The Author is a retired physical chemist and teacher. His interests are science education, professional ethics, computational chemistry, and spectroscopy.
Microplastics, tiny plastic particles between 1 nanometer and 5 millimeters in size, are much more ubiquitous than we realize. In 2022, it was discovered that people have microplastics in their body and it was found that 4/5 of the people tested had microplastics in their blood. It is unclear what these tiny plastic particles mean in terms of long-term health, but some studies suggest there are links to inflammation, metabolic disruptions, dementia, immune issues, and possibly heart disease.
The New England Journal of Medicine in 2024 found that an analysis of plaque in patient arteries found high levels of microplastics, indicating they may be responsible for inflammation and systemic immune responses. Their findings suggest that low-level chronic exposures to microplastics may increase cardiovascular risks, however, direct evidence is not available. It is also been found that microplastics can cross the blood-brain barrier. An autopsy study showed that some deceased patient’s brains contained up to 7 grams of microplastics. That is about the weight of three pennies. One study found that microplastic concentrations were higher in the brains of deceased patients who had been diagnosed with dementia compared to individuals without dementia. Even more alarming, the concentrations of microplastic particles in brain samples have risen by roughly 50% over the last 10 years.
Microplastics are found to be widely distributed in soil, where they get into the water transport systems of plants – and then move to the roots, stems, leaves, and fruits. From there they get into animals, into the meat and vegetables we eat, and into us. The digestion processes of animals and birds tend to break down any plastics they might eat into microplastics. Ingestion is the main pathway of human exposure to microplastics, as they are found in our drinking water, bottled water, seafood, salt, sugar, tea bags, milk, meat, vegetables, fruit, and other foods. We also inhale microplastics as the particles are small enough to float in the air and be blown around by the wind. They make up part of the particulates found in the air and have been detected indoors as well as outdoors.
Many of the microplastics come from foods and beverages that we consume. Superage.com has a list of foods and beverages that contain the most microplastics, and has helpful hints on how to avoid them. Bottled water can contain up to 10,000 particles per liter and even beer has been found to have up to 79 particles per liter. Tea that comes in plastic teabags, can release billions of microplastic particles into the cup of tea. Rice, apples, and carrots can have millions of particles per gram. Washing removes some of it, but many of the particles remain, showing that the microplastics are inside the food. Sea salt has been found to have as much as six particles per teaspoon and shellfish up to 11 particles per gram. That’s not surprising since there is so much plastic waste in the oceans, and saltwater, sunshine, and wave action break plastics down into microplastic particles.
Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste enter the oceans from land-based sources such as litter, industrial manufacturing, waste-water runoff, sewage plants, and improper waste disposal. Many of the microplastic particles in the ocean come from microbeads put in cosmetics, deodorants, and even toothpaste. The United States and several other countries have banned this practice, but many countries haven’t, and lots of particles had accumulated before the bans were enacted. Microfiber cloth, and other synthetic textiles, shed microfibers during washing, and those eventually end up in streams and oceans. Urban dust from wear and tear on tires and roads gets into streams or blows into the ocean. A major source of microplastics is the breakdown of single-use plastics such as shopping bags, plastic bottles, and plastic straws. Some cities have tried banning single-use plastics, but many state legislatures, influenced by oil company lobbyists, have tried banning the bans on single-use plastics.
If you live in an industrialized country, is almost certain that you already have microplastic particles in your body. And, you very likely will be accumulating more as time goes by as it is almost impossible to avoid them. Most filtration systems for water do not remove microplastic particles, and even the best systems do not remove particles less than 0.5 microns in size. Long-term studies have not yet been done to determine the health effects of microplastic particles, but there are many indications that there are major health risks involved. The best you can do now is to avoid microplastic particles as much as you can, and support actions that keep plastic waste and microplastic particles from entering the environment.
If you’re interested in producing your own energy, you should look into the pros and cons of vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT). They are a good option if you have too much shade to install solar panels, and they are less expensive than solar panels. Vertical axis wind turbines are suitable for both rural and urban areas as they work at low wind speeds, are quiet, and have low maintenance needs. The disadvantages listed, such as lower efficiency rates, limited scalability, and more turbulence, are more applicable to larger installations. Some cities and homeowners associations may have restrictions on renewable energy, so you should check into those before deciding.
Vertical axis wind turbines are usually less expensive than solar panels. A 10 kW solar installation with a power wall for backup will cost about $9900. A 10 kW VAWT with a power wall backup will run about $3500. Vertical axis wind turbine kits, and also solar panel kits, are available on eBay and Amazon, which is where I found information for the price estimates. If you’re handy with do-it-yourself projects, you may be able to install the turbine yourself. Even then, you may need to hire help with some parts of the installation, and you will certainly need an electrician to check the installation before you turn it on.
