INFANT DEATHS SOAR 35% IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ---

INFANT DEATHS SOAR 35% IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ---
AREA HIT HARDEST BY JAPANESE NUCLEAR FALLOUT

Press release by Radiation and Public Health Project
www.radiation.org

Embargoed until 12 p.m. EST, June 9, 2011 Contact Joseph Mangano 609-399-4343

June 7, 2011 – Infant deaths rose 35% in the Pacific Northwest since mid-March, when fallout from the meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors reached the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and featured in a new report by health researchers.

Soaring infant deaths occurred in the region where the highest levels of environmental radiation were found in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) samples, raising the possibility that there is a link between Japanese radiation and risk of infant death.

“The fetus and infant are highly susceptible to harm from radiation,” says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA. “The Fukushima meltdowns are still releasing radiation, so trends should be monitored further,” he adds. Mangano is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New York-based health research group. He is the author of the new report on Fukushima fallout in the U.S. and infant death trends.

The airborne radioactive plume from Japan reached the West Coast on March 17, six days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns in four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant. EPA data shows that most of the highest levels in the continental U.S. of radioactive Iodine-131 (I-131) in precipitation in late March were found in Idaho, northern California, Washington, and Oregon.

The two highest precipitation levels found by EPA were in Boise ID (390 and 242 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water, hundreds of times greater than the typical level of about 2). Along with Boise, samples from Richmond CA (near San Francisco), Portland OR, and Olympia WA made up 6 of the 10 highest measurements in the U.S. I-131 is one of over 100 radioactive chemicals found only in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs.

Infant deaths reported to the CDC in eight northwestern cities averaged 9.25 per week for the four weeks ending March 19. The average jumped to 12.50, a 35.1% increase, in the following 10 weeks. Cities include Boise ID, Portland OR, and Seattle WA, plus the northern California cities of Pasadena, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Cruz. Total U.S. infant deaths increased 2.3% during this time.


Infant deaths are published in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. They are preliminary (final figures are available in 2014), but are often similar to final data. The CDC data can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html; EPA data is at http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet_sampling_data.html#precip.

RPHP health researchers (www.radiation.org) have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on health hazards of radiation exposure. Their work has been covered by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, and Fox News.





ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION IN THE UNITED STATES
FROM THE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AT FUKUSHIMA JAPAN
AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON INFANT MORTALITY RATES

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA, Radiation and Public Health Project, June 7, 2011

Purpose. This report will present and analyze data on radioactivity levels in the U.S. from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, and any changes in health status since this radioactivity entered the U.S. environment and diet.

Background. On March 11, 2011, a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused the Fukushima nuclear plant, with six reactors, to lose cooling water (from loss of electricity). Three reactor cores and two waste pools suffered meltdowns. Explosions caused breaches in containment buildings, and high levels of radioactivity entered the environment. The radioactive plume moved east, reaching the West Coast on March 17.

Japanese radioactivity in the U.S. is being ingested by Americans through breathing and the food chain. This phenomenon has occurred previously, such as above-ground nuclear weapons tests and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.

This report examines changes in environmental radiation levels in the U.S., along with changes in health status, since the arrival of the plume in March.

EPA System of Measuring Environmental Radiation. The federal government has monitored levels of environmental radioactivity since 1957, during the time of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Originally managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, this task has been assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.

The EPA makes periodic measurements of radioactivity concentrations in air, precipitation, water, and milk. It operates a system known as RADNET, which includes 124 stations in the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Saipan, and Guam.

Historical data beginning in 1978 are available on the EPA web site, and earlier data are also available in hard copy format. After Fukushima, the EPA increased the frequency of their measurements, and on April 5, made 2011 data available in interactive format. However, on May 3 the Agency reverted to its normal schedule of quarterly measurements, claiming recent samples could detect no radioactivity.

For March and April 2011, the EPA has made available online hundreds of radioactivity measurements (Table 1). All individual readings can be accessed by visiting www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip.



Table 1
March-April 2011 EPA Measurements of Radioactivity

Indicator Precipitation Milk Drinking Water Air (Filter) Air (Cartridge)
Number of Sites 32 36 72 21 12

Number of Samples 157 67 153 79 150

Samples with 77 9 34 72 105
Detectable Iodine-131

The EPA made measurements of 10 radioactive chemicals only produced in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. The vast majority of measurements did not detect radiation, and were marked “ND” (not detectable). The one exception to this general inability to detect radiation was Iodine-131 (I-131). This chemical has a short half-life (8 days), which means it originated from a current source – most likely a nuclear reactor. It is not clear why the EPA detects I-131 more easily than other chemicals.

I-131, like all forms of radioactive iodine, attacks the thyroid gland after ingestion. It can cause cancer and other disorders of the thyroid, which plays a key role in physical and mental development, especially in the fetus and infant.

