Exposure to radon can cause multiple kinds of cancer; allowing the use of Lake Michigan water to replace radon contaminated water can literally save lives. And the water will be returned to the lake, allowing for no net loss of water from the Lake Michigan watershed.

Some Facts About 2,4-D: 2,4-D was first used in the United States in the 1940s. Agent Orange, an herbicide used during the Vietnam War, contained both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Pets may be exposed to 2,4-D if they touch grass or other plants still wet from spraying and then groom their feet or fur, if they drink the pesticide, or possibly if they eat grass that has been treated with 2,4-D. Dogs may be more sensitive to 2,4-D than other animals. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared 2,4-D a possible human carcinogen, based on evidence that it damages human cells and, in a number of studies, caused cancer in laboratory animals. More conclusive is the proof that 2,4-D falls into a class of compounds called endocrine-disrupting chemicals, compounds that mimic or inhibit the body's hormones. Dozens of epidemiological, animal, and laboratory studies have shown a link between 2,4-D and thyroid disorders. There are reports that 2,4-D can decrease fertility and raise the risk of birth defects. But even though fetuses, infants, and children are at highest risk of these, no studies have looked directly at the effects of 2,4-D on those groups. Also problematic: 2,4-D sticks around in the environment. Depending on the formulation, it can drift through the air from the fields where it is sprayed or be tracked inside homes by pets or children. By the EPA's own measure, 2,4-D has already been detected in groundwater and surface water, as well as in drinking water. It can also poison small mammals, including dogs who can ingest it after eating grass treated with 2,4-D. Sources of the Above Facts: (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/24-d-most-dangerous-pesticide-youve-never-heard) (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/24Dgen.html)

California Governor Jerry Brown just served Gov. Rick Scott with a major dose of Climate Reality. Florida is one of the most vulnerable places on the planet to the effects of climate disruption. A 2015 report declared, "Florida faces more risk than any other state that private, insurable property could be inundated by high tide, storm surge and sea level rise. By 2030, up to $69 billion in coastal property will likely be at risk of inundation at high tide that is not at risk today. " But don't tell that to Gov. Scott, a climate denier that literally fired a state employee just for using the term "Climate Change." That's why Gov. Brown wrote Rick Scott a letter that in part told him, "If you're truly serious about Florida's economic well being, it's time to stop the silly political stunts and start doing something about climate change."1 We totally agree -- Rick Scott has embarrassed our great state and put it at risk long enough, and we demand that he use his final three years to take serious steps to address climate change. Sign our petition telling Gov. Scott to #ActOnClimate, before it's too late to save Florida, and the planet. 1. http://floridapolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Letter-to-Gov.-Scott-5.2.16.jpg

Railroads were once the way most of us got from place to place and our goods were efficiently and environmentally transported. Over the years we have made our highways into massive parking lots, made it difficult to travel, decimated public transportation except for crowded airports, and increased our dependence on oil, adding to pollution, etc. It is time to stop that and put the trains back on the tracks.

Representing several youths who filed a petition in collaboration with Our Children's Trust, the Western Environmental Law Center won a precedent-setting climate change victory against the Washington Department of Ecology. The court ordered Ecology to implement a carbon emissions rule using the best available science by the end of 2016. Governor Inslee's administration has a history of proposing insufficient rules based on outdated science. We need your voice so that future generations have a legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate!

I hike the foothills, camp in Idaho's mountains and work hard in Idaho's Capitol. I want to ensure the longevity and vivacity Boise encapsulates and promises to only wisely expand upon. Simply put: we can do better than fracking for our future fuels.