The costs are even less if you can avoid buying the power wall and hook to a power grid through a net energy metering (NEM) agreement with the power company to provide the backup. The NEM agreements usually specify requirements to connect to the power grid, the cost to draw power from the grid, and how you will be reimbursed when you supply power. Most power companies, particularly co-ops, are very cooperative about the NEM agreements. Studies in several states, such as a study by Crossborder Energy, found that customers who produce their own energy provide a benefit both to the electric company and other customers by reducing the need for new power plants, reducing the 7% transmission losses, reducing the generation and fuel costs, and reducing air pollution. Ignoring those advantages, some companies, such as Edison Electric and Evergy, have tried to discourage people from producing their own power through propaganda and unfavorable NEM agreements. The reason seems to be that they wish to sell you higher priced electricity from their coal plants. If that is the case, you may wish to buy a power wall and get off the grid completely.
“Chase Blasi, the Senator in Kansas District 27, is now running against me in Senate District 26. How is that possible?”
After the 2020 census, the legislature held meetings all over the state to get our opinions about how to redraw the district lines. In the end, the political leaders ignored our wishes and redrew the district lines to give their preferred candidates an advantage. This is why so many Kansas districts look like jigsaw puzzle pieces. Kansas Senate District 26 is a good example. Gene Sullentrop, the Senator in District 27, had a little legal trouble and resigned last year. The Republican committee in District 27 chose Chase Blasi to replace him. However, Chase Blasi, now the Senator in Kansas District 27, is running against me in Senate District 26. How is that possible?
The legislative leaders knew that Senator Dan Kershen in District 26 planned to retire, so the districts were gerrymandered so that Mr. Blasi would be in District 26, which they thought would be an open seat and give him an advantage. Interestingly, Mr. Blasi worked as the Chief of Staff for Senate President Ty Masterson, who was influential in redrawing the District maps. This move left District 27 an open seat for Joe Claeys, another partisan Republican favored by the Republican leadership. By redrawing the boundaries, Blasi and Claeys would not have to run against each other. If that’s confusing, please see the maps below. The red dot is Blasi’s home, which was magically transported from District 27 to District 26.
Senate District 26 (2020)
Senate District 26 (2024)
US Representative Gerrymandered Districts
Do you see anything unusual about the US Representative map on the right? The green part of the map (District 3) extending from Lawrence, Kansas all the way to the Colorado border, now will be Democrat Charisse Davids’ district. Republicans, seeking to have a 4-0 seat advantage, extended Davids’ District to include much of Western Kansas. This moved roughly 46% of the black population and 33% of the Hispanic population, who strongly favored Davids, out of the 3rd Congressional District. Governor Laura Kelly vetoed the map over concerns about diminished representation for minority voters in the 3rd District, but the Republican-led state legislature overrode her veto.
Several lawsuits were filed against the gerrymandered maps. A lower court ruling in April of 2022 deemed the map an “intentional, effective partisan gerrymander” and ordered the legislature to go back to the drawing board. However, the Kansas Supreme Court ignored the unreasonableness, partisanship, and racial bias of the map and ruled that the Kansas Legislature had the right to draw the district maps in Kansas, apparently however they wanted. This certainly sets a bad precedent, and shows why an unbiased committee is needed to redraw the district maps after the next census.
” The United Kansas Party’s focus is on economic opportunity, affordable health care, quality education, infrastructure improvement, protecting our natural resources, protecting citizens’ rights, and coming together to get things done.”
In Kansas, the second biggest political bloc in the state isn’t the Democratic party, it’s the Unaffiliateds. According to the Secretary of State’s office, 43% of registered voters are Republicans, 26% are Democrats, and 29% are Unaffiliated. Apparently, many Kansans are disenchanted with the major political parties. However, they often register with a major party, because the Republican or Democratic party in their district is so strong that the only way to have a say is by voting in the major parties’ primaries. But there’s a problem with this system. It’s polarizing, making it harder for our government to make the compromises necessary to function in the best interests of average Kansans.
I’ve been a Republican my entire life. Lately, I’ve been feeling that my party has been taken over by its extreme wing. The more it pushes for tax breaks for the wealthy or tougher restrictions on women’s health choices, the more it alienates the more moderate Kansans. They are the middle-class citizens who carry most of the tax burden, and who want the government to make decisions based on science and reason, not on polarizing social issues or which lobbyists donate the most to their campaigns.
From 2019-2021, I was proud to serve the 93rd House district -where I worked to manage our state’s resources wisely and invest in our future. Given where the extreme party leaders and wealthy lobbyists wanted to go, that wasn’t always easy. As I gear up to run for the Kansas Senate, I’m encouraged by a new development here in Kansas. There’s a new political party, the United Kansas Party, that has submitted enough petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. Its focus is on economic opportunity, affordable health care, quality education, infrastructure, protecting our natural resources, and coming together to get things done. Its goal is to bridge the political divide, and it’s a party you may wish to consider.
What makes United Kansas different from other third parties is that it doesn’t want to spoil elections by running its standalone candidates, who may have little chance of winning outright. Instead, it aims to revive fusion voting, a voting option in Kansas that was more common until about midcentury. Fusion voting allows a candidate to be nominated by more than one party. Each candidate’s votes, no matter from which party, are then tallied to determine the winner.
