bay history TV news center Maine not all salmon is good . River full of mercury not the smartest place to grow fish

Some activists in Maine are urging the state to label certain farmed salmon due to potential health risks... say https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/features/not-all-salmon-is-good-for-you-activists-say-they-want-warning-labels-on-salmon-contaminated-with-high-mercury-levels/97-2c34248b-932f-473c-a983-8839fb249443

Greg Robie on maine BEP rule change proposal january 2

 RE: a reconsideration relative to December 7th's draft minute 2 and any approval 

Honorable Chair Susan Lessard,

Prior to placing an approval of the December 7th's draft minutes on the table for our Board’s review and consideration, please bring to its attention that the affecting of today’s public hearing for a repeal and replace rulemaking undertaking and Chapter 2 as recorded in minute 2:

1. is not yet authorized by approved minutes, and 
2. that the electronic notice for qualifying parties was not made until January 7th, and 
3. that this is eleven days ago, and therefore does not meet the law's requirement of a 20 day notice, and 
4. that the published public notice fails to note that the type of rulemaking is a substantive repeal and replace, and
5. this substantive “repeal and replace” is stated in the draft version of minute 2, but not in published notice concerning this Public Hearing, and
6. Law requires a public notice to link to a detailed content concerning rulemaking that is omitted in the public notice, and
7. To the degree what the Executive Analyst email address qualifies, what and how a request was replied to (see thread below), such fails to meet the law's standard, and
8. The electronic notice and link, differently offered limited information, and
9. that due to the notice of a public hearing by the Board, that as a decision by the Board, this renders, in law, an irrelevance regarding ANY determination of whether rulemaking is routine regular or major substantive, and
10. that classifying rulemaking as emergency, routine regular, or major substantive is the Legislature’s power and responsibility (to claim otherwise becomes an overreach of executive branch powers*).
11. that the reauthorized BEP has its statutory “Rules” and its section of law, as this as it applies to this Chapter 2 repeal and replace rulemaking, and
12. minute 2 includes an extraneous declarative assertion concerning a choice and a type of rulemaking for which there is no basis in law, and
13. minute 2 further indicates that what was prepared for the Board's consideration needed only minor clerical corrections, and
14. without a clear and recorded determination that what has been prepared and presented is authorize by a vote of the Board in an open meeting (I have found none, and minute 2 references none), and
15. a reconsidertation, in consultation with the Departments Rulemaking Liasion might redress bias that seems to have permeated the consideration of this rulemaking to date, and
16. required the Board’s Executive Analyst to violate the statutory neutrality of that office, and
17. In consideration of the above, AND regardless, please, and in a timely manner as specified in law, extend the public comment period to encompass at least six months.  
18. (Should this letter/email new presented after the approval of draft minute 2, please entertain the exercise of a member's privilege to move for reconsideration of the approval.)

As our citizen board, and historically related to Maine’s traditional citizen Boards of Appeals, the BEP stands in the gap – so to speak – between the Constitutionally protected free exercise of purposed human speech and any unmerited overreach and/or abdication of such speech. The guardianship of this bedrock right and our self-governance is a sacred honor. Our Oaths of Office are a formalized iteration of a covenant bond among ALL the People for the purpose of the better ordering and preservation and furtherance by the People, in covenant bond, to affect through is ‘civil bod[ies] politick” the common good of human personages. 

This letter and request is placed, through the Chair, to our reauthorized citizen Board of Environmental Protection as Constitutional protected human speech for the purpose of better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the aforesaid and this inclusive of our Constitution and State statutes, and particularly our Maine Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA). It is made as an extension of a relevant thread, and this is intended to helpfully offer any required context. If requested I am happy to offer an annotated version. I also intend to be present online.

Thank you for the due consideration of this that Constitutionally protected purpose human speech enjoys. My gratitude is immeasurable to our BEP for the roll played regarding our interaction last March, and what this has become. 

=)

Greg C Robie

95 Mineral Springs Road

Highland Mills, NY  10930

Amoebas reactions to light spectra. 1917 study

 From

Reactions of ameba to light, and the effect of light on feeding.