The greatest number of detectable I-131 samples are in air (cartridge method), air (filter method), and precipitation, with 105, 72, and 77, respectively. Unfortunately, the air cartridge samples cover 12 sites, only 4 in the continental U.S., limiting a national analysis. Air filter samples include 13 sites in the continental U.S., just 6 outside California and Florida. Precipitation has the greatest geographic spread of measurements and will be analyzed as a rough proxy for U.S. levels of radioactivity from Japan.

Patterns of Iodine-131 in Precipitation. Historical EPA data shows the typical level of I-131 in U.S. precipitation is about 2 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water (pCi/l). This number was determined by measurements at 9 U.S. sites on May 1-3, 1986, just before the plume from the Chernobyl accident arrived over the nation. A picocurie is a measure of radioactivity, and is one-trillionth of a curie.

After Fukushima, from March 22-25, samples of I-131 in precipitation at 12 U.S. sites had an average (median) level of 39.6 pCi/l, or about 20 times greater than normal. This figure was roughly half of 1) the peak level after Chernobyl and 2) after a large above-ground atomic bomb test by China in late September 1976 (Table 2):



Table 2
Historical EPA Measurements of I-131 in Precipitation

Event Dates No. of Sites No. of Samples Median I-131
Large Chinese 10/ 4/76- 11 26 75.5
Bomb test 11/ 2/76

Prior to Chernobyl 5/ 1/86- 7 9 2.0
(“normal”) 5/ 3/86

Chernobyl peak 5/14/86- 36 45 99.5
5/16/86

Chernobyl end 5/27/86- 18 20 25.5
5/30/86

Fukushima peak 3/22/11- 22 37 44.5
3/31/11

Concentrations of I-131 in 77 EPA measurements in precipitation with a detectable level varied greatly. Some were quite small, while others were much greater than normal, approximating or exceeding 100 times the normal concentration. Table 3 lists the 10 highest individual U.S. levels of I-131 in March and April.

Table 3
Iodine-131 in Precipitation, Highest Levels in U.S., March/April 2011

Location Date I-131 Level
* 1. Boise ID March 22 390
* 2. Boise ID March 22 242
3. Kansas City KS March 29 200
4. Salt Lake City UT March 28 190
5. Jacksonville FL March 31 150
* 6. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 7. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 8. Olympia WA March 24 125
9. Boston MA March 22 92
* 10. Portland OR March 25 86.8

* Located in the Pacific Northwest

Of the 10 highest samples, 6 were from stations in the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. A seventh, Salt Lake City, is not technically part of the Pacific Northwest, but is relatively close to the region. Thus, it is prudent to conclude that this region received the greatest amount of fallout from Fukushima, and thus any changes in health status that might be linked to the Japanese meltdowns would occur there.

Trends in Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) for decades. Since 1993, each edition of the MMWR includes deaths by age group for each of 122 U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000. The MMWR is available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html.

The MMWR report on deaths has certain limits. It only represents 30% of all U.S. deaths. It lists deaths by place of occurrence, while final statistics are place of residence. It also represents deaths by week a report is filed to the local health department, rather than date of death. Finally, some cities do not submit reports for all weeks.

Despite these limits, patterns of deaths reported in the MMWR are often consistent with final statistics, if a large enough group of cities and/or long enough time period are used. Final data for 2011 deaths are released in 2013 or 2014, and are only available for full years. Thus, MMWR data are helpful to make before-and-after comparisons in a year.

One age category used by the MMWR is under age one (infants). This is the most likely group to detect any link with Japanese fallout. All humans are affected by radiation exposure, but the fetus and infant are much more susceptible, because of their rapid growth and cell division. Damaging a fetal or infant cell makes it more likely that the cell with divide into more damaged cells before it can repair itself, as opposed to a slower-dividing adult cell. Damaging a cell’s DNA code, as radiation does, makes it more likely that a baby will be stillborn, die in infancy, be born prematurely/at low weight, or be born with a birth defect.

There is a precedent for radioactivity linked with higher infant deaths. On May 5, 1986, fallout from Chernobyl reached the U.S., just 9 days after the meltdown. EPA measurements of I-131 in U.S. milk showed that from mid-May to late June, average concentrations were 5-6 times greater than in the same period in 1985. Several years later, a journal article presented official CDC data showing the U.S. infant death rate rose in the four months after Chernobyl compared to a year earlier (+0.43%, compared to a decline of -4.22% for the other 8 months, an excess of 593 deaths). CDC data confirm the magnitude of this four month “bump” was unprecedented, suggesting Chernobyl fallout may have contributed to higher infant death rates in the summer of 1986 (Table 4).