To avoid being a spoiler, the United Kansas party plans to nominate the major party candidate who most closely matches their values. Each general election ballot would then have third-party candidates, a Democratic candidate, a Republican candidate, and a United Kansas candidate who is also the same as a major party candidate. That would allow citizens who are more in the middle to vote for the United Kansas candidate and, in close elections, the United Kansas candidate might garner enough votes to swing the election. That is enough to make the major parties consider running a more mainstream candidate. In districts dominated by one party, the United Kansas Party could just nominate its own candidate, which would keep a partisan major party candidate from running unopposed.
In Senate District 26, I am running as a Republican candidate, and I have also been nominated by the United Kansas party. If I make it to the general election, fusion voting could help me draw the support of many of the unaffiliated voters in my district who agree with the United Kansas Party’s values. People in Kansas are looking for a change. The emergence of the United Kansas Party, plus fusion voting, could make change possible.
The Cornwall Alliance was originally created to help Third World countries deal with climate change. However, it has been taken over by E. Calvin Beisner, who uses it to spread climate change denial using pseudoscientific and religious arguments. You can identify climate change deniers by the lies they tell and the derogatory way they describe legitimate climate scientists and their discoveries. Below are some examples of Beisner’s claims, followed by my comments.
Beisner: One recent example is the announcement,” Cornwall Alliance Director of Research and Education exploded all kinds of myths about dangerous, manmade global warming/climate change …”.
#The Director of Research referred to is David Legates. As described by Wikipedia, “Legates has spent much of his career casting doubt on the severity of climate change and the human causes of warming. He is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that promotes climate change denial.”
Beisner: “Bad Climate Data Brings Wrong Conclusions”, which says,”Two new internationally peer-reviewed studies published in major scientific journals have documented misleading Northern Hemisphere temperature data and attribution analyses indicating inadequate considerations of Urban Heat Island influences and dominant influences of the sun in producing warming and cooling changes.”
#Certainly, cities are much warmer now, as the studies found, but they have little effect on the worldwide temperature averages. Beisner is correct that the Sun, through the Milankovitch Cycles , have a dominant effect on the Earth’s temperature. However, the Milankovitch cycles predict that the Earth should be cooling slowly for the next 20,000 years. But it isn’t. See the illustration above.
Beisner: “Climate Catastrophists at the UN Global Climate Summit Are Exploiting Religious Leaders. What is happening at the United Nations Climate Summit? Apparently, a lot of exploitation of religious leaders. Unfortunately, most of these leaders, including Pope Francis, seem far too eager to be exploited. ”
#Pope Francis is a chemist and speaks to the predictions of climate science. If anyone is exploiting religious leaders, it is E. Calvin Beisner.
Beisner: “Arctic ice at decade high level: can Doomsayers explain? ” # There is no need to explain. This is just the denial of scientific research. NASA reports that Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures.
Beisner: “On the same day that Hurricane Hillary brought record rainfall to Los Angeles, a magnitude 5.1 earthquake occurred in nearby Ojai. “To the truly enlightened, these rare disasters should serve as a warning from on high that the Golden State is headed for a massive downfall – punishment for trying to force smog-fighting electric vehicles on smog-free America.”
# Wow! Divine retribution for trying to reduce air pollution. And, America is not “smog free”.
Beisner: “Pope’s Climate Harangue Shows that He Should Stick to Theology and Leave Climate Policy to Those Who Follow Facts”.
#As noted above, Pope Francis is a scientist and is certainly qualified to speak on climate policy. Apparently, Beisner considers his own religious views to be “the facts”.
Beisner: “World leaders continue experiencing a dangerous delusion of a global transition to ‘just electricity’ that they believe will eliminate the use of the crude oil…”
# Oil is a valuable natural resource, and no one is recommending that we completely eliminate its use or transition entirely to ” just electricity”. The carbon dioxide and plastics we produce from oil are threatening the Earth and its ecosystems. We should begin conserving petroleum for future generations and transition to other sources of energy as quickly as possible.
Beisner: “Try to forget for a moment that wind and solar are unreliable, intermittent, weather-dependent sources that can’t be scheduled to provide power when needed most — like maybe recharging a gazillion new government-mandated electric vehicles on windless nights.”
# There are a few exaggerations there. We should remember that during winter storm Uri, wind and solar provided energy as usual, while gas, coal, and oil sources froze up. We need a mix of energy sources to handle emergencies and to use while transitioning to renewable resources.
Beisner: “Wind is Unaffordable and Costs Common Sense”.
# The costs of renewable energy projects are now less expensive than even the cheapest coal and gas fired power plants. According to Wikipedia, the levelized kilowatt-hour costs are 12 cents for coal, 7.5 cents for natural gas, 6 cents for solar, and 5 cents for wind. As to environmental costs, Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, used the results from formal economic models to estimate that the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. And, if not addressed immediately, the cost of mitigation and damages could rise to 20% of GDP by 2050 – with the additional cost and risk of an environmental catastrophe.
Beisner: “Knowledge shared is power multiplied. Together, we can give the gift of knowledge that will empower men and women around the world with the confidence and tools to confront the irrational climate alarmist policies that will ultimately harm the poor.”