Asa A, Schaefer Dept of Zoology Univesity of Tennessee

CONCLUSIONS. From these experiments it may be concluded that white light and all the visible spectral colors cause positive responses; but whether all are equally attractive cannot be definitely stated, for experiments would have to be staged differently to produce accurate results. Nevertheless the red end of the spectrum seems to be somewhat more attractive than the blue. 

 67 

What is of considerable interest in the behavior of ameba toward light is that the character of the response may vary rapidly. See Figs. 22 to 36; 37 to 48; and a number of other experiments. A negative reaction may be followed by a positive and vice versa. There is no definite relationship between ameba and light, on account of which the ameba is always either positive or negative or indifferent.

 Stimulation from light produces the same general character of reaction as stimulation from glass or carbon. The only observable difference is a quantitative one; light beams are sensed at a greater distance than particles of glass or carbon. This difference may however be due to a difference in intensity of the stimuli. 

 Ameba reacts to dark spots in much the same way that it does to beams of light. The reactions are either positive, negative or indifferent. But they are negative in much the greater number of cases. But no sooner does one observe the reactions of an ameba to perpendicular beams of light and of darkness than question arises as to the transfer of the stimulus to the ame well as the nature of it. 

How can an ameba sense a beam of light or darkness which never comes nearer to it than I00 microns?

 It is possible that small particles suspended in the water reflect light from a beam of light so as to reach the ameba in much the same way that man can observe a beam of light in a dark room because of the dust particles in the air. But if so the ameba, being eyeless, is wonderfully sensitive to light. But as to beams of darkness the case is entirely different. 

Is it con- ceivable that an ameba can sense a beam of darkness at a distance because not as much light is reflected from the particles in the dark beam as from those more brightly illuminated surrounding the beam? If one did not know of reactions to beams of dark- ness, one might adopt the hypothesis of the reflection of light from particles in the beam; but since similar behavior is observed toward beams of darkness, this explanation is obviously not the right one. 

Some disturbance is created by the beams which is then radially transmitted; so much is certain. But just what is the nature of the disturbance is not clear. In a preceding paper (Schaeffer, 'I6c), in which the reactions of ameba to particles of glass, carbon, and similar materials were 

 68 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 REACTIONS OF AMEBA TO LIGHT. 

 described, it was concluded that the nature of the stimulus which enabled amebas to react to these substances at a distance also remains unrecognized. Now it is possible that the nature of th stimulus which makes reaction at a distance possible is the sam for all these various test objects, since the reactions are very similar. 

If so, the nature of the stimulation must be simple and fundamental, such as differences in electrical potential which give rise to electrical currents. But if the nature of the stimulation should be electtical, the quantities of current arising from the various test objects must be infinitesimally small, and very great if not insurmountable difficulties would be encountered in dem- onstrating the presence of such small currents. 

 To show the general reactions of ameba to globulin, carbon, etc., when stimulated simultaneously by beams of light or of darkness, the experiments may be classified as follows. 

 1. Food objects (grains of globulin) were laid over a beam of intense light so that the food should be very brightly illuminated -365-372. Blue spectral light was used in the experiments recorded, for blue light has been regarded as more disagreeable than other spectral colors. The globulin was sensed at a distance and the ameba moved toward it and ingested it. There was no definite indication that'the blue light had any effect in modifying the behavior unless the pseudopod to the right in Fig. 368 is to be regarded as expressing a deterrent effect of the light. The ameba, in effect, reacted as if no spectral blue light was present. 

 2. The food substance was laid some distance from the green or yellow light, and in various positions with respect to the ameba and the beam of light-373-437. (a) When the green light lay between the ameba and the globulin, the light had a slight disturbing and deterring effect -386. The ameba made a slight detour around the green light. 

 In another test with the experiment similarly staged, the disturbing effect of the green light was more pronounced-373. The ameba made a wide detour around the light and moved into contact with the globulin without coming into contact with the green beam. 

In both experiments green light, which is positive when sensed alone, became negative in contrast with the more strongly (or differently) positive globulin. 69 

 ASA A. SCHAEFFER

 In the experiment with yellow light-397-40 moved straight toward the light after the globulin sensing range, then moved over the beam of light, af direction of motion was changed so that the ameba moved toward the globulin. The globulin was eaten in a cup. The yellow light was not deterrent in this case.