Table 4
Changes in Infant Death Rates, U.S., 1985-1986

Deaths < 1 Yr Rate/1000 Births % Change
Date 1985 1986 1985 1986 In Rate
May-August 12788 12800 9.85 9.90 + 0.43
Other 8 Mos. 27242 26091 11.04 10.58 - 4.22

Note: Chernobyl fallout arrived in the U.S. environment on May 5, 1986. Excess Deaths = [0.43 – (-4.22) ] x 12,800 = 593. Source: Gould JM and Sternglass EJ. Low-level radiation and mortality. CHEMTECH, Jan. 1989, 18-21.

The MMWR 2011 data show that in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout, an average of 181.5 infant deaths were reported (in 111 cities with full reporting for each week). For the 10 weeks following, the number increased to 185.6 deaths per week, a 2.3% increase, which is not statistically significant (Table 5).

Table 5
Infant Deaths, 111 U.S. Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Ending Infant Deaths
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 173
3/ 5/11 189
3/12/11 164
3/19/11 200
Number /average 4 weeks 726 (181.5)
AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 182
4/ 2/11 200
4/ 9/11 187
4/16/11 154
4/23/11 167
4/30/11 190
5/ 7/11 183
5/14/11 200
5/21/11 212
5/28/11 181
Number /average 10 weeks 1856 (185.6)
% Change in Average +2.3%

Note: Includes all 122 U.S. cities in the MMWR, except for those with at least one week missing data (San Francisco, Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Columbus, Fort Worth, Paterson, New Orleans, Phoenix, Worcester, Tucson).

The MMWR includes 8 cities in the Pacific Northwest, namely Boise ID, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Berkeley CA, Sacramento CA, Santa Cruz CA, San Francisco CA, and San Jose CA. Weekly reported infant deaths in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following are given in Table 6.



Table 6
Infant Deaths, 8 Pacific Northwest Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Infant Deaths (Deaths < 1 Year)
Ending Boise Portland Seattle Berk Sacra S. Cruz S. Fran S. Jose Total
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 11
3/ 5/11 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 9
3/12/11 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 8
3/19/11 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 9

AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 1 2 6 1 2 0 2 2 16
4/ 2/11 0 0 3 0 1 1 --- 1 6
4/ 9/11 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 6
4/16/11 0 1 2 1 5 0 0 2 11
4/23/11 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 4 11
4/30/11 0 3 5 0 4 0 1 5 18
5/ 7/11 1 0 2 1 4 0 3 7 18
5/14/11 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 1 13
5/21/11 2 1 2 2 5 0 1 2 15
5/28/11 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 5 11

4 Weeks Before Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 37 ( 9.25)
10 Weeks After Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 125 (12.50)
% Change in Average +35.1% (p<.09)

Note: No data reported for San Francisco, week ending April 2

The average weekly infant deaths for the 8 cities rose sharply from 9.25 to 12.50, a jump of 35.1%. Because a large number of deaths are involved (37 and 125 in the two periods), the change approaches statistical significance at p<.09 (p<.05 is significant).

A review of MMWR data shows that the average weekly number of deaths for all other age groups in the Pacific Northwest (and the U.S.) changed little in the periods before and after the arrival of Japanese fallout.

Discussion. The EPA increased the frequency of monitoring environmental radioactivity in the U.S. after the meltdowns at Fukushima. The Agency documented higher concentrations in the U.S., especially in late March. However, most measurements of chemicals other than I-131 did not detect radioactivity, and after observing declining levels, the EPA decided to resume its normal schedule of quarterly measurements.

Despite these limitations, it appears that the Pacific Northwest received the most Japanese fallout in the U.S. While these levels are much lower than near the Fukushima plant, it is still important to review health status data for unusual patterns.

The MMWR is useful for examining very recent mortality data in cities across the nation. A comparison of infant deaths during the four weeks prior to the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following showed a 35.1% rise in 8 Pacific Northwest cities.

The data suggest that the following steps be taken to enhance the research:

1. Review independent measures of U.S. radioactivity to confirm EPA data are consistent

2. Review changes in environmental radioactivity and infant deaths in Japan, as high radioactivity levels and rising infant deaths would be expected

3. Continue to monitor infant deaths in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S., using MMWR

4. Request data from state/local health departments on infant health, even if incomplete

Finally, the data should be shared with the appropriate regulators, namely the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EPA, and state radiation protection bureaus. Information suggesting that relatively low exposures to radiation from nuclear reactors are linked with infant health problems should be part of the regulatory process.


REFERENCES:

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. Environmental Radiation Data. Montgomery AL: Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility. Report 8, April 1977 (hard copy reports with radioactivity in precipitation after China bomb test), and Report 46, September 1986 (radioactivity in precipitation after Chernobyl).

2. Environmental Protection Agency. RadNet, formerly Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk, beginning 1978).

3. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk for March/April 2011).

4. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html (weekly deaths by age for 122 U.S. cities).
__._,_.___

Nuclear meltdowns spark questions in Alaska

http://kasenna.uaa.alaska.edu/~tnl/?video-post=nuclear-meltdowns-spark-questions-in-alaska
Nuclear meltdowns spark questions in Alaska
By Joshua Tucker | 02 May 2011


Speaking on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Yup'iaq biologist Carl Wassilie called for a community dialogue on the dangers of nuclear energy. The ongoing meltdown of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, which began when an earthquake rocked the region on March eleventh, created a troubling parallel for audience members, The presentation was part of an ongoing series hosted in the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Bookstore.

Chickaloon Village presents its case against Coal Mining to United Nations Expert on the Human Right to Water

February 22, 2011:
Chickaloon Native Village, a federally-recognized Athabascan Indian Tribal government in Alaska, filed a communication to the United Nations Independent Expert on the human right to water and sanitation in conjunction with her first official visit to the United States, which began today.

Chickaloon Village’s submission asserts that the new open-pit coal strip mine in its traditional territory proposed by the Usibelli Corporation would contaminate local drinking water sources as well as rivers, streams and groundwater that support salmon, moose and other animals and plants vital for subsistence, religious and cultural practices. The US Federal Government and the State of Alaska have, to date, not responded to Chickaloon’s firmly-stated opposition to the mine.

The visit to the US by the Independent Expert, Mrs. Catarina de Albuquerque, a Portuguese human rights expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, includes stops in Washington DC, Boston Massachusetts and Northern California, where she will meet with the Winnemem Wintu and other Indigenous representatives. Her US visit will end on March 2, 2011.

During her visit she will meet with the US State Department and relevant Federal agencies as well organizations, communities and experts to receive information regarding the human right to water and sanitation and the federal and state policies and practices that affect this right. She is expected to make recommendations to the US government at the conclusion of her visit.

The right to water for Chickaloon and other Indigenous Peoples is not limited to access to safe drinking water and sanitation. It is closely linked to a range of other rights including Self-determination, subsistence, health, land and resources, cultural and religious practice and free, prior and informed consent. International standards including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize Indigenous Peoples’ right to determine their own priorities for development and to exercise free, prior and informed consent regarding activities which may affect their traditional lands and resources,

Coal mining in and around Chickaloon in the early 1900’s had devastating impacts, including contaminating rivers and decimating traditional food sources such as moose and salmon. The tribes’ long years of effort to restore its culture, subsistence, language, health and ecosystems, including its waterways, will be severely undercut if not nullified by the proposed new mining.

Explaining the reasons behind Chickaloon’s filing, Traditional Chief Gary Harrison stated: “International standards like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize our inherent sacred right to protect our water and keep it clean for the animals, fish and future generations of our Nation. Our right to water is the same as our right to life. We can’t sit back and allow our human right to water to be violated again”.

For more information please contact:
Chickaloon Village Tribal Chief Gary Harrison: (907) 232-0777, garyharrison@chickaloon.org
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council Secretary Penny Westing: penny@chickaloon.org
Chickaloon Village Attorney Geoffery Stauffer: (907) 868-1859, staufferlawoffice@gmail.com
International Indian Treaty Council General Counsel Alberto Saldamando: (415) 641-4462, alberto@treatycouncil.org
International Indian Treaty Council Alaska Office, Executive Director Andrea Carmen: (907) 745-4482, andrea@treatycouncil.org
###

Update: Desa Jacobsson Fast-Statement of Protest

A story on Desa's fast was published in Intercontinental Cry

To read the original statement written by Desa check it out in the post below-

A Statement by Desa Jacobsson
desajacobsson@acsalaska.net
February 8, 2011

On February 8, 2011 a fast has been initiated in protest of the following:

A) Federal/State Subsistence Policies and Management;

B) The Calista Regional Native Corporation’s extraction of toxic mercury by the Donlin Creek Mine;

C) The U.S. Constitutional violation by the State of Alaska’s “Choose Respect” Program of Governor Sean Parnell;
The failure of Native Leadership in their trust responsibility towards protecting and defending Alaska’s Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts.

This fast will continue until the following are resolved:

A) Tribal Members resign from the Federal Subsistence Fisheries Management Advisory Councils and return to strengthening their own Federally Recognized Tribal Governments for the management of Fish and Game;

B) Calista Corporation ceases in extracting mercury in the Donlin Creek Mine and reconstitutes its mining efforts;

C) A lawsuit is initiated against the Office of the Governor and the State of Alaska in it’s failure to provide constitutional protections for all of its citizens.