#While it is the richer nations that emit most of the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change, it is the poorer countries that suffer the most from the droughts, floods, and extreme weather. Although E. Calvin Beisner professes concern for the poor, there is little evidence that he has actually done anything to help them. Although Beisner collects money from churches and donations from his website to help the poor, Charity Navigator reports that the Cornwall Alliance does not donate enough to be evaluated as a charity.
These are notes from a recent Town Hall meeting on 11/16/2023 regarding proposed commercial solar farms in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Many of the regulations for commercial renewable energy installations are made through zoning decisions. Though you may not live in Sedgwick County, this may become an issue where you live.
Thanks goes to Mary Ann Harmon who researched and wrote the following article.
Sedgwick county has a six-month moratorium on utility (commercial) solar farms (USF) that began September 2023. On November 16th, the entities involved in planning convened a town hall to take comments from all the shareholders on whether there should be such utilities in the county, and, if so, how they should be regulated. The meeting was attended by well over 100 people from various governing and regulatory groups, and members of the public, some of whom will be living near the proposed USF between Colwich and Maize. There are many issues to consider when deciding to site and regulate any utility.
Location, Location, Location
The location of the proposed USF is adjacent to a power plant that is being decommissioned. This provides a huge advantage, as most, if not all the transmission lines that are required for a utility are already in place.
Residents of the area believe that the property is too valuable to put it to an ‘unsightly’ solar farm. They say this will prevent the growth of their towns.
There are calls to utilize rooftops to prevent some of the issues listed below, and this has validity. Arguments for USFs point to the economies of scale, the ability to use panels that will follow the sun, etc. But the current, dire situation calls for both rooftop and USFs.
Glare
There are concerns that a solar farm can produce a lot of glare. Fortunately, there is new technology that can totally eliminate glare to protect against danger to airline pilots or drivers approaching from an elevation. It also prevents ‘lake effect’ when birds see reflections off the panels, and dive down, intending to land. This can result in the bird’s injury or death.
Long term commitment: The contract for the property will be for 35 years, with an option to renew for another 35 years. This presents a plethora of opportunities for failure. There is a history of corporations establishing a USF, only to sell it to other companies later, resulting in a facility that is not well managed. Appropriate regulation with penalties at the local level could ameliorate this problem.
Environmental concerns
. Sourcing of materials: Materials for and construction of panels vary greatly. It is essential that all solar panels, especially in our neighborhoods, be made carefully for robust service, and with materials that are responsibly sourced to reduce impacts to the environment and society. It is prudent and responsible to prevent sources that use slave labor, seabed mining, wildly unsafe manufacturing processes, and other unsustainable practices.
· Greenhouse gases: Solar panels are not without cost to the environment, but a much better alternative to fossil fuels. A 2023 article by CNET states: “…when it comes to greenhouse gases, solar panels pay for themselves within one to four years of use, according to a report by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “Pros and Cons of Solar Panels: Are they worth it?” Written by Katie Collins, Eric Mack Updated Aug. 9, 2023
· Land Use: The property in Sedgwick County under contract for the USF is very fertile ground, not ideal for use by solar panels only. However, the county has identified possible co-uses. The land under and around the panels can be used for plants helpful to pollinators. Certain vegetable crops thrive in lower sun settings, and so can use the shade of the panels. Sheep have also been grazed successfully in these facilities. We cannot forgo this opportunity to utilize this ground. Here is an excellent article on solar farms and biodiversity: “Solar farms are often bad for biodiversity — but they don’t have to be. Yes, we can have clean energy and tortoises too.”
· Precious local water: The proposed USF is poised above the Equus beds, vital to the drinking water supplies of Wichita and surrounding communities. Whether these panels, and the associated equipment, could affect that water must be examined as part of an environmental impact study. The metals inside the panels can cause contamination if the panels are damaged, so any ongoing operating regulations of such a farm need to include regular inspection.
Economic concerns
The proposed site is under contract with a huge international corporation, and there are rumors that the operation will be run as a Limited Liability Corporation, or LLC. LLCs are very difficult to hold accountable under law. There are also concerns that much of the money brought into and being earned by the LLC will not benefit the local economy, especially after the initial build. Such a utility requires very little labor to operate, while occupying a large swath of land.
Power generated here will be sold on the market, just as most utilities. Electricity could be transmitted to other states, depending on demand. Kansas has a history of profiting from and shipping excess to other locations, being the breadbasket of the continent.
Threat from hail, tornadoes, straight winds is not to be ignored. But these threats will only increase if we do not reduce the fossil fuel emissions that have thrown our earth into greater and greater extremes. Most of those extremes have been impacting other areas. That does not reduce our responsibility to create clean energy with the resources at hand, just the same way Kansas has provided wheat to famine areas.
The only Kansas incentives for solar power generation are a moratorium on property tax on the land in use for a10-year period after construction. As it has been pointed out, these incentives are not available in Oklahoma, but Oklahoma has different incentives for solar generation that do not fit the plans Invenergy have. But most states have some method in place to attract renewable energy. See the incentives here: “Financial Information: Funding, Incentives, Tax Breaks, and Programs”Agrisolar Warehouse
There are, of course, federal monies for this project thru the Inflation Reduction act. Full regulation of these projects is good stewardship of the taxpayer dollars, the land entrusted to us, and the water below it.