EnergizeRI and our carbon pricing proposal have recently come under attack from the Heartland Institute. We are taking this opportunity to reach out, set the record straight and shed some light on the work and reputation of this group as you consider their comments on carbon pricing legislation here in Rhode Island. The non-profit Heartland Institute claims it was created to "discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." However, upon review of the organization's body of work, it is clear they operate on a platform of climate change denial. In fact, the organization is well known as one of the nation's leading climate change deniers. They are a think tank funded by groups such as the Koch Brothers, Big Tobacco, and Exxon Mobile. The only thing that Heartland seems to promote is misinformation. This is the same group that included scientists on a list of "climate deniers" even after they claimed they were being misrepresented and asked to be removed. This is the same group that to this day denies the link between secondhand smoke and cancer, claiming "smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects." Heartland's interest is clearly not in "finding and promoting ideas that empower people" as they claim but instead to allow their funders to manipulate credible sources and scientific facts. They manipulate the public to their own benefit and operate without repercussions. To be very clear, we here at EnergizeRI are proud to have a group like the Heartland Institute as critics. We are even prouder to share that distinction with people like Pope Francis and President Obama. There are legitimate debates to be had about the best way to address climate change, but pretending it isn't happening or that we are powerless to stop it helps no one. We are already seeing the effects of climate change here in our state. No Rhode Islander will deny the damage that was caused by Hurricane Sandy in Westerly and Charlestown. No one can deny the damage caused by the microbursts in Cranston or the severe flooding witnessed in Warwick. All over the state Rhode Islanders are dealing with the damage caused by climate change and leading climate scientists believe it will only get worse. Climate change denial is no longer part of the national conversation and it should not be part of the policy debate here in Rhode Island. As President Obama himself said, "if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it, you'll be pretty lonely because you'll be debating our military, most of America's business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it." All studies completed on our proposal to this point have shown that Carbon Pricing would create, not reduce jobs. The EnergizeRI Act is projected to add about 2,000 new jobs in the first few years alone and about 4,000 in total. The reasons for this are fairly simple. Rather than sending money that Rhode Islanders spend on fossil fuels each year to Texas or Saudi Arabia, the act redirects those funds into our own local economy. The act uses those funds to make investments in solar and wind as well as weatherization and other energy efficiency measures. The act makes investments into the fastest growing sector of our state’s economy: clean energy. Finally, carbon pricing is recognized worldwide as one of the most effective emissions reductions tools. Seventy-four countries, 23 subnational jurisdictions, and more than 1,000 companies and investors expressed support for a price on carbon ahead of the UN Secretary-General's Climate Summit. Locally, the REMI study estimates that carbon pricing, as proposed in the EnergizeRI Act, would get us halfway to the Resilient RI goals all on its own. Sign this Petition and tell our government that groups like Heartland have no place in conversations about our future.

We fully support MV@play and their proposal. We understand that the High-grade synthetic Turf with organic infill is the Best option for safe and durable playing fields.

Water quality is crucial to all life on Earth. Amendment 1 and HB 937 would take away the voice of the people to help protect MO water.

