This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. The Environment Show is a national production made
possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S. and Jenny R. Donaldson Charitable Trust, and Heming's
Motor News, the Bible of the Collector Car Hobby, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E, your host is Peter
Berley.
Coming up on this week's Environment Show, faculty pig farm would tough on the environment
in the Midwest.
Damn building in Southeast Asia threatens environmental disaster, but the World Bank is trying to stop
the damage. Our ear to the ground meets a group in Colorado that fights to keep the range
free of the home. And in California, male torrentialism are looking for sex, but it may
be lethal. These stories and more coming up on the Environment Show.
Agriculture is changing in America. Small hog farms that once produced several hundred
animals for local consumption are disappearing. And now they're being replaced by massive
corporate-owned facilities that produce tens of thousands of hogs that are slaughtered
for nationwide distribution. This change is created a real dilemma, and that is how to
deal with the massive amounts of waste which the factory farms produce.
The Missouri Attorney General has launched an investigation into the waste discharge
practices of Kansas City-based premium standard farms, the nation's third largest pork producer.
Scott Holstie is a spokesman for the Missouri Attorney General's Office. He says the alleged
spills at premium standard farms are just one part of the investigation.
Number two, the construction of several of the facilities were not done in accordance
with plants that were approved by the Department of Natural Resources. They did have plants
that were approved by the Department, but the actual construction of those plants did
not follow through on what was approved.
And number three, there's an issue of air emissions as well, too, speaking specifically of
things that come in connection with the spraying operations during the land application of
the animal waste. In some instances, some of the application has been over
applied, and there's a heavy concentration of nitrogen in the soil.
Holstie says the goals of the investigation are to seek monetary relief in the forms of
penalties and court orders if it is found premium standard facilities were not in compliance
with current laws. The case was referred to the Attorney General's Office by Missouri's
Department of Natural Resources. Premium standard farms owns three large hog farms in Northern
Missouri with a total number of 80,000 hogs, and with each hog producing six to eight
gallons of waste a day, the amount of waste produces enormous. Charlie Arnott is vice
president of communications for premium standard. He says the company processes the waste
by what he calls a sustainable environmental management system.
Every two hours the waste is flushed from the barns into a storage lagoon where it is
treated through anaerobic digestion. We test the nutrients in those lagoons three times
each year to measure nitrogen and potassium and phosphorus. We test the soil that we apply
the waste to twice a year before the spreading season and afterwards to determine the nutrients
that are in the soil and what can be applied and absorbed by the plant filter base.
Arnott says the treated waste is used for fertilizer on crops grown by the company. These crops
are then used to feed the hogs. He admits the swine production industry has had problems
in the last couple of years. In fact, premium standard has been fined by the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources for past violations. Arnott says with such a large volume of waste,
companies in the meat production industry must take full responsibility when it comes to
protecting the environment and area residents. Ralph Summers agrees he is a coordinator for
the Environmental Protection Agency's waste water discharge program for the Northern
Missouri area. Summers says it is crucial that such large facilities are monitored closely.
He says waste water spills can be detrimental to aquatic species as well as humans.
The fish kills can happen from basically two sources. One is the amount of ammonia in
the swine manure that might get away might be a completely toxic to the aquatic life including
the fish and the stream. Also, the biological oxygen demand, biochemical oxygen demand,
industry, the organic matter may take away the oxygen and there will be no oxygen there
for the fish to consume, but usually it is the actually toxic ammonia that will probably
get the fish right away. Summers says companies like premium standard must be permitted in
order to process the waste. The permitting process is a result of the Clean Water Act of 1972
and enforced by the EPA. 42 out of the 50 states enforce the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System through their own agencies. In Missouri, it is the Department of Natural
Resources. David shores the department's director. He admits the rapid expansion of meat
production farms in Missouri has put a strain on his department, forcing the hiring of
additional inspectors to monitor waste disposal practices.