Decommissioning
A 2020 Harvard Business Review article states: “First Solar is the sole U.S. panel manufacturer we know of with an up-and-running recycling initiative, which only applies to the company’s own products at a global capacity of two million panels per year. With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2. ‘There must be regulations in place, perhaps contributions to a recycling fund over time to ensure that the panels are properly handled at the end of their useful lives. Technology to recycle solar panels advances daily.”
Even though this is decades in the future, there must also be thought about what state the land must be in after the solar panels have been removed.
So much to consider! How can we make this work for everyone? The main issues to be considered are size, setbacks, decommissioning, payment in lieu of taxes, and rules and regulations that define best practices in this type of zoning case. These are very complex issues that requires much study, caution, and input from the public!
Additional information
The Town Hall meeting was recorded and is available on YouTube here.
The information is from the 316 United newsletter and reflects the author’s personal opinions. Its intent is to provide interested people with different touch points to consider. This is a complicated subject which deserves your personal research.
316 United is an Environmental Conservation Organization, whose goal is “Uniting people for sustainability”. Follow: See all
” There’s a tendency for politicians to assign blame or credit to the President for gas prices – when actually the President has very little to do with the price of gas.”
Prices in Wichita,11/23/2023.
The Republican strategy for the 2024 election is to try to pin the economic problems and inflation we have been facing on President Biden. The price of gasoline is something we are reminded of every time we fill up our car, so we have heard a lot about the price of gasoline during this presidential campaign. The implication is that Pesident Biden is responsible for high gas prices, and thus for inflation. However, that is not the whole story. Oil prices respond mostly to international events and it appears that inflation is mainly caused by corporate greed. Gas prices are now dropping, so will President Biden get the credit?
Historical Gas Prices: The International Energy Agency (EIA) graph shows that historically fuel prices tend to follow international events. Average US gas prices hit a high of $4.12 per gallon in July of 2008, while George Bush was still president. The spike was attributed to increased demand at a time when production was stagnating. Gas prices hit a new high of almost $5.10 in 2022, mostly in response to inflation, unrest in the Middle East, and the war in Ukraine. The high prices have cut the demand for petroleum, and gas prices now average $3.28 per gallon and are dropping rapidly. Gas prices recently dropped locally to $2.62 a gallon and are likely going to drop more.
Oil Prices: If you’re looking for someone to blame for high gas prices, you might consider looking at the large oil companies. Oil companies blame high fuel prices on inflation and environmental regulations which reduce production. They wish to complete the XL pipeline and to drill on public land, in National parks, in wildlife refuges, and in environmentally sensitive areas. Those policies would be okay for the oil companies, but they would increase air pollution, increase greenhouse gas concentrations, and put a large number of environmentally fragile areas at a risk of being damaged. It is interesting that the largest oil companies made $174 billion in profits in 2021, as gas prices were going up. The United States consumed 124 billion gallons of gasoline, and the oil companies made $1.40 in profits for every gallon sold, and they also received about $0.13 per gallon in federal and state subsidies. Currently, oil costs $85 a barrel. That is $25 less than a barrel cost 10 years ago, yet the price of fuel had almost doubled by 2022.
Oil profits in 2021.
It seems that domestic oil production has little effect on the price of gasoline. Last year our largest export was fuel, so it is likely that if we produce more fuel, we will just export more while gas prices continue to rise in the U.S. It also appears that gasoline prices do not follow the law of supply and demand, both things that Exxon/Mobil and the other oil companies should have to explain. They receive large subsidies; their products do not bear the cost of dumping large amounts of CO2 into the environment; and they have been quite profitable while many small US companies are struggling to stay afloat, in part because of the high fuel prices.
Inflation: The Cares Act injected a large amount of money into the economy because of Covid, causing some inflation. However, it appears that the continuing inflation is mainly the result of corporate greed. The main drivers of inflation are record shattering profits for oil companies and other megacorporations. Basic commodities like groceries are more expensive, partly becaused of increased transportation costs, but also because giant conglomerates, like Kroger, Cargill, Tyson, and JBS are raising prices because they see it as an opportunity to make record-setting money for their executives and shareholders. According to Bloomberg, US corporate profits are now soaring, with profit margins the highest since 1950.
Rather than blaming the President for inflation, perhaps we should blame corporate greed.
Last Spring, a group from the Sierra Club visited Midwest Hemp Technology. The Sierra Club is interested in agricultural hemp because if it’s benefits to the environment. One acre of hemp sequesters 4 to 6 tonnes of CO2, similar to the amount sequestered by a young forest, but it only takes five months to grow. Hemp helps pollinators as itsflowering cycle usually occurs between July and September, coinciding with a lack of pollen production from other crops. Hemp produces large amounts of pollen and provides shelter for birds and hemp seeds for food for animals. Use of hemp products can save forests, reduce plastic waste, improve the soil, and greatly cut our greenhouse gas emissions. And it is profitable, as hemp normally produces 2 to 3 times as much income per acre as corn or soybeans.
