Meg Cowper-Lewis - News
from the Tip
|
|
SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL tel
+27 (0)28 435 6565 * fax +27 (0)86 674 9522 * mobile (sms/text only) +27 (0)86 674 9522 email cowperlewis@isat.co.za;
www.southermost.co.za Blood
on our Farms: Is Monsanto Responsible for 1 Suicide Every 30 Minutes? Posted By Dr.
Mercola | September 03 2010 | 5,327 views
Indian farmers are pressured into mortgaging their farms to purchase genetically modified seeds, pesticides, and fertilizer from American companies like Monsanto. According to AlterNet: “Since GM seeds are patented by Monsanto, their repeated use each year requires constant licensing fees that keep farmers impoverished. One bad yield due to drought or other reasons, plunges farmers so deep into debt that they resort to suicide. One study estimates that 150,000 farmers have killed themselves in the past ten years.” (Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/03/monsanto-caused-an-estimated-150000-farmer-suicides.aspx) It’s clear that stories like these should make
us scared … very, very scared … since our own Government, agricultural
bodies, and even our farmers themselves love and welcome Monsanto. In With
GM Canola being held in high esteem in this country by producers and
consumers alike, one can’t help wondering how long it will be before GM
Canola jumps into our own fragile and world-renowned Fynbos? It has already lined part of the road
between Struisbaai and Bredasdorp, whilst fields of yellow can be seen
encroaching on the Agulhas Plain.
Furthermore it’s been documented by
health providers that GM Canola is responsible for a myriad of chest, sinus
and respiratory conditions. Inexplicably,
even some of our own local conservation groups don’t
seem remotely interested in hearing the dark and dangerous other side of the multinational
GM corporations – like Monsanto – story. How confusing is this, when we all thought
that the tripple bottom line for conservation was the protection of
biodiversity?!? Surprising
too, is the silence from our religious groups on this issue. Surely changing the genetic make-up of
God’s own species is a sin and a travesty of nature? So why don’t
the Churches act, one wonders? Most
African countries reject GM foods outright – so what makes our South
African government so gullible to multinational corporations? Ignorance …
negligence … corruption – who knows! However,
it has now become critical for people to understand that we’re
dealing with Genetic Roulette
here. Clearly, no one can guess the
long-term negative effects that these products will have on the future biodiversity
of our planet and on human and animal health. ***** References: Smith, Jeffrey.
2003. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're
Eating. Smith, Jeffrey.
2004. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies About the
Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. Smith, Jeffrey.
2005. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health
Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm Spilling
the Beans is the free, monthly electronic newsletter of the Institute for
Responsible Technology, featuring a series of articles and updates on GM
foods. This newsletter appears in a number of print
and online publications, reaching consumers and social network organizations
in over 30 countries across the globe. To subscribe, go to www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/index.cfm The World
According to Monsanto. DVD. 2008.
Monsanto's controversial
past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold
with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted
corruption. They now race to genetically
engineer (and patent) the world's food supply, which profoundly threatens our
health, environment, and economy. Combining secret
documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians,
this widely praised film exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster
child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. 109 minutes.
12 September 2010 Meg Cowper-Lewis Director and Founder Suidpunt Environmental The
Suidpunt Environmental Alliance was founded in 1999
and now has a database of 150 unconditional supporters.
SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL tel
+27 (0)28 435 6565 * fax +27 (0)86 674 9522 * mobile (sms/text only) +27 (0)73 026 8800 email cowperlewis@isat.co.za;
www.southermost.co.za 4 June 2010 Attention:
Dear Ms Shinga PROPOSED NUCLEAR1 BANTAMSKLIP NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE The
Suidpunt Environmental Alliance (SEA) strongly opposes any construction of a
nuclear power station and its associated infrastructure in
the vicinity of Bantamsklip. We
oppose this for the following reasons: We believe that the protected area system of Dyer Island Nature Reserve
and the Great White Shark marine sanctuary, together with the Bantamsklip
site and adjacent The threat of this nuclear complex is casting a shadow over the region,
preventing any further development in the conservation, tourism and leisure
industries. We further believe that the Bantamsklip Environmental Impact
Assessment is indeed fatally flawed and can in no way be mitigated. The Suidpunt Environmental Alliance is particularly concerned about the
visual impact of human-generated structures in an area of such unique
pristine natural beauty. A string of
electricity pylons crossing an already built-up or environmentally-damaged
area might be mitigated and condoned, but creating such high-impact
human-generated structures across the Agulhas Plain – an existing area
of historically unspoilt natural biodiversity – is illogical and
clearly inadvisable, and in time to come will be considered a crime against
the generations to follow. Furthermore, of equally grave concern is the negative impact on tourism
due to electrical pylons crossing this area of unique and high biodiversity.