We have had to increase our efforts overall to make sure that they land, apply their waste
material properly and keep it within the guidelines that we have set. The production facilities
here are huge and to give your listeners some scale. Our largest operation in North Missouri
has the equivalent flow in terms of waste as the city of St. Louis. So these are not small
operations. Sure admits that poor design and construction of meat production farms created
environmental problems in the past. He says tougher laws and regulations are making positive
changes in the industry, but says there are still waste and waste disposal issues that need to
be addressed. I think the area that we really have the greatest, that has the greatest degree
of suspect is the whole issue of application rates and how long can the land system produce
the kind of water quality that we want. And that's where we're targeting our research
dollars. The other issue in Missouri that has been very dramatic is older. Older in our
state, we do not regulate. Sure says Missouri residents and others living near large corporate
owned farms should be concerned with the environmental effects such facilities have.
He says the country is going through a transitional period from small meat production farms to large
corporate owned facilities that present a challenge not only to the environment, but to
the socio-economics of rural agricultural communities. Sure says the demand for meat products
has made it necessary for massive meat production sites. The challenge now is to make the transition
as smooth as possible and protect the environment in the process. I'm Steven Westcott for the
Environment Show.
Situated between Vietnam and Thailand is the mountainous country of Laos. The steep
animal mountain chain runs down its eastern flank and that's also the location of the
Ho Chi Minh Trail where the Vietnam hauled tons of supplies on their backs from North Vietnam
to support the war on the south. Rivers flow out of the mountains into the mighty Meekam
River which forms the boundary between Laos and Thailand. The Thai economy has grown substantially
in recent years and as a result so has its demand for electricity. As a result the government
of Laos is now building a lot of hydrodams to meet that demand.
Lee Talbot, senior professor of Environment, International Affairs and Public Policy at
George Mason University, joins us again to talk about his second trip to inspect with
a non-tonged two-dam which is under construction. He's part of a three person international team
evaluating the environmental and social aspects of the project for the World Bank. The bank
is guaranteeing the financing for the project. I asked him if he is still comfortable with
his support for the dam which is based on the plan to protect 4,000 square kilometers
of the largest forest in Laos which is situated upstream.
Yes, in fact I'm even more comfortable now than I was before for several reasons. This
time I arranged for us to visit several other dams, actually five separate dam sites that
have either been constructed or in process of being constructed elsewhere in Laos so that
we could get a comparison, get an idea of how these things are being handled, where the
World Bank has no role in it whatsoever. I guess in brief a summary, our view of these
five were that from an environmental and social point of view they're essentially disasters.
For example, one of them is cutting off the water from about a 50 kilometer stretch of
river on which there are 20 villages who rely on the water for all the things you need water
for, including fish for food. The resettlement efforts such as they are, we felt left a very
great deal to be desired. The basic lesson from this is that for if the process of ineffective
dam construction is left to take its course without the regulations and procedures requirements
of the World Bank, the results will be pretty disastrous from an environmental and a human
point of view. Tell but says since the dam is being put up by a private consortium, it will
go ahead even if the World Bank does not guarantee the financing. He says the bank requirements
provide the best hope for the indigenous people who will be flooded out. The consortium,
this is a private group from four countries, has committed to paying at least a million
dollars a year for 30 years specifically to the conservation and management of this area.
They have also developed a resettlement plan for the roughly 4,000 people who are going
to be who are currently living in the inundation area and they have already put in experimental
farms and so forth in the resettlement areas and we are extremely impressed with the
thoroughness of the job they have done and the both well the combination of that and the fact
that a remarkable number of the people involved clearly want to want a better life. They want to move
away from the extremely poor conditions in which they are now living. Another unique aspect of
the project which has been brought about by World Bank requirements is that for the first time local
people have been involved in planning to deal with the consequences. Prior to this project, the
basically socialist government of the people's republic did not was not known for public participation
and encouraging public participation in government decisions because of the bank requirements,
they have had I think something like eight separate public fora now, big ones, where the local
people were involved as well as the growing NGO community there. I was in on one of the early ones
and was impressed by how tentative everything was because people weren't quite sure that the
government was going to look kindly upon them. The situation has now gotten remarkably open and
the law authorities themselves are saying that they are finding this a very helpful thing.
Well if this is a successful project this kind of open participation we believe is likely to
continue. The choice is not between a dam or no dam because Namsung 2 will be built anyway.