Judge: State should grant Clean Harbor permit, with caveat • By MARISSA BARNETT The Daily News • http://www.galvnews.com/news/article_73e95ea6-1797-5681-a9af-37f352a94b2d.html#comments SAN LEON A company seeking to dump treated wastewater into a tributary flowing in Dickinson Bayou failed to include certain testing required by law in its permit application, a state administrative judge ruled. The application should be granted by the state’s environmental agency, but only if the state inserts a legally required request for testing and monitoring of the discharged waste, Administrative Judge Joanne Summerhays said. Clean Harbors San Leon Inc. in May 2015 applied for an amendment to its existing permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to discharge up to 105,000 gallons of treated wastewater and treated stormwater each day into a tributary on its property that flows to Dickinson Bayou. The proposal quickly drew the ire of neighboring property owners and residents, particularly in San Leon, who worried the company’s plan will further pollute the bayou. A coalition of residents, including local oyster company owners and representatives of the San Leon Municipal Utility District, protested and sought a hearing from the State Office of Administrative Hearings, which considers disputes over permits. In a proposal for decision published April 24, the administrative judge ruled the draft permit had not required Clean Harbors to conduct whole effluent toxicity testing, or WET as it’s called, on its discharged wastewater, which is a violation of state code. The judge recommended the amendment be accepted, but with the requirement. The environmental commission will ultimately make the call on the amendment to the permit, but it weighs the administrative judge’s proposal. The state had almost allowed a company to dump more wastewater into unnamed waterways with little oversight or regulation over how it affects the environment, said Lisa Halili, an owner of Prestige Oysters in San Leon. People who protested the plan celebrated the move as a step in the right direction because it requires hazardous waste companies doing business in Galveston County to have some accountability in protecting the waterways. “The recommendation to include WET testing is a very big win because it will require Clean Harbors to constantly monitor potential toxicity in receiving waters,” said Joe Manchaca, president of the San Leon Municipal Utility District. The testing measures the toxic effects of pollutants on species specific to the area where it’s dumped, Summerhays said. “WET testing is an integral tool in the assessment of water quality for the protection of aquatic life because it can measure both chronic and acute impacts on the survival, reproduction, or growth of test organisms,” Summerhays wrote. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will review the proposal for decision and submit responses if there are any concerns or disagreements, agency spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said. Once the process is complete, it will be scheduled for a monthly agenda meeting, Morrow said. The commissioners will then decide on the application, Morrow said. Marissa Barnett: 409-683-5257; [email protected] The San Leon community is opposed to this permit because we do not want Dickinson Bay poisoned by Clean Harbors. In San Leon everyone loves this area to fish, catch shrimp and oysters and enjoy all aspects of water recreation in this bay. The pollution from this project will ruin our way of life, poisoning our seafood and must not be allowed. We can not allow Clean Harbors to dump 12,000 pounds of oily grease in our bay each year. We are a small unincorporated area easily taken advantage of by corporate bullies who look to prey on rural areas such as ours. It is time to take a stand for communities and families and stop poisoning our water. The state of Texas needs to be held accountable for the decisions made on behalf of its citizens. Tell the TCEQ do not rubber stamp this Clean Harbors San Leon permit. There are so many people now entering this cause that I believe that the folks fighting for Dickinson Bayou have a good fighting chance of winning. People, we need you now more than ever in this cause to protect Dickinson Bayou. Please email Ann Bright of Texas Parks and Wildlife at [email protected] and let her know that you do not want any more harmful chemicals dumped into our bayou. You do not have to live here to support this cause. If you eat shrimp, crabs, oysters or fish, or like fishing, boating or water recreation, you need to support this. It only takes a minute or two to email Texas Parks and Wildlife to help save this bayou. http://www.coastmonthly.com/2016/12/accidental-activist/ http://seabreezenews.com/issues/2016%20issues/1216%20-%20December%202016/Page_01c.pdf