Human-generated structures such as pylons will certainly detract from
the pleasure tourists derive from a visit to such an important botanical
hotspot. And maybe of even greater concern is the detrimental effect of
electromagnetic pollution on all living organisms. Radiation from power lines impact on our
immune systems making us more susceptible to diseases such as cancer, etc. In a biodiversity hotspot such as
Bantamsklip, it would clearly be irresponsible to create this danger to the
living organisms in this area. Many
examples of research supporting this danger can be found on the internet,
e.g. The
electromagnetic spectrum consists of electrical energy travelling in the form
of waves of different wavelengths and is divided into two parts: the ionizing
portion which is radioactive, and the non-ionizing portion which consists of
the visible spectrum and the longer wavelengths. At the lowest end are the extremely low
frequency waves which include power lines. Energy emitted throughout this spectrum is
regulated by every civilized government in the world except for the very low
frequencies and the extremely low frequencies. The World Health Organization has published
a report which classified extremely low frequency fields as an environmental
health problem in line with mercury and cadmium poisoning, which makes it a
toxic problem, but there are presently no regulations on low level radiation
produced by power lines and electrical currents (www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID). The
Suidpunt Environmental Alliance therefore appeals for the Bantamsklip site to
be delisted on grounds of its global environmental importance and that a
UNESCO World Heritage Site status be sought on the merits of its unique
biodiversity and the degree of endemism found there.
Director and Founder: SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL Representing 150 signatories who have pledged
unconditional support for the SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL tel
+27 (0)28 435 6565 * fax +27 (0)86 674 9522 * mobile (sms/text only) +27 (0)73 026 8800 email cowperlewis@isat.co.za;
www.southermost.co.za 07 June 2010 Tel:
021 481 2501 Fax:
021 424 5588 Email
to Simon.VanWyk@af.aurecongroup.com 8000 Dear
Mr Van Wyk OBJECTION AND COMMENTS ON KEY QUESTIONS AND PERCEPTIONS
ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI, SOUTHERN
OVERBERG Question
1: Will the harbour be developed? The traditional, historic and cultural atmosphere of
the harbour, presently enjoyed by local and foreign tourists will be lost
forever by a four-story upmarket development, which in anyone’s
imagination has no relevance to the traditional fishing harbour as it exists
today. Question
2: Will the fishermen involvement with the harbour change? Although
the harbour belongs to the state, the state cannot control the influx of
luxury yachts, jet skis, upmarket tuna fishing vessels, and private pleasure
boats. Where on earth would the old
chuckies fit into this millionaire environment? Question
4: Will Pelicans and the Harbour Catch still exist? “Potential
assets”, “normal business agreements” and “commercial
principles and practices” all smack of pricing these small financial
enterprises out of the market in favour of the proposed “boutique
establishments”. Question
6: Will boats still be allowed to dock in the harbour? See
Question 2 Question
8: What are the height limitations on Erf 848 in terms of the current
industrial zoning? A
four-story building right on the highwater-mark cannot be compared in
structure to a 2-3 storey building set back from the coastline (e.g. Agulhas
Country Lodge and The Tides). A
four-story building right on the highwater-mark is undoubtedly a blot on the
landscape for all residents of Struisbaai – the great majority of whom
oppose this proposed development. Question
9: How high will the proposed development be? See
Question 8 Question
10: What parking will the proposed Langezandt Quays utilise? To
expect a basement parking garage to be flood-proof when built right on the highwater-mark
is laughable! Question
13: What about the rising sea level due to climate change? This
development cannot be compared to the Victoria and Albert Waterfront
development in Question
15: Where will the proposed Langezandt Quays obtain municipal services? “Langezandt
Quays will pay a pro rata amount of
the development costs”. This of
course means that the hard-pressed ratepayers of the Question
20: Will the proposed Langezandt Quays contribute towards growth and development? Yes,
of course – but only to the already wealthy. Langezandt Quays will set
a precedent for other greedy developers to pounce on our small towns looking
to make a fast buck to the detriment of the environment and the health and
welfare of local residents. Yes,
of course, but only to the lawyers, consultants and estate agents, all