Tell but says that with increasing private sector sponsoring of large development projects,
the Namsung 2 project shows that World Bank participation and its requirement for environmental
and social safeguards are its only hope for success. The panel in its report on this trip
said that the panel places on record it's considered an unanimous opinion that the Namsung 2 project
should be undertaken with the participation of the World Bank. Now as far as we know this is the
first time in history that such a panel has ever come out that way with an unequivocal statement.
And I should also emphasize that nobody on the panel is a lover of big dams.
Lee Talbot, senior professor of Environmental Science, International Affairs and Public Policy
at George Mason University, is just back from an inspection trip to Laos as an environmental
advisor to the World Bank.
I'm Peter Burley and we want to hear from you. Our number is 1-888-49-Green. That's 1-888-49-Green.
Our email address is green at wamc.org. You can listen to us anytime
over the internet. Go to our webpage, it's www.enn.com-env-showw.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Eard of the Ground with stories about people affecting change in
the environment. This week, conserving Colorado's diminishing open lands.
If you drive along Perry Park and all this ranch roads during Haynes season, you might follow
the progress of mowing, bailing and stacking. 30-mile south of Denver, the original
allis and pinecliffe ranches are spectacular historic properties. Rich in agriculture and
ranching tradition home to extensive wildlife. These ranches, along with 25,000 other Colorado
acres, are protected by Colorado open lands, a non-profit land trust.
Began in 1981, Colorado open lands, the second largest land trust in the state,
aims to preserve land that is currently open, not developed and keep it open forever.
This explains CoL's Elizabeth Richardson is done in a variety of ways, depending on who the
landowner is and what the ultimate disposition of the land will be. Will it be kept in private
ownership or will some portion go to a government agency? For example, it's called a conservation
easement. It's where a landowner voluntarily restricts the surface use of the property to
keep it as open space or keep it in agriculture or keep it as wildlife habitat forever.
Another is through the use of what we call preservation or limited developments where a portion
of the land may have some houses put on it but the rest of it is kept open. And then the other
methods where you're just working with a government somewhere along the line to see if there is
an possibility for preserving open spaces part of their open space system. For protection from future
developers, the all-est ranch preserve combined open space preservation with limited residential
development. 96% of the ranch will be forever protected as open space while 10 homesteads will share
stewardship of the land. Richardson says CoL has a lot of ranches in its program because she adds
if you want to keep open space in Colorado you have to find a way to make agriculture
specifically ranching a viable industry. We've got a lot of what we call centennial ranches,
ranches that have been in the same family for a hundred years. And we don't want the estate
tax laws to force those to be sold just simply so you can pay the estate taxes. So these are
families who very, very much want to see their land continue with ranches. But ranches aren't
all that CoL acquires. Richardson says the CoL takes a broad view of their mission, a view that
reflects a wide diversity of people and interests. What's defined as open space she says can really vary.
In some cases open space can be viewed as a place where you only go with your fuel glasses at
some times of the year because you're watching baby eagles fledge for example. But in other cases
some people view open spaces a golf course. Richardson says all easements are charitable donations
made by the landowner. Whether their motivation is to protect El Cabitat or reduce taxes. Whether
they are private or public entities. Planners from the organization she explains help create the
proper easement plan. Richardson says Colorado will continue to grow and attract new residents.
That's why she says Colorado Open Lands is doing something now to preserve the future quality of
life in Colorado. With ear to the ground I'm Linda Anderson.
And now it's time for the Earth Calendar. Right now it's mating season for the tarantula in
northern California and the males are out looking for love. Maldiablo which is located about 30
miles east of San Francisco is currently being overrun by the large hairy spiders.
Jennifer Kaiser is communications director for Lindsey Wildlife Museum and that's a rehabilitation
center for wild animals in Walnut Creek California. She describes the mating ritual as a large
single dance for lonely spiders. What happens with tarantulas is that they're typically
solitary but they build their burrows fairly near each other but they don't live in a big nest or
anything. They each have their own small burrow in a larger space where they congregate and the
females have the babies and the babies stay underground in the burrows for
really you know anywhere from six or seven up to twelve years and when the males mature
they come out of their burrows and that's pretty much their last gasp as it were. They live
underground they eat smaller insects and grubs and things like that then the males come out of
the burrows and begin looking for a female and that's sort of where the trouble starts really for
the males. Kaiser says that as the male tarantulas search eagerly for mates they often find themselves
in people's backyard. This makes the folks nervous however Kaiser says that the locals have no fear
because the male tarantulas are looking for a mate only and they don't want to eat anybody.
