Monday, April 20, 2009
A Foreign Organization by name Greenpeace in association with several local Organizationsare carrying out a campaign to stop the construction of the port for flimsy reasons. The port constructionwas initiated only after due environment clearance and national environment Appellate Authority has also upheld this clearance in 2004. The Dhamra Port is constructed at a site which is far away from Turtle Nesting and Breeding Zone located at Gahrimatha. A strong action should be initiated by the Ministry against this Organization who are acting against the development od the State of Orissa and Country say MPs.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; WSJ, Page A23
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.
Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.
It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."
The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.
The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
After going through Mr. Moore's interview in Wall Street Journal, it is understood that Greenpeace is now into more for Political Agendas rather into Scientific Activity - Claims its former founder Patric More
So it is obvious that in case of Dhamra Port they are more on Politicaol Agenda and publicity skills rather than actual scientific work. They have even gone down to tamper the report of North Orissa University to satisfy their political urge in case of Dhmara Port.
This is ridiculous that Greenpeace is trying to bluff fishermen in the name of education and stopping the development and livelihood oppurtunities of Orissa fishermen. It is time that Government should take some intiative about this NGO and find out what it's real intentions are?
It has come to our notice that Greenpeace India have placed in their website a report under the title “Bio-diversity Assessment of Dhamra Port Site and Surroundings Areas, Orissa”. The cover page of the report says that the report has been prepared by the North Orissa University. We would like to clarify that no report under the above mentioned title has been prepared by the North Orissa Unversity.
North Orissa University had prepared a report under the title “Rapid Bo-diversity Assessment of Dhamra Estuary, Orissa-India” and the same was submitted to Greenpeace India who were the funding agency.
A comparison of the report as it appears in the website of Greenpeace India and the authentic report of North Orissa University reveals that the Greenpeace India have doctored the authentic report by way of changing the title and its contents for motives best known to them.
We wish to further clarify that the impact of Dhamra Port on the environment and bio-diversity of Dhamra Estuary was not within the scope of our study.
For the sake of convenience we are enclosing herewith a copy of the authentic report of the University and the report as placed by the Greenpeace India in their website along with a comparison in a tabular form which would clearly indicate the changes/deletions/additions and interpolations made by Greenpeace India.
To conclude we take serious exception to such unethical conduct by Greenpeace India.
Prof. Sudarsan Nanda,
North Orissa University
( News in Oriya daily “The Samaj” dt 27th Feb 2009)
Cuttack:- After the attacks of Mumbai by Pakistan based terrorists through the sea route, the entire administration of the country is busy in guarding the west coast of the country to prevent further attacks. But as per sources, now the terrorists are planning to attack critical civil and defense installations in upcoming states like that of Orissa. They know that the administration will completely taken off-guard by these attacks. But these organizations are using a different methodology to fool the administration.
It is well known that certain national and international NGOs like Greenpeace, Wild Life Protection Society, and Sanctuary Asia along with some local NGOs are working for conservation of Olive Ridley Turtles in the Orissa coast spreading from Dhamra River mouth of Northern Orissa to Rusikulya River Mouth. These organizations hire volunteers to move across the sea in the above area in the name of protection of sea turtles. Since the turtle mating and nesting season has started, these organizations will very shortly start their activities. In the process they will also try to demonstrate in their own innovative methods. To get more publicity they will also oppose ongoing dredging operations in Dhamra , Paradip and Goplapur port. Being fully aware that the government and other statutory institutions will take it as another environmental demonstration, the terrorist organizations have infiltrated their cadres into these environment organizations. These committed cadres of the terrorist organizations will also participate in the environment demonstrations. But with the available of a slightest opportunity, they will attack critical installations of Orissa coast. Some of the installations targeted are DRDO at Dhamra, Paradip Port and upcoming ports at Dhamra and Gopalpur and Reliance Oil wells. Even some of the cadres may sneak into into the land areas through the Mangrove forests and stay on further in the Mangrove forests in Bhitarakanika Mangrove forest to create further civilian casualties.
Now is the time for government, defense organizations and coast guard to step up their security and track and monitor each and every sea movement from Chandipur to Gopalpur of Orissa coast or who knows another Mumbai tragedy can happen in Orissa in near future due to environmental organizations like Greenpeace and others.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
It seems that Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have a habit making unscientific demands without any scientific datas and inputs. This is clear from the position with regard to
Similarly after discussions between both the environmental NGOs and
But similar to last time ( that in 2005), these organizations led by Greenpeace once again demanded to stop construction of