep apnea is the most well-known form of breathing-related sleep disorders. It causes those affected to wake up repeatedly when their airways constrict and breathing is cut off.

The study—a first of its kind—was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, and it was funded by the EPA, US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. You can read a full report in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: Dee.

We’ve all heard that BPA is bad for us, that we shouldn’t use any product—especially plastic bottles—that may contain BPA, and that we definitely shouldn’t expose infants or toddlers to BPA products, either. BPA, or Bisphenol A, has been linked to cancer, thyroid issues, obesity, neurological issues, and can even affect the growth, development and reproduction cycles of marine species. Given this knowledge, many people probably figure that all you have to do is avoid the plastic products that contain BPA and they’ll be safe, right? Wrong.

Yes, BPA can be found in plastic bottles, but it can also be found in medical equipment, sports equipment, CDs and DVDs, electronic devices and even eyeglass lenses. It is used in the production of epoxy resins and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic. Oh, and there’s one other thing to be wary of: metal cans.

Soup cans, soda cans, tuna cans, fruit and vegetable cans, and all the other cans you can think of contains BPA. Pretty unnerving, right? Well, as explained before, BPA is used in epoxy resin. Epoxy resin makes up the thin linings inside those metal cans that helps preserve the contents for a longer period of time. If there was no epoxy resin lining, your soda or vegetable soup may have a nice metal after taste. Yum.

Not only that, but before that particular lining was used, there was a higher risk of food poisoning and other food-related illnesses; plus it prevents and the possibility of the can leaking or exploding due to the reaction between the food and the can. Thousands of companies use this resin too, including Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, and Bumblebee Tuna—and its been used in canned foods since the 1940s.

According to professor and researcher, Shanna Swan, of New York’s University of Rochester, the exposure to BPA in canned food “is far more extensive” than that in plastic bottles. She also adds that “it’s particularly concerning when it’s lining infant formula cans”. However, chemical and can manufacturer trade groups stand behind the use of BPA, citing studies from governmental health agencies that provide evidence of BPA being safe and effective for food contact.

Interestingly enough, back in January the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern for the first time about BPA—mainly due to independent science studies and growing concerns from public and consumer groups. To make a long story short, they plan to study the potential effects of BPA on the human body. The study report is expected to come out sometime later next year.

Surprisingly, very little research has ever been done to find a decent alternative substitute for canned goods. That’s not to say there aren’t any alternatives at all, but they are quite expensive. For example: Eden Foods uses some BPA-free cans made by Ball Corp, but the cans cost 14% more than traditional ones. Ball Corp uses a mix that was used before BPA became popular, which contains resins from Balsam Fir and Pine trees.

Research professor, Michael Jaffe, at the New Jersey Institute of Technology also created a corn sugar-based resin that can mimic BPA’s structure and doesn’t come with harmful side effects. Although he received a patent for his work, his creation won’t be used commercially for years.

Image Source: Flickr. By: Wvs.

In the meantime, the chemical industry is warning consumers to be wary of BPA and anything that claims to be an acceptable substitute. Steve Russell, head of the plastics division for the American Chemistry Council, stated:

“We’re all parents and we can all understand that everybody wants to do the best for their kids, but in doing so, we need to understand that we’re doing it not because the government agencies around the world say they’re not safe. You’re doing so because in some places, some people want to be extra safe. It comes down to the degree of uncertainty that you’re comfortable with.”

Does this mean you have to give up your favorite foods? No! If you want soup, try making it from scratch instead of buying it in a can. If you want fruit or veggies, you’d be better off checking out a farmer’s market or the produce section of a grocery store. And as for the soda, we both know you can pick a much safer (and healthier) drinking alternative, such as water, tea, or freshly squeezed juice. As for the plastic products, look for the recycling symbol on the product. If the number inside that symbol is a 3 or a 7, put it down and walk away. Although we can’t eliminate all those food and drink cans from our past, we can at least take preventative steps now and in the future.

Oh, and if you’re wondering what to do with all those unused food and drink cans, you could always use them in some creative art project (such as the Super Mario image you see in this article).

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr.

Heavy rains continue to fall in southern China, raising the death toll to 377 and it’s not likely to stop there. At least 142 people are still missing and more rain is still expected.

Thus far, the flooding has caused nearly $11 billion in damages, forced the evacuation of 4.4 million people, and collapsed 368,000 homes.

Although floods happen yearly in China, this year’s have been particularly heavy, spanning across 10 provinces and regions in the southeast, and it all comes right after a terrible drought season.

Rescue workers and soldiers are currently transporting stones and sandbags to block and redirect water flow of the Fuhe river, which has at least 2 breaches

Image Source: Flickr. By: Graham Chandler.

An earthquake hit eastern Canada today.

Yes, Canada.

The 5.0 magnitude quake struck along the Ontario-Quebec border region around 1:41 PM EST, at a depth of approximately 12 miles (19.2). Tremors lasted about 30 seconds, shaking homes and businesses, but there are no reports of injuries or damages. A number of businesses in the Ottawa area were also evacuated.

Apparently, the tremors could also be felt in several US states, including: Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia. I can’t speak for the other states, but I felt nothing of the sort in Pennsylvania. However, buildings in Cleveland, Ohio were swaying; the Bergen County administration building in Hackensack, New Jersey was evacuated after employees felt tremors; and it was also felt in the Adirondacks area of New York.

Surprisingly, earthquakes cause significant damage in that region nearly once a decade (according to the USGS) and smaller quakes are felt 3 or 4 times per year. While it may not be the US southwest or somewhere over in Asia, it goes to show that anywhere can be hit by an earthquake.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: Politizer.

At least 35 rivers have risen past their warning marks and pose a threat to surrounding cities and farmland. Many bridges and roads are washed out or blocked—including 11 major state highways, and hundreds of rescue boats are being used to help evacuate those stranded by the floods. Even soldiers and armed police have been sent to help with the rescue work. Premier Wen Jiabao stated:

“In the coming days, another round of heavy rain will hit areas in the south. We are facing a bigger test, so we need to make better preparations to avoid disaster.” … “We are in a crucial period. We must be fully prepared and step up organization of disaster response work.”

In addition to the road and bridge damage: 393,000 homes are damaged, 144,000 homes have collapsed, 3.3 million acres of crops have been affected, electricity was lost in a number of areas, and thus far the whole situation has resulted in $4.3 billion (29.6 billion yuan) in economic losses.

More than 25 million people have been affected by the ongoing storm, including those stranded in other cities due to the road damages. Unfortunately, the rain is expected to continue for at least an additional 10 days.

Further updates will be posted as they happen.

By Heidi Marshall