Actually it's the female tarantula that becomes the aggressor. The females sit at the opening
to the burrow and the male cruises by and sometimes there's no contact but if he checks her
out fairly closely and she doesn't like him sometimes she kills him. If she does like him and allows
him to mate with her that maybe takes about a minute. She often kills him then to an eat
actually that's sort of her first meal after mating. If it's a really unsuccessful male who hasn't
been killed either of those ways they're only going to last maybe from a few weeks to a few months
at the most once they go out on top they'll never overwinter after that first season out of the
burrow so they live most of their lives without mating inside the burrows they go out for this one
Kaiser says the males are killed by the female venom which he also uses to kill insects
but male tarantulas will do what they can to protect themselves from their angry mates.
The males have actually hold the female fangs their mating face to face as we're standing on their
rear legs and the males are actually holding the females fangs away from them during the mate.
The way the mate happens is the it looks like if you're looking at a transphoto
a male tarantula it looks like he has two short front legs those aren't actual legs they're actually
the ends of them are actually where the sperm sacks are and so he injects those into her and then
she tries to bite them immediately. Apparently it's not a terribly romantic situation apparently it's
not a real pleasurable situation for the females so she immediately tries to bite them and
to be tries to hold her off but often fails. In addition Kaiser says male tarantulas will try to
jump quickly away to avoid getting killed following the mating process. Female tarantulas
mate several times a year and can live to the age of 20 or 25. She adds that tarantulas have received
bad press and says they're not aggressive animals the animals will only attack if they feel threatened.
A tarantula bite is equivalent to a bee sting not lethal to most of us but deadly if you're a male
tarantula so when it comes to sex if you're a male tarantula you're going to live longer if you just
say no. Thanks for listening this is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead the battle against purple
loo stride the plant is crowding out vegetation and destroying wildlife habitat. We have a report from
upstate New York about a program using bugs to control it. We talked green about the new international
convention to control nuclear waste and then we talked to pig farmers and Holland. Like their
American counterparts they're coping with some real problems these stories and more coming up
on the Environment Show.
National wildlife refugees across the country have been tried to fight a way to get rid of purple
loo strife. That's the beautiful tall weed which has been in the country for years but since the
80s many refugees have been overrun by it. Ecologists say loo strife crowds out indigenous plants and it
also infringes on the habitat for animals. So following the lead of other refugees the monosumal
wildlife refuge which is near Seneca Falls New York is turning to European insects to control
that sea of purple which is growing in its wetlands. From WRBO in Oswigo New York Eugene Sun
reports that after some small scale experiments 50,000 of the insects have been released there this
summer. Purple loo strife isn't just another weed brought in from overseas it is taking over much
of the Montezuma refuge to the point that it controls what can and can't be done there. Outdoor
recreation planner for the refuge Marva Gingrich since the staff's hands are tied.
There are a lot of things that we could do management wise to improve the quality of the ecosystem
as far as for what's best for wildlife but we're limited because of purple loo strife. We can't
draw water levels down during the summer months because we'll expose a whole layer of mud flats
that'll just grow into loo strife. We can't provide early season shorebird habitat because of
the same thing. Loo strife will grow and thrive. And in the places where loo strife already dominates
birds and animals are having a hard time finding the plants they depend on.