On April 4, 2016, MV@Play and Gale Associates presented to the MVRHS school committee a $12-million proposal to build a centralized athletic facility on a 3.6-acre parcel of land on the MVRHS campus. Funding would initially come from private donors, but MVRHS, and all six Island towns, would be expected to pay for future upkeep. The plans, designed to be implemented in three phases, the first beginning as early as September 1, 2016, include the installation of four artificial turf playing fields: one inside the track, plus three others. The intent is to eventually host all soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and football practices and games (from the youngest players through high school and adult leagues) there for decades to come. From financial, maintenance, health, environmental, and playability perspectives alike, natural grass is a far better choice. Artificial turf fields are not as low-maintenance nor as cost-effective as their billion-dollar industry suggests. According to Gale Associates, installation costs for a new artificial turf field with GreenPlay infill costs $850,000, assumes a 14-year carpet life, and the only maintenance is grooming with a towed groomer 4-5 times per year. The limited warranty covers only 8 years, however, and can be voided for a multitude of common conditions/maintenance practices. The life cycle costs of natural grass fields, when compared to those of artificial turf, are essentially the same—assuming the artificial carpet lasts 6 extra years after warranty expiration, and the cost of replacement doesn’t rise. Not mentioned: the premature failure rate of artificial turf fields, the costs of replenishing the infill, whether we would switch to crumb rubber if the GreenPlay infill becomes moldy, the intensive maintenance costs and practices necessary to keep the carpet sanitary and safe—including sweeping up debris like trash and leaves, brushing to straighten fibers, deep raking to loosen infill, spraying disinfectant and anti-static chemicals, manual removal of gum (with a solvent, then hand-pried out of the fibers), cleaning of spilled drinks, vomit, spit, sweat, blood, and animal droppings (dog, goose, etc.), and repairing loose seams to avoid liability issues. Given the exorbitant costs and many complications associated with artificial turf fields, it would be highly irresponsible for MVRHS to assume financial responsibility for their upkeep. Forbes. “Buyers’ Remorse Surfacing over Artificial Turf Fields.” October 23, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/10/22/buyers-remorse-surfacing-over-artificial-turf-fields/#7203e2c321ff City Limits. “NYC’s Fake Grass Gamble: A $300 Million Mistake?” August 24, 2010. Winner of the 2010 Sigma Delta Chi Award for Investigative Reporting. http://www.spjvideo.org/sdx/sdx10/mag-inv-reporting-r.pdf Red Hen Turf. “The Dirt on Turf: What You Need to Know About Synthetic Turf and Natural Grass for Athletic Fields.” http://redhenturf.com/pdfs/TheTruthAboutArtificialTurf.pdf Artificial turf fields are not safe. According to Mount Sinai Hospital Children’s Environmental Health Center, “All components of an artificial turf field (fiber blades, infill, backing, colorants, sealants, antimicrobials, and flame retardants) contain potential chemicals of concern and can leach from the product.” They urge extra caution when the site is in close proximity to a water source potentially contaminated by chemical leaching, as MVRHS is (directly above the Island’s sole source aquifer). Further, the antimicrobials and fungicides required to routinely sanitize the fields “not only increase the likelihood of chemical exposures, they may pose health risks for children chronically exposed to them.” Although the newly proposed infill is labeled “organic,” such terms are not regulated in the turf industry, nor are manufacturers required to list all chemicals. Risk of joint injuries, turf burns, “turf toe,” and heat-related complications are proven to be more likely on artificial turf, and it is a fertile breeding ground for harmful bacteria including those that cause antibiotic-resistant infections such as MRSA. Artificial turf also denies our children hours of time that would otherwise have been spent on grass and dirt, the immunological and psychological benefits of which are well documented. Mount Sinai Hospital Children’s Environmental Health Center. “Artificial Turf: A Health-Based Consumer Guide.” February 2016. http://media.wix.com/ugd/fd0a19_f5aa0824698341499b4228ebabf90cb5.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “MRSA and the Workplace.” August 27, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/mrsa/ (Note: the artificial turf proposed for MVRHS would likely qualify for all five C’s of the MRSA risk factors.) Most athletes dislike playing on artificial turf. From professional athletes down to the youth level, the majority of players regard artificial turf as a second-tier playing surface. This strong preference is based on increased post-game recovery time, risk of injury, and heat stroke on artificial turf, as well as a fundamental preference for playing the sport on grass. These issues led a group of international soccer players to file a lawsuit against FIFA for forcing them to play the 2015 Women’s World Cup on artificial turf. Lawsuit against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association regarding the use of artificial turf at the Women’s 2015 World Cup. http://equalizersoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/141001_2_Application-Sec-24-Schedule-A.pdf Change.org. “FIFA: The World Cup Should Be Played on Natural Grass.” https://www.coworker.org/petitions/fifa-the-world-cup-should-be-played-on-natural-grass (Note: more than 70 national team players from 17 countries signed this petition.) BMC Sports Science, Medicine, and Rehabilitation. “The Perceptions of Professional Soccer Players on the Risk of Injury from Competition and Training on Natural Grass and 3rd Generation Artificial Turf.” March 2014. http://bm...

Corporate interests rule everything in america, from television to congress. There are a few safe spaces left, and the national parks are one of them. If this deal goes through, and Jarvis is allowed to stay in his post, we move past the point of no return.