Green Dove Note:
Dear Readers,

Thank you for coming here. If you wish to see resources updated, please send the information for our consideration.

Where ever you are and what ever you are doing, may you hold peace in your mind and heart.

We had what I was thinking drought conditions and yesterday, rain came! The difference that even a little moisture makes to the plants! The earth here is abundant and our Farmers Market is a bustling place. The community orchard is developing and has many helpful hands. Ecovillages are sprouting up in a few places around town and more people are intentionally coming together with others to establish households.

So far donations have not come rolling in so that we can move forward with the chap book contest with prizes to youth and young adults writing about peace, community building and sustainability. When time allows work continues on the chapbook of poems by a Wabash Valley inmate. I hope to have that project completed before the years end.

On another note, In an effort to clear out my studio, I will be exhibiting art for sale at studio prices in Bloomington, Indiana! Beginning August 1, 2011 I will be exhibiting "Paintings" in Max's Place 108 West 6th Street, and will include at least one Peace Pie in the mix. January 2012 through February 2012 prints of my ink drawings will be on display in Lennies Restaurant and Brewhouse at 1795 East 10th Street. Also in February, from February 1st through the 28th I will exhibit "Recent Paintings" in the Bloomington, IN City Hall (Showers Building).

The sale of my art will help me meet my day to day expenses and give me time to keep this resource going.

Each act and thought we make toward peace contributes to the peace, health and well being of us all.

I am grateful.

***************

Local Food News and Note

Thank You!

Green Dove

Bloomington, IN -- The City of Bloomington Sanitation Department has announced a new partnership with Vintage Tech Recyclers. This partnership will allow the City to host its first Electronics Recycling program.

The City invites residents of Bloomington and surrounding communities to dispose of unwanted electronics for recycling on Sat., August 13 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Please bring your items to the Sanitation Garage, located at 3406 South Walnut St., just north of the City of Bloomington Animal Shelter.

"We are very excited to be teaming up with Vintage Tech in an attempt to provide the community with the much-needed service of responsible electronics recycling," said Shelby Walker, the City's Sanitation Director. "Vintage Tech has partnered with several manufacturers to offset our cost for the event. We're hoping this year is a success as well as a stepping stone for future recycling events."

The following items will be accepted: computers, laptops, monitors, LCDs, cell phones, printers, scanners, modems, cables, televisions, VCR's, DVD players, camcorders, cameras, gaming systems, telephones, pagers, answering machines, typewriters, calculators, fax machines, copiers and postage meters.

For more information, please contact the Sanitation Department at 349-3443 or read more online at www.bloomington.in.gov/sanitation.

July 20, 2011

For more information, contact:
Shelby Walker, Director, Sanitation, City of Bloomington, 349-3443
Jared Schlemmer, Communications Director, City of Bloomington, 349-3406, schlemmj@bloomington.in.gov

Green Dove News Assistant Editors
Contact greendove@gmail.com for info.

'Please Tell America (to) Study War No More'

World Peace is Marching On

(Tune) BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC

My ears can hear it coming-
It's the rising cry forpeace.
It isgrowing,swelling,spreading.
Letthetalkof warfarecease.
In the placeof hateand violence
Letthe way of love increase.
Thetruth is marching on.
Glory,glory,hallelujah!(3times)
Word peace is marching on.
We have tried the way of violence-
Let us try the way of love.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked,
Tamethe hawk and send the [...]

You may view the latest post at
http://grannies.homeofficesite.com/2010/ 09/28/please-tell-america-to-study-war-no-more/

Please send out into the Dynamic Universal energy of which we are all a part a request to that loving thing you believe in for assistance and quick stabilization of energy connected to the devastating 8.8 earthquake that has occurred in Japan and the resulting tsunamis. If you will, Please invite in the light and healing energies of connecting all positive things you hold dear.