Black turns are inland freshwater marsh nesting bird that depends on the old broken down decay
material from cat tail from a previous year's growth to build a floating nest. With purple loo strife
you don't have that. If you drive around and look you'll see the nice new green stuff with the purple
flowers but out in the water you'll also see that it's grown up through and under and around
these woody stalks. It's a lot like a woody plant so it doesn't provide that decaying layer of
material for those birds to use. So Gingrich and the rest of the staff sought the help of Cornell
University professor by our bossy. The German-born ecologist is an expert on using insects to control
the weed. He helps select several bugs which have worked well at devouring loo strife without
harming other plants. Blossy says they brought in five insects, some attacked the leaves, some the
roots and others the flower of the plant. He says the insects are so specialized that if the loo strife
runs out and the bugs cannot migrate to another area they will die off thus not posing a threat to
indigenous plants. Near the Refuge's Visitor Center Blossy points to two 12 foot square areas
which have been caged off and covered with bug netting. Last summer the insects were released
into one cage, the experimental and none were released into the other, the control. After one
year of feeding you can see a quite dramatic effect a couple of well maybe even a week ago there
was no plant flowering in the experimental cage whereas in the control cage where there are no
insects all of them were flowering. Now a few started flowering in the experimental cage. Blossy says
the insects do a better job at getting rid of loo strife than herbicides, mowing or even flooding
out the area. All those methods wipe out other plants in the process. He says the extremely selective
insects are also more cost effective in the long run. While the first year's expense is higher
the bugs will not need to be re-released each year bringing savings in the future. While the
cage experiment has been deemed a success the large-scale release won't show results until next
spring because the insects eat the most when they're first born. So at this time of the year we
we can look hard and we will probably find maybe one or two if we look very hard they're sitting
in the leaf litter waiting for spring even though it's 85 and a wonderful day out here right now.
So in the spring as soon as loo strife starts growing they will come out of the leaf litter and
start feeding mating and ovipositing and then probably in late May and June we will see the
dramatic effect by the larvae defulliating the plants. The larvae then themselves will move into
the soil, pupate come up as new adults feed a little bit and restart the or wintering process.
The refuge worked out a deal with Blossy and Cornell so it doesn't have to pay for the insects
in return for giving Blossy and his students a site for their experiments. Another refuge in
Oregon was so successful with the insects that have packed them up to be sent elsewhere.
While he hopes to breed enough insects to export to other areas, Blossy says loo strife is so
well established at Monozuma that it won't ever be eliminated. He says if the bugs do their job the
purple weed will merely dot the landscape instead of cover it. For the environment show I'm Eugene Sond.
We're talking green and I'm your host Peter Burle. Today we're talking about managing spent
nuclear fuel on an international basis which raises some questions in my mind since I don't think
we're doing very well on a national basis but in any event our conversation is occasioned by the
first international convention on managing spent nuclear fuel which recently concluded in Vienna
and 88 nations including our own signed protocol which is supposed to govern how nuclear fuel
is to be gotten rid of or at least managed. We want to hear from you our number is 1-888-49-green.
That's 1-888-49-green. I have two guests with me today. Mary Olson is the nuclear way specialist
with the nuclear information and resource service a nonprofit group based in Washington DC
and Dale Klein and he's the associate vice chancellor for the University of Texas system
and he is a scholar and has a PhD in nuclear engineering and a research center located in
Amarillo, Texas. So Dale let me start with you. An international convention to deal with spent
nuclear fuel is this worth anything more than the paper it's printed on? Does anybody pay any
attention to this kind of thing? Well it really does Peter and I think what was really good about
this convention is that it is starting the process to bring a lot of the nuclear materials
under the sort of the purview of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So what this convention
really dealt with is trying to get all the countries to come up to some agreed upon standards
of how the store spent nuclear fuel and other activities and this was primarily directed towards
the civilian programs and not the defense and military installations. Well and that's a question
that I wanted to ask you about Mary Olson from the nuclear waste or nuclear information and
resource service. If a military stuff is excluded from this how effective is it going to be?
Well quite frankly the vast majority of radioactivity that's resulted in the last 50 years
has been from the production of electricity through nuclear power around the planet. About 95%
of the total radioactivity is in I don't call it spent fuel, Peter. I call it irradiated fuel
because there's nothing spent about it but how expensive it is to keep track of it. It's highly
highly radioactive material. The most concentrated radioactive material on the planet.
And so in fact I think that for an international accord to focus on it is appropriate. However,
radiation is radiation and it doesn't matter whether it's civilian or military people who are
affected by it are need protection. So I think that there is a false split there.
Now the convention itself talks about safety and management and that kind of thing. As we look
across the world we look at the tremendous problems that seem to be occurring in Russia and other
places we maybe don't even know about. What impact is an international convention going to have
on any of these people including ourselves since we can't even figure out where we're going to put our
stuff down. What do you think? Well I think Peter what this convention dealt with was basically
looking at a lot of the countries to again bring them up to what I would call reasonable
expectations for storage of the materials. In other words this does not deal with the ultimate
disposition. This is basically the storage of spent fuel and some of the programs that deal with it.