circling like vultures in the sky to cash in on the deal, and to forage on
the remains of a traditional, cultural and historical piece of South
Africa’s history. History
has proved that local previously disadvantaged people do not benefit from
upmarket developments. Their
life-style is changed forever, their environment destroyed and their
livelihood in jeopardy. Developers
love to play off the damage done to local people and their environment by
so-called “improvements to their infrastructure” – usually
with little or no real benefit to the local residents. Build a school or a sports field for the
underprivileged, and off the developers go to destroy the rest. Question
21: What advantages does the proposed development hold for fishermen? The
Suidpunt Environmental Alliance has had a number of interviews with fishermen
who have plied their trade in the Question
22: How will the proposed Langezandt Quays influence the environment? Upmarket
developments historically create more waste, use more power, more water, and
generally pollute the social, natural, and cultural environment. Yours
sincerely
MEG COWPER-LEWIS Director and Founder: SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL Representing 162 signatories who have pledged
unconditional support for the Alliance
Site
of proposed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article submitted to the editor of
the L’AGULHAS
TIDAL POOLS THE
SUIDPUNT ENVIRONMENTAL When the
Suidpunt Environmental Few if any
of the Municipal officials in those days ever used the pools at
L’Agulhas so they were largely unaware of what their
“cleaning” was doing to the health and safety of the water. Certain
residents on the sea front, however, who used the larger pool on a daily
basis during the summers, were astounded and appalled by the treatment of
what is potentially a natural and self-cleansing tidal pool. SEA then launched a campaign to
create a clean pool environment where people’s health would not be put at risk and where injuries through
slipping on the rotting algae would be minimised. SEA conducted extensive research
and received advice from many sources concerning the correct treatment of the
various tidal pools around our country’s coastline. After much deliberation we submitted the
following suggestions to the Municipality for the treatment of the larger
tidal pool:
We even offered to operate the stopcock
for the Municipality, and at the same time remove rocks, glass, plastic,
cans, or any other human-generated waste that may have ended up in the pool. The
Municipality however, not comfortable with our suggestions, appointed a
professional tidal pool consultant at considerable cost to the ratepayers. The consultant duly came from
Now that the Municipality had
been given expert advice from the professional consultant two of the four
suggestions were carried out; i.e. the import of clean sea sand and the
cessation of the chemical treatment. The results were phenomenal and
hugely successful! Not only did the
imported sand create a wonderful soft, non-slip floor, but the cessation of
the toxic chemicals turned the water from toxic chemical soup into a healthy,
natural sea-water pool.
Small children could now play in the shallow end without
slipping and falling and the rest of the pool-users needed no longer fear a
swim in a pool of rotting algae. In
fact, SEA, through this procedure, provided a valuable service to the
community at large. Still now, five years later, and
even though some of the sand gets removed every year by the earth-moving
machines that the Municipality bring into the pool to “clean” it,
the water is still fresh and healthy making it a pleasure to swim in. Furthermore, even at the height of the
busiest summer season ever this year, the pool still
remained swimmable throughout. After having experienced the
success of the sandy bottom and fresh clean water of the larger pool, we have on numerous occasions requested the Municipality to
repair the cracks in the smaller pool and give it the same treatment as the
larger pool. To date they have not
done this and have found it easier and more convenient to simply put the
blame on the Suidpunt Environmental Alliance (SEA) – indicating to the
complainants that it is we who do not want the pool
“cleaned”. This is
nonsense. We do want and always have
wanted the small pool to have the same treatment as that which has proved so
successful for the larger pool. I remember, as a young child and
adult, swimming for many decades in the smaller pool when no hint of toxic chemicals were ever dreamed of. The stopcock was opened
on a regular basis to flush out the pool and the cracks were mended as they
appeared. The water was always fresh
and healthy We therefore, once again, request the
© Meg Cowper-Lewis Director and Founder Suidpunt Environmental Southermost 7287 6 February 2008 |