 But another ameba reacted negatively to both yellow light and glob ulin, when presented simultaneously, but positively when presented separately. The ameba was satiated or sick, for the globulin was only partially surrounded. 

 3. Grains of globulin and carbon were laid over beams of darkness. 

 (a) An ameba moved toward a dark spot on which lay a grain of carbon until it came within about thirty microns of the dark spot, when negative behavior set in. The ameba moved away to the right-463. In the succeeding test the ameba reacted at first positively to the dark spot alone, and after that decidedly negatively. 

 (b) A piece of globulin was laid on the dark spot, to the right of the ameba. The ameba moved directly toward the dark spot -globulin-though it seemed to have been slightly deterred by the dark area, for the ameba broke up into two pseudopods-495 -and just when the dark beam was reached a little later, a small side pseudopod appeared. The globulin was however finally ingested. 

In another experiment the globulin was placed near the far edge of the dark spot-522. The behavior of the ameba became very irregular as it moved near the dark beam. Soon a pseudopod was sent out straight toward the globulin, but it was presently retracted and the ameba moved off to the left, veering to the right. There can be no doubt of the strongly deterrent effect of the dark beams. There can also be no doubt of the strongly attractive effect of the globulin.

From End of Nature to End of Nurture: McKibben form-letter bashing Penobscot's estuary defenders shows Mills admin desperation

Oh the horror!  A form letter signed by Bill McKibben - with the Governor's  rhetoric patched in!  

Mr. McKibben is one of those lucky writers whose revelation - that  human pollution and habitat damage  is everywhere, from abyssal sea plains to the stratosphere - resulted in a bestselling book  The End of Nature. This bought him a seat in the Important Voices Sunday media lineup and the coveted Name-Your-Price opinion writer stable. But maintaining that seat comes at a price.  

And that stable is where this especially large shovelful  of manure comes from. Not Bill the bringer of light, but Bill the tamed sycophant. From bemoaning the End of Nature,  Bill is now calling for the End of Nurture. Abandon GAIA,  that silly old cow! She's dried up and heading for the knacker anyway! 

 There is no time to waste!   Away with healing your pathetic little Island and its harbors!   

But Bill isn't _quite_sure.

 "Sears Island is undoubtedly a treasured place for many people." he ponders, his dome fairly glowing with the fury of the mentations within.   "[T]he development of a 100-acre port would  undoubtedly transform the setting - Something I would ordinarily oppose...."  

 But - and this is surely Governor Mills one liner insert: "There simply are no other East Coast  locations  that meet the physical requirements, including size,   needed to build out  this industry at the pace and scale that the  investors  the climate crisis demands."  

Uneasily, Bill suspects there is "undoubtedly" SOMETHING about that island that enthralls the locals.  But with his vast mind and Olympian wisdom and global  perspective, he  speaks the words of Letting Go. Of sacrificing to the hunger of the Powers,  as  a kindly subdiety  of his level should tell the mortals.  Sacrifice your land. Your homes. Your hopes!  Even that may not be enough to satisfy the Changers of the Climate!

 More inshore offshore windports will stave off the existential crisis of climate change "  he intones" and money. Lots of money. For everyone. Unions workers  Millionaires like himself  The rabble banging at the gates.

"Let's not miss our shot," he warns, He should know. That golden ring only comes around so often, Unless you shoot the messenger and loot it for yourself. Bill got that gold once, it transformed him into a Giant striding the earth  Or at least being driven about it. 

It is revealing yet  sad that McKibben - now comfortably on a lower rung of the  ruling class -  ,famously  refuses to reveal his investment portfolio neither its size nor his preferred stocks , other than that it does not include  oil or other carbon stocks.    

There may not be "black gold" in the McKibbenian  holdings  But minerals, defense stocks?  Who can say?     