For example worker protection, emergency preparedness, it also deals with field sources that are also
used in the medical profession. So what this really does Peter is for example you look at some of
the countries that participated in this convention. It includes things like India, Iraq, Pakistan,
Libya, Russia, Syria, China as well as the western European countries that have well-established
programs like France, Britain, Germany. What it really did was bring these programs up to an
acceptable level of standards and they're primarily adopting a lot of the practices that the United
States commercial industry already has because they have done an excellent job of storing these
materials in a safe and environmentally sound manner. That's what they're really trying to do Peter.
Look at this in a global situation because the nuclear is a worldwide issue. It's not just the United
States issue, it's not just a Russian issue, it's a world issue and a lot of countries have these
materials and it was to establish acceptable standards for storage and monitoring of the spent fuel.
Again it does not deal with the permanent disposition. It's only the temporary storage.
And yet storage and monitoring is pretty much the whole deal since that may go on for decades
until people can figure out what else to do. That's absolutely correct. I think we need to clarify
however that this convention does do something more than that. I think you know 50 years into the
nuclear age it's extremely important that we're doing things like making an inventory of what
waste are where and placing responsibility for the existing waste. But this convention does two
other things. First it encourages a continued production of the material and continued reprocessing
separation of plutonium of the material which our government has historically had an opposition to
and secondly and I think more importantly it opens the doorway to an international shell game
allowing the transboundary shipment of irradiated fuel, nuclear fuel from one country to another
for either storage or disposal. And this is basically paving the way for an era that has not yet begun
of indeed the global impacts of wealthier nations not accepting waste disposal in their own
countries. And although the convention says that the idea is that everybody keeps their own
this convention sets up the mechanisms for export and export to other countries without having any
real criteria for what is acceptable in terms of environmental standards, environmental justice
standards, anything that you could call more than a business deal. That raises a really
extreme issue. Because one of the things that was happening in this country before the
clamps got put down is plain ordinary chemical waste, toxic waste was being shipped abroad to places
that could bash it in the ground someplace and get away with it. Dale, do you think that this
convention will encourage that kind of activity with respect to nuclear waste? Not at all. I think
this if you read the documents in the the act that came out of that convention it basically dealt
with what are the safety issues how should we go around and develop the practices and procedures
so that it's done in a safe and environmentally sound manner. I think one could always speculate
in play what if games you know in terms of what might happen in things of that nature. But I don't
believe the the dispconvation itself will encourage or discourage things like reprocessing or other
kinds of shipments those will be determined on a case by case basis with the countries that are
already involved. Let me ask you something about the way this thing gets implemented after it gets
signed and all that stuff they've agreed to it but the formal procedure requirements haven't
been finished but assuming that will happen this comes under the ages of the International
of Time of Energy Agency is there any mechanism by which there are any teeth to see that any of
these standards are actually adhered to after people sign in. My perception based on what we have
seen in countries like North Korea, Iraq and others even those who have signed the non-polification
aspects it really takes a lot of additional pressure by other countries to enforce any
agreements. I think this is the first step to at least have the countries to agree upon what are
the standards. Once you grip on the standards then I think your comments are very appropriately
put. Generally the IEA does not have a lot of enforcement capabilities it's only the pressures
that other countries will put on. For example the North Korea situation is storing their spent fuel
and corrosive conditions it was definitely an environmental concern but the IEA did not have the
authority to do anything about it in fact North Korea kicked them out. So I think you bring up a very
valid point that there does have to be a consensus later on of what do you do with people who don't
agree to these standards but I think this was a good first step of coming up with what our minimum
acceptable standards. One of the great things about talking on the radio is you can speculate about
all kinds of things and probably don't have to do much but I'm interested Mary in your views is to
what the next step ought to be if one really needs to put teeth in some of these things so that one
could ultimately ensure better storage and clamp down on the whole proliferation of the nuclear
waste problem. Well I think that the thing that would start giving teeth to this
agreement right here is to extend the protections to all nations whether they are party
signers or not. The next thing we need in brief is for the World Court to go ahead and implement a
program that was decided on at Rio when the summit on the environment which is to have an
environmental court of the world that anyone can bring a case to when there's a problem whether it
be an organization or a country. Currently our world court only allows cases from nation states
but in the situation of something that's affecting the whole world and I agree this is an issue
that is global we have to treat it that way. But we need to treat it where people who are
affected get the rights to to be the teeth. Going a step further thinking about the World
Court notion where anybody could go. I live in Utah I don't believe in establishing a permanent
facility should I be able to go to the World Court and say keep it out of my state.