Hemp has been grown for over 4000 years, and one website claims over 50,000 uses for hemp products. Its usefulness has been its downfall in the United States. Hemp and marijuana are essentially the same plant, but hemp has less than 0.3% THC by dry weight while marijuana has considerably more and is intoxicating. Competing industries, such as the paper, plastic, and cotton industries, have used hemp’s similarity to marijuana to essentially ban hemp in the United States for about the last century. Hemp, quite wrongly*, has been classified as a schedule one drug and only recently has it been legal to grow it in the United States, with the passage of the Hemp Farming Act in 2018. Though it can now be grown legally in Kansas, it is heavily regulated by the state, which has been a barrier to using it more widely.
The tour started in the office with a display of many of the products made from hemp. The picture on the left shows how hemp can be made into webbing, fiberboard, a finished wood substitute, cloth, and even hats.
The hemp utensils were my favorite as they show hemp can replace many single use plastics. Hemp can be made into such items as carry out boxes, plastic forks, straws, and plastic bags. Hemp plastics are compostable and biodegradable and break down rather quickly in the environment. Use of hemp would greatly cut down on plastic litter and plastics in the ocean. Birds and animals that ingest plastic often die from it. Microplastic particles from production, the breakdown of plastic products, and even from synthetic clothing, have become ubiquitous. A recent study found that eight out of 10 people have plasticizers and microplastics particles in their blood. That is certainly is not a good thing, as they have been associated with hormonal disruption and and a variety of other diseases.
Hempcrete.
Hemp is a useful building material as it can be made into wood, particleboard, insulation, and plastic-like materials. Given its light weight and durability, hemp is being used as a substitute for plastics in sectors such as car manufacturing, railway, aviation, and aerospace applications. When combined with lime and water, it makes hempcrete, which can be substituted for concrete in most applications. This is important as about 9% of the United States’ carbon emissions are made in the production of concrete. Hempcrete will last for centuries, is a good insulator, and is mold, mildew, pest, and fire resistant. Hempcrete, even considering the energy used to produce and harvest the hemp, actually sequesters carbon. The hempcrete block on the right looks a little rough, but here are some examples and a movie of buildings made with hempcrete. There is a shortage of workers who know how to build with hempcrete, and there is now a program to help veterans learn it as a trade
A Hemp Field in Bloom
Aside from regulations, hemp is one of the easiest plants to grow and one of the fastest growing biomass products in existence. It uses less water than cotton, and requires minimal pesticides to thrive. Hemp helps to break the cycle of diseases when used in crop rotation. In addition, weeds are not able to grow due to the fast growth and shading capacity of hemp plants. The dense leaves of hemp are a natural soil cover, reduce water loss, and protect against soil erosion. Hemp covers the ground just three weeks after germination. Hemp is susceptible to few pests and the use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides can be avoided in most cases.
One problem with hemp production is the lack of custom equipment to harvest and process the hemp. Farmers and hemp processors have been quite creative in modifying existing equipment or building their own equipment to process hemp. When harvested, hemp is usually cut and baled into large bales similar to round hay bales.
Trommel, separates hemp fiber from seeds and hurd.
At processing, the bales are broken apart and put through the trommel which separates out the bast from the seeds and hurd. Bast is the long fibers just inside the stalk, and hurd is the pith, the woody inner core of the plant. The stalk can be converted into fuel and paper products like cardboard. The long fiber strands extracted from the hemp stem have long been used to make textiles, rope, and webbing. Hemp makes extremely durable clothes and accessories, such as shirts, skirts, bags, shoes, and belts. Hemp has anti-microbial properties and the fabric is stronger and more durable than cotton and, unlike cotton, hemp clothes will not lose their shape with repeated washing.
Air classifiers, which separate different sizes of hurd from the grain.
From the trommel, the hurds and grain are directed to the air classifier. Depending on the settings, the air classifier separates different sizes of hurd from the grain. The hurds may be used for horticulture mulch and for other agricultural uses. They absorbs moisture which makes them very useful for animal bedding and litter. The hurds can also be used to make hemp plastic and building materials. When the hurds are mixed with lime and water, they make hempcrete. The hurds may also be mixed with a polymer to create a fiber-reinforced biocomposite, and if the hurds are reduced to micron sized particles first, the product is much like plastic. If the polymer used is petroleum-based, the hemp plastics are not compostable. However, sustainable bioplastics may be made if plant-based polymers from corn or kenaf are used.
This is the grain cleaner.
The grain cleaner is the last step of the process. The hemp seeds are then used for food flour, hemp milk, cooking oil, and beer—as well as dietary supplements. Some companies sell the edible seeds of the hemp plant. These seeds have a mild, nutty flavor and make milk, oil, cheese, and protein powder. The seeds are a rich source of polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, essentials for human health. Unhulled seeds are sold for bird and animal food. Other uses of hempseed oil are to make body-care products, biofuels, paints, and varnishes. According to the FDA, hemp seeds do not naturally contain THC or CBD oil.