May our loving thoughts and prayers reach out and assist in some way those in need of these prayers and the blessings of comfort they may release for all people affected, and that there is a quick global outpouring of all needed supplies and resources for the ensuing massive rescue and relief effort.

Thank you, I am grateful for each thought and action shared into the healing of this and other earth movements at this time. May we be supportive of one another in thought and action.

Thank you and Gassho,

Please keep sending your prayers, and if you could, an aid through these links;
http://www.redcross.org/

CLIMATE ACTION TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING

Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
Here at Green America, we're working hard to heal the climate by transitioning our electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired power. But all of that work will be wasted if we transition from coal into an equally dangerous source - nuclear power, which is why we've put together this list of reasons why nuclear power is not a climate solution.
Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years. That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power - or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer. Please help us get the word out.
Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn't possible - neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here's why:
________________________________________

1. Nuclear waste -- The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.
Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.
The proposed solution a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain is overbudget and won't provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don't want that nuclear waste facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there - which puts communities across the country at risk.

2. Nuclear proliferation - In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, "During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program." Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can't develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.
Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands

3. National Security - Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
What's more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.

4. Accidents - Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents - human error or natural disasters - can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.
Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost - and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there's a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.

5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer - even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.
According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, we don't have to rely on risky nuclear power.

6. Not enough sites - Scaling up to 17,000 - or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn't possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren't enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.
There are many communities around the country that simply won't allow a new nuclear plant to be built - further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.
Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

7. Not enough uranium - Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.
As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What's more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions - resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

8. Costs - Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.
What's worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community.
Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government's current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance - Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.
As the Nuclear Energy Institute recently reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, "100 percent loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential … because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary" for new nuclear power plants. Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50 percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.
And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn't exist, nuclear power still can't be a climate solution because there is …

10. No time - Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren't enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear's coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn't possible to build 17,000 - or 2,500 or 17 for that matter - in ten years.
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.
- from Green America - --http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm

You are the one you have been waiting for. Alice Walker

Tell our MPO: Please Take I-69 out of the TIP!

* I-69 will degrade our quality of life, with increased traffic, air and noise pollution.
* I 69 will threaten our fragile karst topography, forests, farmland and water resources.
* I-69 is depressing land and home values in Monroe and Greene Counties.
* We need more public transit, more travel options, and fewer carbon emissions, not I-69.

New Terrain I-69 is SIMPLY WRONG FOR INDIANA!

Thank you again for your steadfast support.

<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>

Thomas & Sandra Tokarski
CARR
PO Box 54
Stanford, IN 47463
carr@bluemarble.net
812-825-9555
800-515-6936

Steady-state economy:The economy viewed as a subsystem in dynamic equilibrium with the parent ecosystem/biosphere that sustains it. Quantitative
growth is replaced with qualitative development or improvement as the
basic goal. (Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications).

Dear EarthTalk: I've been hearing more and more references to the need to clean up our agricultural practices for reasons pertaining to health, food quality, even global warming. What are the major environmental issues today associated with agriculture? -- Tony Grayson, Newark, NJ

What amazes many environmental advocates to this day is how the widespread adoption of synthetic chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers for use in agriculture was dubbed the "Green Revolution," when in fact this post-World War II paradigm shift in the way we produce food has wreaked untold havoc on the environment, food quality and human health.

Agricultural output has certainly increased as a result of these changes, but with the vast majority of the world's farms now relying on petroleum-derived synthetic chemicals to grow crops and petroleum-derived fuels to drive the engines of production-modern agriculture has become overwhelmingly toxic to the atmosphere and is hastening global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that agricultural land use contributes 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions; here in the U.S. almost 20 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions come from agricultural sources.

Intensive use of chemicals isn't good for our nutrition intake, either. Overworked, depleted agricultural soils generate fruits and vegetables with fewer nutrients and minerals than those produced by farmers decades ago. And much of the food we eat is laced with chemicals that end up in our bloodstreams.