FOIA & FOAA requests. From Sears Island in the 1990s to windpower in the 2010s

1995 Sears Island Cargoport plan. 
State and federal FOIA'd documents

2003-2004 FOAA  LNG Plan.  State Documents
https://www.penbay.org/searsisland/searsfoa01a.html
https://www.penbay.org/searsisland/searsfoa02.html
https://www.penbay.org/searsisland/searsfoa03.html
https://www.penbay.org/searsisland/sifoa04.html

2008-2009  FOAA  Sears Island Joint Use Planning Committee 
* MDOT's Duane Scott, December 2008
* http://www.penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa_jeb_novdec08/
* http://www.penbay.org/searsisland/searsislandfoaresultsmdotapril1june172009/
* http://penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa09_baldacci_jan_feb_mar_09/
* http://www.penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa_jeb_dec08_jan09/
* http://www.penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa_mdot_april2009/index.html
* http://www.penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa09_baldacci_apr_may_june09/
* http://penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa_mdot_may8may29_2009/
* http://penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa_mdot_61809_80309/index3.html
* http://penbay.org/searsisland/si_mdot_aug09mitigbankplan

 2009 http://web.archive.org/web/20110612171550/http://penbay.org/searsisland/si_foa09_baldacci_jan_feb_mar_09/

2010 Federal Ocean Windpower off Maine
 Buurea of Ocean Energy Mgmt. 2009-2010

2010 State DeepCWind & Tidal Energy
* http://www.penbay.org/monhegan/rmonhegan_foa_reply_011410/index.html
* http://penbay.org/energy/tidal/foa_mdep_tidal_energy_0810/

Sears Island History 1995. Oppo writes Council on Environmental Quality: EPA's J. Devillar's not following law

Ron Huber
COASTAL WATERS PROJECT
POB 1871

Rockland ME 04841

October 13, 1995   (by Fax)

Ray Clark
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place
Washington DC

Dear Mr. Clark

Two persons (Mark Imlay and Denny Haldeman) suggested I contact you  concerning our group's efforts to make sure that NEPA issues are properly addressed in the course of the Section 10/404/permitting process for the Sears Island cargoport proposal in Searsport Maine. 

The Coastal Waters Project is a citizens association dedicated to the protection and restoration of estuarine and nearshore fish and shellfish habitat along the Atlantic coast.

Briefly, the Maine Dept of Transportation, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement*  pursuant to the state's proposal to build a cargo terminal on undeveloped Sears Island in upper Penobscot Bay, Maine. The terminal would provide deepwater access to rail and highway connections in central Maine, and on into Quebec.  Primary cargo will be woodchips for export on the world market. Industrial growth in the vicinity of the port is also anticipated.

We are concerned that  the project as laid out in the Supplemental EIS* will have unacceptable adverse secondary and cumulative impacts to estuarine and marine resources of Penobscot Bay and the Gulf of Maine (including species managed under federal fishery management plans and the Atlantic Salmon which is under review for listing under the Endangered Species Act), as well as unacceptable adverse secondary and cumulative impacts to impacts to wetlands, federally listed T & E species and economically managed forest resources in the anticipated woodchip sourcing area of the forests of Maine (and possibly Canada).

However, the SEIS for the project does not address these offsite impacts, and the Maine DOT is resisting the inclusion of such impacts in the SEIS. We want to make sure that these impacts gets the consideration we believe they deserve.  National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish & Wildlife Service are both concerned about the DSEIS' inadequacies. 

In their comments, EPA staff has rated the project review EO-2 (Does not meet the purposes of NEPA) in accordance with their national rating system.  EPA region 1 Director John Devillars, however, appears somewhat lukewarm to his staff's recommendations that offsite impacts be evaluated.  

In addition, at a regional meeting on marine habitat issues, NMFS staff suggested that "the elevator doesn't work here anymore", referring to elevation of their concerns within NOAA and the Dept of Commerce.

In light of these potential barriers to getting the proposed project's off-site impacts fully considered, I would like an opportunity to visit your office early next week to discuss our concerns in greater detail. I am in the Washington area for unrelated reasons for several more days. If this would not be possible, perhaps you could you contact me at 301-773-___ or 301-773-_____ and we could discuss these issues over the telephone.

Sincerely

Ron Huber, director

Coastal Waters Project

* A Supplemental EIS was required after numerous deficiencies were found in the original EIS for this project.