Hemp in Kansas : Kansas used to grow a lot of hemp and, one year during the Civil War, Kansas grew more bushels of hemp per acre than any other state. However, economic competition with cotton, timber, and synthetic plastics – all backed by wealthy corporations – led to anti-hemp propaganda that caused a moral panic. It portrayed hemp and marijuana as being the same and that they would lower the moral values of American culture. This led to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which essentially banned Hemp production in the United States. The ban was essentially ignored when hemp was needed for the war effort, and the government even subsidized the production of hemp. After the war, the ban went back into effect and, in 1970, President Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act which officially outlawed hemp and marijuana for any use (medical included) by declaring they were schedule one drugs. The Farm Bill of 2018 authorized the commercial production and processing of hemp, but it remains a Federal schedule one drug to this day.
Hemp can now be legally grown in Kansas, according to state law, but the laws are very restrictive. Applicants must submit a fingerprint-based state and national criminal history background check. The application fee is $100 and is due with the application no later than March 15 each year. The background check fee of $47 per person, including the farmer and all workers, is due no later than March 15th each year. A license fee of $1,200 is needed to cultivate or produce industrial hemp are due no later than March 15th each year. All forms and fees must be paid and filed by that date or they will not be approved. Industrial hemp producer must use authorized seed, guaranteed to produce industrial hemp with not more than 0.3% THC, so grower may not save their seeds for the next crop. Both federal and state rules surrounding the crop are in constant flux, so finding investors to spur innovation and development will remain challenging. There are no insecticides, no fungicides, no herbicides labeled for this and there’s no crop insurance and no safety net for it. And to complicate things, even though a state can legalize growing hemp, the federal government still views it as a dangerous drug, the same as heroin or cocaine. Among other consequences, that makes it difficult for potential growers and processors to secure loans from traditional banking.
Kansas Hemp growing licenses dropped from 218 in 2020 to only 81 in 2022. Of the 4,000 acres planted, only 761 were harvested for production. and an eighth of that had to be burned by the state because it contained too much THC. Hemp growing licenses dropped from 218 in 2020, to only 81 this year. Of the almost 4,000 acres planted last year, only 761 were harvested for production. and an eighth of that had to be burned by the state because it contained too much THC. Hopefully both national and state laws will improve so that hemp can profitably be grown. As one Kansan wrote, “My son is taking over his in-laws’ farm, and it is very important to keep our young kids on the farm. I am very proud of him for taking on this challenge. Farmers need all the help they can get, and hemp is a very lucrative crop to grow. This is very important for Kansas and our young farmers. Thanks for your help.”
*Note: A 2010 study in the journal Lancet graded common drugs on sixteen criteria relating to how harmful the drugs were to users and to society overall. On both measures – marijuana scored significantly lower than alcohol and ten other drugs. THC is not physically addictive and scored below tobacco in terms of harm to the users. Marijuana should probably not be listed as a schedule one drug, and certainly hemp should never have been.
George Will started out his article, “The Supreme Court Votes for Clarity from Congress “ by citing a court case where the Supreme Court overruled the EPA – by muddying the water. He was referring to the case, Sacketts vs. the EPA. The Sacketts sued the EPA because it denied them a permit to, as George Will put it,” add a little sand and gravel to the land”. The little sand and gravel he refers to would have filled in the wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake which is considered navigable water by the state of Utah. The EPA cited their right to regulate navigable waters under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engineers analyzed the property and found that the EPA had jurisdiction.
The EPA successfully argued that, while the wetlands feed a non-navigable creek, that creek drains into navigable Priest Lake, and won a federal court battle in the 9th Circuit to continue blocking construction. The case was based on the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits dumping pollution into “navigable waters . . . including wetlands adjacent thereto”, making it clear that the Clean Water Act includes adjacent wetlands. The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Sackett’s, but to do so they had to change the definition of adjacent.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that to be protected, there must be a “continuous surface connection” between the wetlands and navigable water. “The Court’s ‘continuous surface connection’ test disregards the ordinary meaning of ‘adjacent,’” wrote the dissenting justices. Alito and the conservative justices divorced the law from the legislators’ intent, essentially rewriting it in a way that fits the outcome they sought and contradicting the plain text of the law. The Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s to restore and protect our Nation’s waters. The court overturned a 50-year precedent for the way the Clean Water Act has been interpreted. And, in doing so, they’ve exposed many of our wetlands and waterways to the threat of exactly the kind of pollution we had in the past that the Clean Water Act was meant to prevent. It is now estimated that the Clean Water Act keeps 700 billion pounds of pollutants out of US waterways every year .
The Supreme Court ruling also the means that as much as 90 million acres of wetlands in the U.S. are no longer protected by the Clean Water Act, embracing the decades-long demands of mining companies, the fossil fuel industry, reckless developers, and other big polluters. The court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA puts our communities, public health, and local ecosystems in danger. Wetlands are essential. They store water to prevent and mitigate floods, filter pollutants before they reach other bodies of water, support forestry, food and seafood production, and recreation, and more. “It doesn’t reflect reality, or the scientific understanding of how watersheds and the river networks within them function,” said Ellen Wohl, a river researcher and professor in the Geosciences Department at Colorado State University.
Quivera National Wildlife Refuge, a wetlands in central Kansas.