Beyond its effect on the food we put in our bodies, modern agriculture generates large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and other fertilizers running off into our streams, rivers and oceans, compromising not only the quality of our drinking water and the health of riparian ecosystems, but also causing those huge oxygen-depleted ocean dead zones we hear about in coastal areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet another issue with modern farming is the amount of animal waste generated and concentrated in small areas, which creates unsanitary and potentially dangerous conditions for the animals and humans alike. And the widespread use of antibiotics on farm animals to keep disease in check results in the development of stronger strains of bacteria that resist the antibiotics used by humans to ward off infection and sickness.

Also, many worry about the potential impacts of the widespread use of genetic engineering, whereby genes in plants, animals and microorganisms are manipulated to select for specific traits. These genetically modified organisms, reports Greenpeace, "can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms," thus contaminating the natural environment in unforeseeable and uncontrollable ways.

The good news is that rapidly increasing consumer demand for healthier food is forcing agribusiness to see the wisdom of moving away from business-as-usual. Organic farming, which eschews chemical fertilizers and pesticides in favor of more natural choices, holds considerable promise for greening up our agricultural systems. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, organic cropland acreage averaged 15 percent increases between 2002 and 2008, although certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. total farmland in 2008. So we still have along way to go.

CONTACTS: IPCC, www.ipcc.ch; USDA, www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

The study focused on three GM corn crops -- Mon 863, Mon 801 and NK 603 -- and found that they caused statistically significant rates of kidney and liver malfunction, as well as some heart, adrenal, spleen and blood damage in rats. These crops have been approved for consumption in the U.S. and many countries in Europe without proper research into their affect on human health.

GM technology inserts non-food genes into the DNA of food, sometimes making the crop more resilient to herbicides and other times causing them to produce toxic proteins that act as pesticides themselves. This process changes the structure of the food drasticcally and presents humans with substances that have never been a part of the human or animal diet.

Several countries in Europe, such as Germany and France, have already banned GM crops, including Mon 801. But the U.S. FDA has done us a potentially dangerous disservice by simply taking Monsanto's word that these genetically modified crops are safe and not doing any testing! This 90-day study was just the beginning, and these GM crops must be studied further instead of being immediately available for human consumption.

Tell the FDA to take these genetically modified corn varieties off the shelves until a peer-reviewed, two-year study can determine if they are safe for human consumption!

Click Here to Stop GM Corn

Quilters Comfort

SUPPORT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN INDIANA!

In support of women's reproductive health and well being, please consider steadfastly opposing the variety of bills such as HB 1205 and 1210 which would deny Planned Parenthood of Indiana vital funding to provide comprehensive reproductive health care for low income women. I would also like you to consider standing for a womans right to dignity and privacy by opposing SB 328 which would impose humiliating conditions on a woman seeking abortion. I do not think that women make these decisions lightly.

To support women contact your House and State Representatives and let them know that you stand in support of women and the services provided through Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

For most people the State Representative is Matt Pierce and the Senator is Vi Simpson.

You can reach the House of Representatives and Senate using the information below.

House of Representatives, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 4604-2786; (317)232-9600 or(800) 382-9842 and the

Indiana State Senate, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2785; (317)232-9400, (800)382-9467

Say NO to more prisons for Indiana.

Say YES to work release.

Governor Daniels wants to build a 512 bed prison contracted without competitive bidding to GEO Group, a Florida-based company that already operates a 2,500 bed prison at New Castle. Under the terms of the arrangement GEO would finance construction and the State would have a 10 year commitment to fill the prison at a cost of $37 / day claiming to save the state $5 per inmate per day if Indiana constructed and managed the facility. However, these savings are misleading and Indiana taxpayers should also consider ways to spend the money that return more to the taxpayer. The money the Governor wants to spend on an unneeded prison could fund work release and evidence-based programs that reduce crime and cut criminal justice costs.

CLICK HERE TO VOTE AND "Say NO to more prisons for Indiana. Say YES to work release"