The dehumanization of Alaska’s Indian’s, Eskimos and Aleuts continues through U.S. Federal and Alaska State Management and Policies, Laws and Regulations regarding the customary and traditional harvest of Alaska’s wild, renewable resources. By this, Alaskan history/public record shows one policy for Alaska Natives and another for Non-Natives in education, the private sector and public administration. Signs once posted in theaters, beauty shops, restaurants in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, Alaska read, “No Dogs, No Filipinos and No Natives Allowed.” The signs have surfaced again through federal/state subsistence management policies. The effects are the same: Alaska’s Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts are not allowed in decision making on policies and management of subsistence harvesting of fish, game, and other natural resources in Alaska. The current official state/federal role of Alaska Native Tribes is merely advisory. There is more to note.

The Federal/State Subsistence Management Policies, Laws and Regulations have been based on the contents of H.B. 405 introduced by former Representative Scott Ogan to the Alaska State Legislature after publicly declaring that, “ God gave me a dream to solve the subsistence problem. “ House Bill 405 required Alaska Natives to complete twelve steps, per specie, with the approval of three boards, acting jointly, in order to harvest fish and game. Later, former Governor Tony Knowles introduced a “State/Tribal” plan for subsistence co-management. This “knit one-pearl two” strategy meant the state managed and Alaska Natives cooperated. The plan had the same elements as House Bill 405 and Tribes acted in an advisory capacity to the State of Alaska.

Imagine an Alaskan Tribal Council adopting the regulations listed in the Federal Subsistence Management Program Hand Book for the management and regulation of groceries and shopping for all non-Tribal members residing in Anchorage, Fairbanks and other hubs throughout Alaska.

The regulations call for the establishment of a Grocery Management Board which passes regulations on groceries and shopping. The Board consists only of members who speak their Native language. English is not spoken. The regulations are written in Native languages only. One Board Member admitted to committing Ethnic/Shopper Cleansing.

The regulations by the Alaskan Tribal Council Grocery Management Program consist of, nor are they limited to and are subject to change without notice, the following:

All grocery shoppers must apply for a license, permit, grocery ticket and report form to shop. The Board, meeting twice a year, will determine eligibility. Applicants must prove prior shopping and consumption.

Shoppers may use only a hand-held basket. No full size carts are permitted. Smaller carts may be used but shoppers can fill their baskets no higher than 15 inches. Two full sized shopping carts are allowed per seven hundred shoppers.
Only unrestricted aisles of groceries may be used as shopping areas. Aisles may be restricted for shopping by the Grocery Management Board at any time, without notice.

Groceries may be shopped year round, except thirty days prior to Hanukah, Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and Halloween except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the last Tuesday prior to each holiday. All shopping is closed 30 days prior to Super Bowl and New Years, and will remain closed for seven more days.

The ear or foot of Easter Bunnies, chocolate or fresh, Passover Lambs, the Christmas Goose, and Thanksgiving Turkeys must be included in written reports no later than 15 days after each event. This includes a piece of egg shell from all dyed Easter Eggs and the stalk of a Jack ‘o’ Lantern. Failure to comply without cause may cause ineligibility for future shopping.
Only one chocolate Easter Bunny, Jack ‘o’ Lantern, Passover Lamb, Christmas Goose, Thanksgiving Turkey, Holiday Ham per household, per year is permitted. Prime Rib and any Beef are not recognized as groceries. Shoppers may purchase only poultry, pork, fish provided they do not exceed weight and size limits.

A permit is required for shoppers to teach their children about groceries sixty (60) days prior to shopping and must prove they are teaching their children about groceries. A qualifying program must have shopping instructors, enrolled children of shoppers, minimum attendance requirements and standards for a successful completion of the course. Only 25 grocery items permitted. A complete written report must be submitted upon completion.

Although a permit is not required, shoppers must be eligible by the
regulations set forth by the Tribal Grocery Management Board to shop for groceries during the following:
funerals,
weddings,
baptisms,
bar mitzvahs,
memorials for fallen American Heroes,
memorials for fallen American Presidents,
birthdays,
debutante balls,
graduation ceremonies, etc.

You must inform the Grocery Management Board Manager of the people, families, friends involved for that purpose. Shoppers must report what groceries were purchased, the cost, from what aisle, from what shelf, the amount and brand. This includes each kind of Halloween candy.

All grocery check out clerks will remind shoppers of wanton waste and preparing their groceries according to state/federal sanitation standards. Groceries may not be fed to any pets whatsoever.

------------
This is what would be required of all non-Native grocery shoppers according to State/Federal Policies on Subsistence Management.

This is dehumanizing. These state and federal policies reduce the dignity of the Elders and minimizes the Culture, Customs and Traditions of Alaska’s Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts. In effect, the BIA, BLM, the Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife become
the Elders and Traditional Council and the Elders become advisory to their own families and members of their own Tribes.