Well I think that we need to be urging that permanent facilities are met are only established
with the highest standards based on science that is credible and right now in the United States
our high level waste program is pretty clearly being driven by politics and the science is not
supporting the political decisions and yet we're not canceling Yucca Mountain we're not
vetoing a decision to try and put waste on an Indian land in Utah simply because it's a tribe
that says they'll take it not because the site has been shown to be scientifically a good place
for the waste to go. Let's step back a moment given a world in which apparently from civilian
power production we're accumulating nuclear waste all over the place. Dale does it make sense to
assume that the most efficient thing is for each country to work itself out of this problem
on its own or should there be a broader international effort than merely setting standards as you
point out as a necessary for a step as a result of a convention. Well I think theater it would be good
if if the whole world would get together for example on the issue of spent fuel disposal and
and come up with agreed upon standards and I agree with Mary that I think all countries should
somehow participate in that but you have to realize that certain countries have more
involvement and more at stake just because they have a more of their energy supply from nuclear.
For example France gets about 75% of their electricity from nuclear and while people in Germany
might disagree with that France has its own sovereign rights and is going to do what it needs to do
in its best interest but when you look at for example the storage and disposal of spent fuel
if a country only has one small reactor it doesn't really make a lot of technical sense for that
country to go through a lot of of expense to develop a site in their own country particularly if
they don't happen to have the right geological and scientific conditions. I disagree with Mary in
terms of well I can't say that our spent fuel program has been exactly had a stellar record.
There is a lot of scientific input that comes into it ultimately the decision is going to be
policy based just like it's going to be in any countries if you take something to the world court
that's a policy decision that's not a technical decision so we have to strike a balance between
technology and policy in all of these issues but I would like to see Peter the world get together
and come up with an agreed upon system for the ultimate disposition of the spent fuel.
The storage of the spent fuel is one in which the United States has an excellent record of doing
its safe lane environmentally sound and worker protection. Another country don't have the same
characters. Time is up and I think when it comes to dealing with spent nuclear fuel there are
lots of ideas out there and they will probably be batted around as long as the problem exists which
I guess is in the terms of hundreds of thousands of years. I want to thank our guests we've been joined by
Mary Olson who is with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and with Dale Klein who is
Vice Chancellor of the University of Texas system we've been talking green on the environment show
about international management of nuclear waste our number is 1-888-49 green and I'm your host Peter
Berling. Raising pigs presents environmental problems everywhere. Earlier we looked at water
pollution from pig farms in the Midwest. Lauren Comato reports from Holland that the Dutch also
are struggling with the impact of big pig farms. There are 15 million pigs in the Netherlands and a
lot of pork is exported. In fact the Dutch eat twice as much pork as they do beef or chicken.
But when swine fever broke out on pig farms earlier this year everyone started thinking about
how pork makes it to the table. The signs on the highways are hard to miss. Yellow with big black
letters warning swine fever, pig transport for bid in. That's only one of the measures taken since
swine fever was discovered less February on farms in the south. In an attempt to stop the spread
of the disease 10% of pig farms here about 2000 have been taken out of production. One third of
the country's pigs have already been slaughtered and the European Union has banned the export of
live Dutch pigs. All of which make it very difficult for pig farmers like Benny Vantala to do their
jobs. I'm a fattening pig farmer I'm not allowed to transport any pigs so I have and keep them on my
barn so they're still growing and growing bigger so my shed will be too small for these big
pigs at the moment and that's the problem especially when you see at the moment the hot weather
makes it not very easy to keep them very comfortable in your shed.
