It seems as though Kent County and the City of Milford are in some deep doo-doo...literally. A broken sewer main or pump station leaked an estimated one million gallons (the earlier estimate was a half million gallons) of untreated wastewater into the Mispillion River today. The result? The river is closed. That's right, ladies and gentlemen...you don't have to go home, but you can't swim here. And I'm guessing you wouldn't want to, since the news coverage, found here, indicated that a lot of the waste came from the chicken processing facilities in the area.
Okay, all you Milford residents, say it with me...
BLECHH!!
UPDATE: The damage estimate was revised up this morning to 2 million gallons. Mi-SPILL-ion river, indeed!
I love the old pictures of our local cities and towns. Here, for your reminiscent enjoyment, is the old Sussex Hotel in Seaford.
Looking at this picture, I can almost hear the "Ah-Oooooo-Gahh!" of the old car horns. Does anyone know how that post in the center of the intersection controlled the traffic?
The federal government today asked that the current EPA standard of not requiring fish protection devices at older power plants be upheld by the US Supreme Court. The News Journal picked up the AP story and published it this afternoon. The original can be found here, but a more detailed account of the issue is on CNN Money.
It seems that the EPA, until a court spanking last year, was allowing old coal-fired power plant to conduct their own cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether or not to implement changes and upgrades in accordance with federal clean water laws. Basically, the EPA was only forcing changes on plants that could prove that the changes would be good for business. The number of plants falling into that category? Zero. Of the 554 older coal power plants that are at issue, one of the worst--according to the national Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and the Lewes-based Citizens for Clean Power (CCP)--is our own Indian River plant near Millsboro. That's it up there. In fact, these pro-environment groups have gone so far as to start an online petition calling for the plant's cleanup.
I don't know about the level of "dirtiness" of our local plant, but I certainly know that coal-fired power plants are a nasty business in general. They produce ash and slag that contains mercury and PCBs and other nasty chemicals that get concentrated in pits around the plant site and then leach into the soil and water. Ever wonder why you can't eat more than a few ounces of local catfish every year? Thank your neighborhood coal power plant for that one. The fine dust created when coal is burned also creates problems for people with athsma and COPD, and a 2004 study of coal-fired plants estimated that up to 24,000 people per year are given the gift of shorter lives as a result of fine particles around coal plants.
I know, I know, right now you're saying "But I like lights and TV and hot water! Can't we have a nice natural environment AND electricity?! Pretty please?"
Ok, maybe you didn't say the "pretty please" part.
Well, the current proposal by both the outgoing and incoming administrations is to phase in a new technology called "clean coal." What is it? Well, according to our handy-dandy Wikipedia:
Clean coal is an umbrella term and public relations term used to promote the use of coal as an energy source by emphasizing methods being developed to reduce its environmental impact. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas. These methods and the technology used are described as clean coal technology. Major politicians and the coal industry use the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use, with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.
So wow! We can have our coal and eat fish too! Or can we? The Wikipedia article goes on to say:
It has been estimated that commercial-scale clean-coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) cannot be commercially viable and widely adopted before 2020 or 2025. This time frame is of concern to environmentalists because, according to the Stern report, there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups maintain that it is greenwash, a public relations tactic that presents coal as having the potential to be an environmentally acceptable option. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another.
If clean coal really isn't all that clean, then why is our incoming administration including it in its list of sustainable energy sources? I suppose that fact that it doesn't use foreign oil is a reason. I suspect, though, that this may be a safe bet on a final middle ground between the forces of "stay the course" and the forces of treehuggery, and politicians always like to point out how they were right all along...so including this among the list of greener things like wind and solar seems like a politically strategic move.
Ahhhh....politics. I understand. That's the game. But keep this in mind: while you all are playing your little Washington game, we're all getting cancer and emphysema, you jerks! How about you quit your smarmy "straight talk" for awhile and substitute a little straight action?
It seems that we aren't as slow as they'd make us out to be down here in lower Delaware. The Milford School District yesterday announced the construction of a "zero energy" school facility for 8th and 9th graders that will use solar panels, wind turbines, and other sustainable energy technology to make itself completely independent of a power company's services.
The News Journal covered this story in a brief article here. With the price of oil stabilizing, this might not seems as dramatically revolutionary as it would have at this time last year, but the move to locally-created, non-oil energy takes our community (and our country) that much farther in the journey toward being less dependent upon China and Russia and Saudi Arabia for our existence.
The programs like this also end up saving money for the school district, which can be passed along as lower school taxes (suuuuuuure) or, more likely, more bearable tax increases over the years.
