Swollen Eyelids Swollen Tongue

Le tre A

Ambiente, Agricoltura, Alimentazione

L’agricoltura è un insieme di attività fondamentali per the sustainability of society and the historical and cultural identity of the country. The reduction in the use of chemicals in agriculture, the development of biological, environmental protection and quality of local products, maintenance and protection of territory from the hydrogeological, the development of renewable energy production: these are the strategic objectives that must be assigned to 'Agriculture, whose various functions are also recognized in terms of economic resources.
To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the licensing system, control and supervision of product, promotion of brands to quality production, the incentive system for labeling traceability of raw materials. These are tools to enhance the role of quality production and biological protection to consumers and producers. A new alliance is necessary today between consumers and citizens citizens producers in agriculture, an alliance that makes the link environmental protection and health promotion of quality, the re-launch of a vital sector of society.

Is The Reebok Precision Xt Ant

Elezioni rinuclearizzate

Elections rinuclearizzate

Lucia Venturi www.greenreport.it

LIVORNO. The last day of campaign Election ends with a fiery exchange of views on a theme that has characterized the political debate from the outset: the return to nuclear power. The object that triggered the last match is a map by Pecoraro Scanio, attributed to a study commissioned by the PDL, which show possible sites where to build new nuclear power plants in Italy. Ben 15 the suitable areas, which are in sites which already exist or decommissioning old power plants, or plants which had been proposed, never built, since our country has chosen in 1987 by referendum, which saw more than 80 % of the population speak in a manner contrary to atomic energy, to abandon one way to produce electricity. Studio immediately denied by the head of the PDL energy, Stefano Saglia, which calls for a more realistic position, expressed by his party: first the establishment of an agency to solve the problem of waste have yet to be secured, then the possibility to identify at most two, three sites where planning to produce new plants. Pecoraro Scanio called into question by even the Democratic Party "wanted to reopen the nuclear," he responds immediately Realacci that do not talk to reopen plants in our country and the opening is instead seeking a new generation of nuclear power. If the intent was to throw a load of ninety sulla parte avversa, il risultato ottenuto è ben lungi dall’atteso. Ma quello che sorprende non è tanto la polemica (tutta elettorale) tra le parti, quanto il fatto che il tema nucleare sia stato, in questa campagna elettorale, una delle principali questioni di cui si è discusso. E su cui anche la stampa ha dato un contributo non indifferente a tenere vivo il dibattito, in maniera quasi quotidiana. Una situazione del tutto nuova, non tanto per il fatto di scoprire che vi sono opinioni favorevoli all’energia atomica (tra l’altro bipartisan), o che l’apertura alla ricerca sulla nuova generazione di centrali atomiche sia scritta nei programmi elettorali: cosa questa del resto nota e già presente anche nella scorsa campagna election. The novelty lies in the fact that there is a marked change of approach that allows a widespread debate on this issue could become a priority and not marginal in the election campaign. A sign that this is expected to gain votes in a back and forth by all parties involved. And that is less appealing instead to talk about renewable energy, a subject on which apparently all agree that it is in all parties' programs, but whose declination on wind energy for example, could instead give rise to widespread discontent , these certainly bipartisan.