Vantala has been farming pigs for almost 20 years on the farm his grandfather started. He lives in
the east of the country just seven kilometers from the side of the latest case of swine fever
because of that he has effectively been shut down until authorities are convinced the disease
which is highly contagious has been contained. Vantala says it's costing him about 10,000 guilders a week
roughly five thousand dollars that's a price he never expected to pay until last month swine fever
had been confined to the south. That was really surprised because the time being from February to
July is a very long time and if you see that it's not coming you say you have you every time and
every day you think no it don't will come but at the end it still did come. And because it did
a controversial proposal to drastically overhaul pig farming by agriculture minister Yossai
may now have more support. We must incriminate in the coming of the year not as a tool to
look at but to really make it easier for the minister to see a 25 percent reduction in the number
of pigs by next year. The proposal has submitted to parliament will also force farmers to a
base stricter environmental and animal welfare codes. Vantala says a smaller but better pig sector
is the only hope for the future of the industry. I claim that his farmers and their lobbying groups
outraged. This is in disaster and we are totally opposed to such a policy. We would ask the minister
to withdraw this proposal and to think with us together together with this if other proposals if
other policy could not achieve the same goals as he wants to achieve with his policy.
Rob Tazalar is president of the meat and livestock board. He agrees that something needs to be done
but he wants to see a smaller decrease in the number of pigs over a longer period of time.
Fearing that over half of the Netherlands 20,000 pig farms would go out of business
of Van Artsen gets his way, Tazalar says the minister is playing politics, taking advantage of
public sentiment to pass his own draconian measures. I can't see that some of the people in Holland
are just fed up with the whole production of pigs in Holland. The production in all of pigs is
very intensive. There is more intensive than in other places in Europe. They do forget that the
actual pork production, pig production if you want causes labor for so many people in this country
and the total of 80,000, 90,000 people are working in this industry.
That's the sound of pigs on their way to being electrocuted. It's an image broadcast regularly here
on TV and it's one that may help explain the public's lack of sympathy for pig farmers. That and
the other images of life on a pig farm. The animals are crowded into small spaces which many say
has helped spread the disease. They spend their short lives in windowless pens. Their food intake is
regulated by computer until they are ready for slaughter. Your own remurs is with the Netherlands
society for nature and the environment. There are too many pigs in Holland everybody knows it.
75% of all the pigs from Holland they are for the export and this generates a lot of money.
That's true. But at the other side there are a lot of subsidies for the pig industries.
So this costs also money for the society and there are a lot of environmental costs.
So then it gives another picture about if it is really so good for the Dutch economy.
The agriculture ministry estimates that the epidemic has already cost over 1 billion guilders
or 500 million dollars and economic forecasts say the final loss could be twice that.
The European Union and Dutch government or taxpayers will put most of the bill
adding to public perceptions that the farmers are getting off relatively lightly.
But people are still purchasing their pork. Swain fever is not transmittable to humans.
So the only factor leading people to temporarily curb their pork buying was a price increase
following the slaughter of so many pigs. But prices are down again and people are buying.
I'm just buying some of this is for friends of mine. I think it's a pity that they've let it go
They should have done something about this probably a long time ago. I think it's the shame to see
animals so closely together. And I think I don't care. I'll pay more money for my meat.
Providing the animals are treated a little better. That's my part of you.
When it's destroyed, this is I think it's so good to eat pork.
Are you still buying pork now? I do. I think the pork you buy in the store is okay.
It could take over a year for the industry to rebound. That may seem like a long time,
but this issue has been publicly debated for the past 10 years. In its latest chapter,
farming representatives met earlier this week with agriculture minister Van Artsen.
They offered him their own proposal to restructure the industry. But it's in go far enough
to the minister and he sent them back to the drawing board.
That was Lauren Comito reporting from the Netherlands.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley.
You can't grow pigs without a cassette copy of the program so call 1-888-49-Green
and ask for show number 403. The Environment Show is produced by National Productions which
is solely responsible for its content. Dr. Ellen Schartock is the executive producer and producers
of Rachel Phillips and Stephen Westcott. The Environment Show is made possible by the W.
Welton Jones Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J. M. Kaepert Fund, the Packard Foundation,
the Oliver and Genie Donaldson Charitable Trusts, Bob and Marilyn Schumann, and Heming's Motor News,
the monthly Bible of the collector Carhavi, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
So long and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0