She pointed out that wetlands eventually flow into navigable bodies of water, aquifers, and subterranean waterways. Allowing the pollution of those would also allow pollution of many streams, lakes, and wells we rely on for clean sources of water. It will do serious harm to the bodies of water most Americans obviously want to protect, as the Clean Water Act was designed to do. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Sackett v. EPA is likely to hobble the law’s ability to protect several major waterways, including the Mississippi River and the Chesapeake Bay. He obviously did not allow for the fact that water runs downhill and that almost everyone lives downstream from someone.
To prevent an ecological disaster, Congress should rewrite the law to make it even clearer, although it is clear enough in its present form. And, states should beef up their own enforcement to ensure they protect their water and land. For now, that would be the best path forward, but it is not likely to happen soon, given the political makeup of Congress and many state legislatures.
As to George Will, he lacks clarity in the meaning of “conservative”. He applauded the decision by the conservative members of the Supreme Court which overturned 50 years of precedents and opened up over half of the United States’ wetlands to pollution and development. He distorted scientific work in the 1970s to discount the role of carbon dioxide in warming the earth, by claiming scientists then were predicting a New Ice Age. He seems to care little about conserving the earth and its ecosystems, and he rails about government regulations, even those meant to protect other human beings. Apparently, he doesn’t think claiming to be conservative means you support conserving the most important thing we have, the Earth.
Note: More detailed information about the value of wetlands, and this ruling are given in the High Country News: “Waterways are made up of more than what’s visible on the surface. Take Lapwai Creek, near Lewiston, Idaho: At a casual glance, it’s a ribbon of cool water, shaded by cottonwood trees and alive with steelhead and sculpin, mayfly and stonefly larvae. An adult could wade across it in a few strides without getting their knees wet. But that’s just the part people can see. Beneath the surface channel, coursing through the rounded cobbles below, is what scientists call the hyporheic zone: water flowing along underground, which can be a few inches deep, or 10 yards or more, mixing with both surface water and groundwater. Microbes that purify water live down there, and aquatic insects—food for fish and other animals—can use it as a sort of underground highway, traveling more than a mile away from a river.
A creek, in other words, is more than just the water in its channel; it’s also the water underground, and it’s connected to everything else in its watershed, including wetlands and channels upstream that might dry up during some years, or perhaps go years between getting wet. Whatever happens there—pollution or protection—happens to the entire creek. In the case of Lapwai Creek, which flows into the Clearwater River and then the Snake River, it’s a small but fundamental part of the complex ecosystem that salmon, humans and countless other creatures in the Pacific Northwest rely on.
But those ecological realities are strikingly absent from last week’s US Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. The ruling strips federal protections from all ephemeral streams and, as reported by E&E News, more than half of the previously protected wetlands in the US. It limits Clean Water Act protections to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water.” That includes some wetlands—those that are “indistinguishable” from protected oceans, lakes, rivers and streams “due to a continuous surface connection.”
“It doesn’t reflect reality, or the scientific understanding of how watersheds and the river networks within them function,” said Ellen Wohl, a river researcher and professor in the Geosciences Department at Colorado State University. Wohl helped review the scientific evidence used to develop an earlier, and much more expansive, Obama-era definition of which bodies of water fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “The Court’s ‘continuous surface connection’ test disregards the ordinary meaning of ‘adjacent.’ … As a result, the Court excludes wetlands that the text of the Clean Water Act covers—and that the Act since 1977 has always been interpreted to cover.”
Weaker protections mean that more wetlands and temporary streams will be destroyed, filled in with dirt for houses or other development. Ecosystems and people alike will lose the benefits they provide: biodiversity and abundance of species; space to absorb extra water during storms, preventing deadly floods; natural storage of that same water, so it’s available later, during dry times; the natural purification that occurs when water is filtered through the ground.
Take, for example, a desert playa in the Great Basin, which might be dry for years at a time. When rainwater falls on it or snowmelt flows into it, it acts like “a big sponge,” Wohl said. A sponge that can store water for later, and clean it, too. But if you turn it into a parking lot by filling or building on it, as the Supreme Court ruling makes it easier to do, water will pour off it, rather than soak in. And what was once a playa—part of an intricate system changing across space and time—will become simply an asphalt wasteland.”
Have you ever wonder what happens to the recyclables you put in your recycling bin? In April, the ReGreening Wichita group visited the Stutzman recycling center in Hutchinson, which sorts the materials from Wichita and the surrounding areas.
The sorted materials are then sold to companies which can recycle them into usable products. The center has recently been upgraded and can handle almost any materials except plastic bags, hard plastics, and Styrofoam. Each recycling center is different, so please check with your recyclables collection company to see what materials they can take. This website cannot handle the short video clips, but this was originally posted to Facebook and you may see it by following this link.
Here is the schematic of a typical recycling Center:
Note added on 06/02/2023: A recent study found that plastic bags taken to many grocery stores such as Target and Walmart to be recycled end up in landfills, and a few even ended up in foreign countries. Only about 9% of all plastic waste is recycled, 12% is incinerated, and about 79% ends up in landfills. Microparticles from plastics have been found in the bodies of about 80% of the US population. The wise thing to do is to stop using single use plastics as much as you can.