Frequency Indian Channel Astra

incinerator, how much it costs?
Federico Valerio
reported by AWARE 6

The incineration is the most expensive system for waste disposal and all the Italians, unknown to them, pay generous incentives to support it The campaign in favor of energy plants, the largest managed by all means of mass communication, deliberately omits two essential information: "How it costs and who pay? ". According to EU documents, the answer to the first question is that incineration is the most expensive method to dispose of waste. In Austria, the incineration of one ton of waste by the waste incineration plant in Vienna, what is said to be in the city center and has been in the care of an imaginative aesthetic architect, well costs 148 Euro. In Denmark, the waste incinerator plant in Copenhagen would have us believe that we are close to the "Little Mermaid", costs € 97 per tonne. Burning waste in Germany costs a little 'less: € 88 per tonne. [...] The lower costs of incinerators in Germany, than the Danes and Austrians have an explanation. Germany is rich in old salt mines, where safety can be stored in the so-called fly ash, which is all that remains in the filter after the purification of the flue gas of incinerators, real toxic waste because they contain such high concentrations, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And these same salt mines run out of toxic waste incinerator in Vienna and the incinerator of Brescia, while the Danes, to save and export their fly ash in neighboring Sweden. This traffic of toxic waste costs a lot of money: for each ton of ash volanti gli austriaci pagano 363 euro e i tedeschi 255 euro. […] La beffa italiana degli incentivi all’incenerimento Anche in Italia termovalorizzare rifiuti è una scelta che si paga a caro prezzo: mediamente, 90 euro a tonnellata. Eppure, nel nostro paese smaltire le ceneri volanti costa molto poco (129 euro a tonnellata). Sarebbe interessante capire in quale modo riusciamo ad avere prezzi così bassi anche perché, come sappiamo, l’Italia non ha miniere di salgemma disponibili per lo stoccaggio di rifiuti pericolosi. Ma la via italiana alla termovalorizzazione dei rifiuti ha altre singolari particolarità. While Austria, Denmark, Belgium tax the incineration of waste (from 4 to € 71 per tonne) in Italy, this technology has encouraged with generous donations in cash, paid to electricity produced by burning garbage. Across Europe the sale of electricity produced by burning waste is made at prices very similar to that of electricity from conventional sources (oil, coal, natural gas), or approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour. In Italy, sales of electricity produced from fruit to the operator of an incinerator from 9 to 14 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on the economic incentive is drawing on the advantages provided by the "green certificates" or the so-called CIP6 . In both cases, these incentives should go to renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass) and instead go to support the incineration of waste, declared by law, all Italian, renewable energy source. This means that the operator, for every tonne of waste incinerators, thanks to electricity produced (0.5 chilowatore per kilogram of waste incinerators), receiving a bonus ranging from 25 to 50 €. this money come from the portfolios of all Italian families and this (the Italian families) is the answer to the second question that we made at the beginning of this conversation: who pays? In this case, the incentives for incineration are paid the electricity bill, a real hidden tax that is added to the waste tax which is already expensive, but that is likely to increase when, as expected all the district plans is termovalorizzerà 65% of the waste produced by the Italians. Currently, approximately 60% of waste produced in Italy is sent to landfills and the average cost of landfill (64 € per ton) is much lower than incineration With the current system of collection and disposal of waste and the 'Current Per capita production of waste (about 550 pounds per year), the cost borne by households for the disposal of a kilogram of waste is about 12 cents. When in Italy will be working every 140 incinerators planned, it is inevitable a generalized strong increase in the tax on waste, which is expected to be equal to 40% more than the actual rate. In this situation, the cost paid by households for the disposal of a kilogram of waste could rise to about 17 cents. But if the choice of the energy plant will push forward the true cost of waste to energy, always under the Italian families, will be ancora maggiore. Pochi sanno che ogni volta che compriamo qualche cosa, paghiamo 7 centesimi per ogni chilo di imballaggio con cui è confezionato il nostro acquisto: contenitore in vetro, plastica, metallo, scatola di cartone, involucro in plastica, sacchetto. Questa tassa va al Consorzio Nazionale Imballaggi (CONAI) e dovrebbe servire a coprire i costi per la raccolta e il riciclaggio degli stessi imballaggi. Ma l’Italia ha i più bassi tassi di riciclaggio in Europa (circa il 20%), destinati a rimanere bassi, grazie alla “furbata” tutta italiana di far diventare, per legge, la termovalorizzazione una forma di riciclo. Pertanto, la tassa pagata per il riciclo degli imballaggi non is, and will not be used for their intended purpose if all the incinerators will be built that anyone would want (one for each province) and this could constitute a massive fraud to the detriment of all Italians. In conclusion, a kilogram of packaging waste to energy plants, counting future tax waste (17 cents.) Packaging recycling tax (7 cents.) And the cost of green certificates (9 cents.) Italian families will cost about 33 cents (639 lire). SOURCE The article is excerpted from the book by Federico Valerio incinerator? No! All I have not ever said about waste incinerators, and many of you begin to ask edited by Andromeda (Reprint series No. 21). You can buy the book online via the website www.macrolibrarsi.it .