The claim made by federal and state officials about the purpose of their management policies is to “conserve” the resources.

Those who make the ultimate conservation sacrifice for the Federal and State Management Policies are Native children and the Elderly. Alaska’s Indian’s, Eskimos and Aleuts harvest less than 2 - 4 % of the total of all wild, renewable resources at any given time. These polices call for even less. They frustrate, constrict and hinder subsistence efforts. These policies are an insult to the Mothers who prepare fish and game for their families.

The wasted bycatch of millions of king salmon by ocean trawlers and the failure of a fish counter to function correctly created a crisis for southwest area villages during 2008 salmon fishing season. The threat of arrest, fines and imprisonment of village residents by US Fish and Wildlife Officers was present. To date, there are three thousand plus subsistence citations issued to Alaska Natives.

Simultaneously, the Choose Respect Program initiated by Governor Sean Parnell calls for public safety for rural Alaskan villages within ten years. The lack of public safety is not limited to violent crimes. That includes lack of enforcement of fish and game violations by trespassers on Tribal lands. Those most vulnerable are women, children and the elderly and infirm. This is while many village residents are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Deadly toxins are deadly toxins. The gassing of wolves and bears in their dens is very problematic. We share the same habitat and the same environment will be exposed to mercury as a result of mining operations.

Together, this is a crime in progress. Those state and federal policies are acts of deprivation and isolation. The federal and state polices on subsistence management have created conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of a group of people in part or whole.

It is though another amendment has been added to the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That amendment would read,
There is a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Except for Alaska’s Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts. It is ironic that these policies are enforced and supported by those who repeatedly quote the Constitution and espouse freedom, democracy and Human Rights for all.

It is debatable which is worse: the problems created by federal and state policies or those in the Native Community, while acting in an official capacity as the voice of Alaska Natives, who went along silently for money.

Desa Jacobsson February 8, 2011 - desajacobsson@acsalaska.net

State of the Salmon- Cultural Survival or permitted destruction

To: Honorable President Barack Obama

Cc: Honorable Secretary Gary Locke
Cc: Honorable Secretary Ken Salazar

Cc: Senator Lisa Murkowski
Cc: Senator Mark Begich


Mr. President,

Thank you for addressing the concerns of our Nation in the State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011.

In Alaska, hundreds of Tribal Citizens, thousands of Indigenous Peoples and millions of Americans depend on fresh, wild Alaska salmon for various cultural, economic, food and health reasons.

I would like to ask a few questions regarding serious Government infrastructure problems on salmon regulations and jurisdictions between fresh water and salt water (Department of Interior-freshwater; Department of Commerce-saltwater.)

"We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they’re in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked."—U.S. President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address to the Nation on January 25, 2011

1) As the State of Alaska looks toward developing numerous industrial mines in salmon spawning areas in the last wild salmon ecosystems on Earth, how can we be assured that the few mining jobs will not usurp the thousands of jobs and thousands of native peoples that currently exist in sustaining the multiple billion dollar salmon industry?

2) Salmon as one of many sacred cultural foods for indigenous peoples: Due to the pressure by the State of Alaska to please and allow massive increases in foreign mining interests, the local Indigenous Peoples are recognizing major human rights implications of destroying salmon spawning areas; and critical habitat for thousands of other species that the Indigenous Peoples and the World’s people depend on for biodiversity and food production. How can this administration assure that Alaska's indigenous peoples will not be sidelined by the State or Federal agencies for foreign economic interest over the local villages and the sustainable domestic interest of the United States?

3) The current process of excluding indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments by the State of Alaska in the management, policy-making and access to living cultural resources (such as salmon), and exclusionary policies restricting First Nations from healthy traditional foods by hunting, fishing, gathering, and harvesting is a huge concern to traditional indigenous peoples. How can the indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments be assured that the illegal activities by the State of Alaska restricting US trust obligations are dealt with to insure justice and prevent human rights abuses?

4) The education of Alaska's native peoples and rich cultural heritage depend on intact bio-diverse ecosystems, self-sustaining infrastructure, and quality indigenous teachers. In the age of communications and sustainability, Alaska's indigenous peoples have a history of unique resiliency in the northern regions. How can the U.S. Government ensure that our native peoples' history, knowledge and wisdom are passed on to future generations to boost local sustainability, empower children to learn the rich America's heritage, and pass on cultural knowledge for resilient community development beneficial for all Americans?

Thank you for your time.