The helical wind turbine pictured above is the newest design for capturing as much wind as possible for making energy. It will also capture wind blowing in any direction (including updrafts and downdrafts) so they work well in cities and towns where buildings can block the wind blowing horizontally. For those of you who are now saying "Hey Matt! How do I get back on the right track and get some of this alternative energy for myself?"...there are plenty of tax credit and financial incentive programs for homes and businesses to get in on the "green energy" bandwagon.
The News Journal has a good overview of the programs that are currently in effect and links to the places to find more information here. Also, there is some great information on the State's energy website about all the available programs and incentives, and FAQ's on applications such as geothermal and windmills.
And take a good, long look at geothermal systems. Most of the literature suggests that small scale "green" systems should start with this application instead of solar or wind power, which only pay off quickly in larger industrial or commercial applications.
So, I tip my hat to you, Milford School District. I hope that your program will become a model for other schools, governments, and communities in the Delmarva region and beyond.
The News Journal has really made a big to-do this past week over the State Police "superchecks" that allow them to see a person's involuntary mental health history. They have written multiple articles about it here, and they have even compiled a database of handgun permit rejections here that looks back more than a decade.
So, my question is: are there really legitimate reasons for granting handgun permits to residents who are otherwise responsible citizens but who have been involuntarily placed into inpatient mental health care (which, I believe, is the only thing these "superchecks" turn up)?
I believe that one perhaps-legitimate reaction is to say no. The idea of "crazies" having a gun probably frightens most mainstream people who have no experience with mental health issues or mental illness. Or maybe these are people who have had a major negative experience dealing with someone, even a family member, who is mentally ill and should NOT have a gun. Importantly, though, (and here's the perhaps-legitimate part) the issue concerns the State Police enough to say no, and they certainly have a great deal of experience dealing with people who are not criminals but are simply in need of help...sometimes very serious and long-term help. But, on the flip side, many would say yes, that there are examples of people who fall into this category who are absolutely responsible enough to handle owning a handgun. I think most people, after thinking long and hard about it, would come to this conclusion. A great number of teens today have a history of involuntary mental health treatment because of misunderstanding parents. Also, a history of mental health treatment may not be a bad thing, since this indicates that the person either has or is getting help to overcome any problems they may have. Also, a person who has a documented history of treatment is definitely a better bet than better than someone with untreated mental health issues who ends up slipping through the cracks of even a system of "superchecks."
Our justice system was founded on the concept that not one innocent person should ever be imprisoned, even at the cost of allowing many potentially-guilty people go free. Should this same concept apply to gun permits? Should we give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them a gun until they prove themselves irresponsible with it?
Maybe the answer is some middle ground where these people are not automatically denied a permit but are required to get a letter from a psychiatrist that certifies that they are not an immediate danger to themselves or others (I'm sure you're shaking your head saying "good luck," given the state of our modern, sue-happy society). But maybe there will be a law that says any letter like that cannot be held against the doctor, and only certifies the person's state of mind at the time of issue, or some disclaimer like that. I'm not sure that we have a constitutional option to deny people the right to have a handgun if they haven't done anything to prove themselves criminally irresponsible (a la 2nd Amendment), but it's certainly a big question to which I have no answer. The State Police and the ACLU are seriously at odds over this right now, and I hope everyone who reads this will write a comment and weigh in on this issue. I'd like to hear what you think, even if it's a simple "yes" or "no."
The Delaware Libertarian wrote here about the current tide of bad press against DelDOT these days. I thought I'd just share this cartoon, which bears a striking similarity to most of DelDOT's projects around the lower counties: In all seriousness, though, I hope DelDOT gets its act together in the next few years and turns away from the dark side. On that note: Hey DelDOT, quit raising the tolls on Route 1!
It seems Christmas has come early this year for the Town of Dewey Beach. According to this article, published yesterday, a long-time resident of the Town has offered to maintain the Town's website for the bargain price of $1 a month. For you number wonks, that works out to a paltry 2 cents per week, or one-half of one-hundredth of one cent per hour (assuming a 40-hour workweek). I guess time will tell if this is a bargain or if the old adage "you get what you pay for" holds true. For now, the Town's official website looks pretty good compared to most other small towns' sites.
If only all IT professionals charged a mere $12 bucks a year for their services...until then, I'll deal with my mile-long inbox of spam and and my dozen or so pop-ups per hour the old-fashioned way.
Yes, Dewey, there is a Santa Claus...and he knows Javascript.