12 Years Old Birthday Card

La guerra degli OGM

War of GMOs

by: Alessio Mannucci

The EU Commission has accelerated on GMOs: new applications for authorization in Europe - residues of transgenic potato of the multinational BASF to produce feed with three other Monsanto's biotech corn - will meet soon on the board of Ministers Agriculture and Health in Europe.

not alone. On the occasion of the European Committee for Regulating GMOs, held on 19 and 20 December (2007) in Brussels, the EU executive proposed the green light for another GM maize - the "GA21" - showing that, at least for marketing (not growing), the licensing system is working as requested by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Europe has had time until 11 January 2008 to comply with the findings of the panel (arbitration body) that have turned the U.S., Canada and Argentina to condemn the slow pace of European procedures for authorization, the three countries will ask the WTO for sanctions against the EU could reach - according to early assessments in Brussels - the amount of $ 600 million, with consequences on trade of European countries most opposed to GMOs.

So, last December, the EU executive has relaunched the debate on the GM: 27 partners have three months to decide. You must first decide the go-ahead in Europe the use of residues from the processing of "superpatata" - "EH92-527-1 " - also called Amflora - in feed (intended for processing into starch for use industry. Its introduction in the European market could generate annual profits per circa 30 milioni di euro, oltre ad aprire la strada ad altri prodotti bio-tech, inclusa la patata resistente alla peronospora). Poi, i ministri dovranno pronunciarsi su tre ibridi di mais destinati essenzialmente alla alimentazione animale. Si tratta del “Mon863xNk603”, del “Mon863xMon810” e del “Mon863xMon810xNK603”, tutti basati sul Mon863, che ha mostrato segni di tossicità. Su questi dossier, Francia e Germania si erano astenuti di votare a livello tecnico mentre l'Italia aveva votato contro.

Nei cassetti della Commissione UE ci sono inoltre altre due procedure in attesa di esame: una relativa al cotone “LLCotton25” e l'altra alla soia “A2704- 12” , entrambi della Bayer CropScience, modificati per resistere agli erbicidi, che hanno già ottenuto il parere favorevole dell'Agenzia Europea per la Sicurezza Alimentare (EFSA), in barba al principio di precauzione.

Il commissario dell'Ambiente, Stavros Dimas, dovrebbe proporre uno stop all'autorizzazione alla coltivazione di due dei mais transgenici per motivi ambientali, in base a numerosi studi scientifici che lasciano aperta la questione dei rischi elevati a lungo termine. Nel mirino del commissario sono il "Bt11" della svizzera Sygenta e l' “ 1507” della statunitense Pioneer. I rischi riguarderebbero soprattutto alcune farfalle, in particolare la monarca. Nella bozza si citano studi according to which the cultivation of this maize could lead to "a potential irreversible damage to the environment" and an "unacceptable level of risk" with consequences on other aquatic insects, and then the birds that feed on them.

Dimas's position, however, appears quite isolated within the EU executive. In particular, he made his voice heard pro-GM European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, who tried to terrorize producers and consumers of meat. So the battle continues Italian, allied to France, to expand the front of the EU countries opposed to GM openings, with delivery to EU Commission, as announced last week by Agriculture Minister Paolo Di Castro, the three million signatures against GMOs in Italy.

Since the end of the moratorium in 2004, 15 GMOs authorized in Europe, bringing the total to thirty biotech products that can be marketed in the EU. But only one, the corn "Mon 810" , approved in the late nineties, is for cultivation. European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, a possible moratorium on new permits, as requested by several countries including Italy and France , would have "important consequences" on the production of meat, which should "leave Europe ".

German Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer said he would "rather immediately stop new approvals and see if the procedure is adequate." Fischer Boel said that the price of corn, largely used for animal feed in the EU, is now 55% higher in Europe than in the United States. Do not accept new GMOs already approved in the Americas feed producers (corn and soybeans in the U.S., Argentina and Brazil) would thus risking a European crisis of supply, "the result would be that the production of meat should leave Europe." We

blackmail itself.

Article Date: January 2008

Link Related Article:

Genetic Rights Council

European Food Safety Authority

Other related articles:

GMO Corn toxic

Monopoly multi-genomic

referendum on GMOs

E-mail: Alessio Mannucci