Sincerely,


Carl Wassilie
Yup’iaq Biologist
Alaska's Big Village Network

Request for Inclusion of indigenous peoples and Tribes in Federal Ocean Policy

December 10, 2010

Disclaimer: This document is prepared by Center for Water Advocacy and Alaska’s Big Village Network for Alaska’s indigenous peoples, Traditional Councils and Alaska Tribal Governments to be included in the process leading to policy decisions that impacts our future generations.------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honorable Secretaries of the United States Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, and Homeland Security:

Request for Inclusion
Ocean Policy funding: Regional Ocean Partnership development.Re: Grant Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity; Number NOAA-NOS-CSC-2011-2002721 posted September 16, 2010; CFDA Number: 11.473; offered by the Department of Commerce

Thank you for your commitment to protect our vital water and ocean resources, ecosystems and peoples.

Alaska's Big Village Network offers this letter to Tribal Governments, indigenous peoples and tribal communities in all coastal regions of the United States; particulary in Alaska and the Arctic; whom have co-existed with all elements of the Earth since time immemorial.

The ocean is critical to all human beings on Earth and is important locally, nationally and internationally for the future freedoms of all peoples, especially Arctic inhabitants. As indigenous stewards of the oceans for tens of thousands of years, traditional and modern Tribal governments and tribal communities must be included in NOAA's Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Programs (ROPFP); particularly, as vital indigenous science and traditional ecological knowledge is critical in the Areas of Special Emphasis as identified in the Ocean Policy Task Force July 2010 final report. The ROPFP must also be directed to support and assist tribal governance and tribal community planning objectives in the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning framework to become active partners in the Alaska Regional Ocean Partnership.

Alaska Tribal Governments and Alaskan tribal communities are necessary and essential to address coordination and collaboration for the profound global matters facing our ocean and to build capacity for the peace and security of mankind. The indigenous peoples of the Arctic have traditional cultural resiliency and adaptation methods that can reduce long-term cost of implementing national climate adaptation strategies; and the Arctic indigenous peoples can perpetuate protection, conservation and management of Large Marine Ecosystems beyond Arctic/Alaska boundaries of the CSMP area. The historic use of cultural resources, inter-disciplinary indigenous science, traditional ecological knowledge, customary and traditional and modern life ways of hunting, fishing, gathering, commerce, and navigation are critical to the interest of the Nation and our maritime heritage.

As witnesses to the significant harm to health of humans and much of the living creatures of Prince William Sound; and ongoing deaths and cascading environmental decline from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in the Gulf of Alaska in 1989, it is critically important to involve all communities in every process of industrial activities in our oceans. We continue to support implementing the precautionary principle in a comprehensive ocean policy within the CSMP framework. Not only are the communities the first responders to international and local disasters, but they are integral to the stewardship of all resources for future generations. Indigenous Peoples and tribal communities in the Arctic are disproportionately impacted by industrial activities in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. Please refer to a recent Department of Interior Minerals Management Service OCS study: “Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska.”

Food Security is essential for Arctic/Alaska indigenous peoples, economic sustainability, and national interest. The living resources and biodiversity of the Arctic/Alaska region (fisheries, marine mammals, peoples, flora and fauna) are of paramount to indigenous science, culture, and identity.

Ecosystem Based Management with maximum Tribal participation in planning will break the frontiers of interdisciplinary science and community based participatory research to provide communities with tools to protect our oceans, coasts and inland waters. The indigenous peoples who have inhabited the Arctic since time immemorial carry the wisdom and expertise to maintain, protect and honor the integrity of the ecosystems to provide customary and traditional and commercial resources today. Historically, the indigenous maritime heritage of the Alaska/Arctic area allowed forefathers of the United States to conduct international trade and commerce.

We support indigenous peoples’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge as best available science. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is an important foundational element in the ecosystem-based management principle for all planning efforts. Indigenous Science is an important pillar for resilient coastal communities that can adapt to impacts of hazards in climate change.

We support local, national, and international efforts to improve the structure of the policy coordination of the National Ocean Council. Due to the cultural and economic significance of fisheries, marine mammals, and birds; as well as the geographic size of Alaska’s coastline and oceans, we ask that you increase participation of Alaska's Tribal Governments in the National Ocean Council. We strongly support education and training initiatives for Alaska Tribal Governments and Arctic communities in National Policy.

Coastal Zone Management

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1482) (CZMA), Federal agencies have a government-to-government responsibility to consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes in areas where the CZMA is in effect. Although, the CZMA facilitates consultation by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the exercise of their responsibilities pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) including in matters that are protective of historic properties, it does not include consultation with Tribes and their Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or, otherwise, provide significant protection to tribes.

Although, in 1992, the NHPA was amended to include tribes, the CZMA does not address the legal rights or concerns of tribes regarding historic properties and the CZMA has not been updated to be compliant with the Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders that mandate federal governmental agencies to conduct meaningful tribal consultation in support of the government to government relationship. Annually, for federal consistency, federal agencies have a duty to examine the implementation of the CZMA. The Task Force should therefore call on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA fisheries) and other federal fisheries agencies to establish meaningful tribal consultation as an integral component of their implementation of the CZMA and become wholly compliant with the consultation process.

Executive Orders:

It is mandatory that standing Executive Orders to be followed by federal agencies to fairly include federally recognized tribes and tribal communities in the Arctic/Alaska region and in all other planning regions when funding Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.

Executive Order--Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (July 19, 2010)
Executive Order 13175-- Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 12898- Environmental Justice

Federal Trust Obligation

The national ocean policy must implement significant and meaningful consultation with tribal governments and tribal communities in the protection of ocean and coastal resources including water rights, sustainable land practices, and management actions, development of watershed management plans and establishment of watershed management councils. Too often federal agencies fail to provide for consultation and partnership with tribes who are impacted by federal and state agency management actions regarding ocean and coastal resources.

The Ocean Policy should be consistent with Section 1B of President Obama’s Directive of June 12, 2009 which created the Task Force and which states that “The framework should also address specific recommendations to improve coordination and collaboration among Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities, including regional governance structures.”

We support the protection of Arctic Indigenous Peoples cultural and subsistence resources in all oceans. We support international collaborations to maintain the integrity of migratory animal treaties for customary and traditional use. We support development of Arctic cultural and situational policy frameworks to address resiliency and adaptation to major climate change matters facing planet Earth.

The indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic/Alaska region and their traditional and modern governments must be included at every level of planning and management by the National Ocean Commission; and must be included for full funding in Marine Spatial Planning and inclusion in Regional Ocean Partnerships for the Arctic/Alaska planning region.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Communities are essential to Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning efforts.

“Data and model products have no value unless they are used. They can only be used if they can be easily discovered, acquired and understood in a timely manner to those who wish to apply them to practical issues such as flood forecasting, water availability modeling, and ecological flows, as inputs to decision-making. The communication and delivery of data and information to such end users is back-bone to a beneficial integrated system.” Page 190: Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters by National Research Council of the National Academies; 2008.

Environmental Justice in Alaska- Health Risks of Permitted Pollution Ignored:

Alaska- Health Risks of Permitted Pollution Ignored:
Indigenous Peoples left behind

To: National Environmental Justice Advisory Commission

From: Nikos Pastos & Carl Wassilie
Alaska's Big Village Network

Environmental Justice principles as outlined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s strategic goals must be formally included in all permitting processes in Alaska. The United States of America has a federal trust obligation to Tribal governments and their peoples. The indigenous peoples of Alaska are citizens with a distinct historical and political relationship with the United States of America. EPA has a mission that can equitably protect and enhance environmental justice concerns in tribal communities that have suffered so many tangible adverse impacts from fast track, hasty environmental permitting. A good place to start would be observing proper notification protocols and consultation including language and cultural accommodation based on EPA’s environmental justice policy, and the Executive Order on environmental justice (EO 12898).

In order for any permit application to move forward in which the ecosystem, environment and (subsistence) living cultural resources of Tribal Governments and indigenous peoples could be impacted; there must be a formal review in a democratic process (tribal governments). Communication is a matter of utmost significance when permitted activities have potential impacts to local food security; and the potential to disrupt and destroy customary and traditional cultural life ways of hunting, gathering, fishing, harvesting, commerce and navigation.

Given the historic cultural degradation of America's First Peoples from permitted and unpermitted industrial development activities; a hard look from the articulated goals of EPA Environmental Justice policies must be enacted in real and tangible practices to have any credibility with indigenous peoples in modernity. Furthermore, resources must be allocated to Tribal Governments for building capacity to address the technical, legal and general communications to Tribal populations regarding all environmental permitting processes.

The transfer of permitting primacy by the United States of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the proposed State of Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES) is legally questionable due to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Region 10 EPA and the State of Alaska Department of Conservation. The State of Alaska does not have regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials in development of State policy that has profound tribal implications to the environment and health of indigenous peoples and tribal citizens. The State of Alaska has not substantively demonstrated the capacity to actually exercise oversight and compliance of simple reporting requirements of the Clean Water Drinking Act in villages of Alaska. How could tribal peoples and all other citizens have confidence or assurance that minimal federal standards for waste water discharges from mineral extraction, (oil, gas, mining) , timber industries, seafood processing industries, municipalities are properly monitored by a quasi-permitting program of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation?
No consultation process has yet been developed to adequately address the adverse, disproportionate, cumulative impacts of thousands of permitted and pending industrial developments in Alaska that impact indigenous peoples human rights. Language translations are needed in areas and populations where significant percentages of the people speak indigenous language first and very limited English second. All health risks of permitted pollution are miscalculated; disproportionately impacting indigenous peoples and tribal citizens in Alaska when disregarding bioaccumulation, cumulative toxic risks and fish and wild food consumption rates and patterns.